Ongoing Skeptic Thread

[mrvee]

Originally Posted by T@T

Yes I understand this, it's just personally I believe there is no evidence of a "GOD" therefore Christianity (or any other religion) means nothing to me. If a man named Jesus existed 2000 years ago,great! he was possibly very smart and "moving"...but non-the-less just a human being.

In the 2000 odd years since he possibly lived there have been no miracles,everything in the great "book" has been debunked as fairy-tales,huge wars and crimes against humanity all in the name of Jesus or Mohammad.

There's a new comet coming this fall,will 39 more idiots commit suicide hoping to jump aboard and be saved by Jesus?

Religion is a huge pile of reserved for the uneducated or just plain stupid...sorry to be blunt!

I don't believe in homosexuality but it exists...

[driveway]

Originally Posted by mrvee

I don't believe in homosexuality but it exists...

Misuse of the word "believe."

You do not accept homosexuality. Similarly, there are those who do not accept evolution, or that the Earth is a sphere, or that set theory is a reasonable mathematical principle to teach to high schoolers.

[DownInFlames]

Figures. He's so anti-gay he doesn't even like homonyms.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

What's this nonsense?

Aesop? Writer of fables; stories involving anthropomorphized animals (like rabbits) that end up teaching morals or life lessons?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Aesop? Writer of fables; stories involving anthropomorphized animals (like rabbits) that end up teaching morals or life lessons?

Morals or life lessons don't teach you to experience god, although religions like to make the connection.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by evman150

For the record, "appeal to authority" is not a logical fallacy. "Appeal to unqualified authority" is the fallacy.

For example, appealing to the views/beliefs of a theologian on a question of science. Or the other way around.

It is a logical fallacy.

http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/20...rms-andor.html

This fallacy in reasoning occurs when an advocate appeals to an "authoritative" person or agency in support of his or her own viewpoint, based solely on that person's authority.

When an advocate appeals to an authority, they are fallacious unless they explain why and how the authority has come to their view.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/reso...llacies.aspx#3

Argument from authority

The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy – see below.)

In practice this can be a complex logical fallacy to deal with. It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of an individual when examining their assessment of a particular claim. Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true.

This logical fallacy crops up in more subtle ways also. For example, UFO proponents have argued that UFO sightings by airline pilots should be given special weight because pilots are trained observers, are reliable characters, and are trained not to panic in emergencies. In essence, they are arguing that we should trust the pilot’s authority as an eye witness.

There are many subtypes of the argument from authority, essentially referring to the implied source of authority. A common example is the argument ad populum – a belief must be true because it is popular, essentially assuming the authority of the masses. Another example is the argument from antiquity – a belief has been around for a long time and therefore must be true.

[evman150]

Troutman, if it's a logical fallacy, then how can we have any knowledge at all? That "explain why..." caveat is useless.

I disagree with that article and stick to my belief - argument from qualified authority is not a logical fallacy.

If you have an astronomer claiming knowledge about stellar formation, how can that be a logical fallacy?

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by evman150

Troutman, if it's a logical fallacy, then how can we have any knowledge at all? That "explain why..." caveat is useless.

I disagree with that article and stick to my belief - argument from qualified authority is not a logical fallacy.

If you have an astronomer claiming knowledge about stellar formation, how can that be a logical fallacy?

An expert claiming something true does not make it true. History is full of examples of the "qualified authority" of the time being wrong.

[photon]

I'd say argument from qualified authority is a logical fallacy if the qualified authority that is put forward must be accepted.

I think Wikipedia does a pretty good job:

The argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) can take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, the argument has the following basic structure:[1]

• Most of what authority A has to say on subject matter S is correct.
• A says P about subject matter S.
• Therefore, P is correct.

The strength of this authoritative argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.

The two factors — legitimate expertise and expert consensus — can be incorporated to the structure of the statistical syllogism, in which case, the argument from authority can be structured thus:[2]

• X holds that A is true.
• X is a legitimate expert on the subject matter.
• The consensus of subject-matter experts agrees with X.
• Therefore, there exists a presumption that A is true.

Fallacious appeal to authority

Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus) structurally required in the forms of a statistical syllogism.[1][2] First, when the inference fails to meet the first condition (inexpert authority), it is an appeal to inappropriate authority, which occurs when an inference relies upon a person or a group without relevant expertise or knowledge of the subject matter under discussion.[3]

Second, because the argument from authority is an inductive-reasoning argument — wherein is implied that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises — it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] Such a determinative assertion is a logical non sequitur, because, although the inductive argument might have merit — either probabilistic or statistical — the conclusion does not follow unconditionally, in the sense of being logically necessary.[4][5]

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by John Doe

An expert claiming something true does not make it true. History is full of examples of the "qualified authority" of the time being wrong.

More than just historical examples, we all know that arguments from authority are bull **** in our every day lives. Otherwise we would never get a second opinion on medical issues. To use an extreme example, if my doctor says I have an untreatable terminal disease, am I going to just accept that he's right because he is a qualified authority?

All arguments have to be backed up by evidence. The astronomer describing a stellar formation has to provide observational data to support their position. The doctor saying my disease is going to kill me had better explain why, I'm not going to throw in the towel based on "trust me, I'm a doctor."

[onetwo_threefour]

This argument from authority discussion (whether it's a fallacy or not), is interesting as it mirrors the epistemological disagreement between coherentists and foundationalists.

On the one hand we have an assumption that a legitimate consensus among 'experts' would justify belief or appeal to the statements of those experts in their area of expertise. On the other hand you have a stricter evidence based approach saying all appeals to consensus are fallacious.

Both are problematic, the first assumes that we can assess the legitimacy of a consensus. However, that just removes the question back a step. That is to say that we are not appealing directly to authority anymore, as you have to drive down into what makes a consensus legitimate, or to be circular, what makes it authoritative.

On the other hand demanding complete evidence for every claim just isn't feasible in the real world and knowledge could never spread if no one could rely on naything said without a complete discussion from first principles.

[troutman]

Being an expert in something does not guarantee you are correct about a particular theory. It may lend weight or probability to the statement made.

In the case of a historical Jesus, it is suggested that this theory is accepted without reservation by a number of biblical scholars. This can give us comfort that the theory is correct, but is not definitive. I would still want to see how they came to this view (what is the evidence). Are these scholars biased (ex. were most faithful Christians to begin with?). What do they know about the quality of evidence? As a lawyer I might have different ideas about the admissibility of certain types of evidence (ex. the unreliability of hearsay evidence).

In the case of Socrates, I would think the evidence for his historical existence is better by a few degrees, then the evidence for Jesus. We have first-hand accounts of Socrates, made during his life. I have not studied either question in much detail, and I would be happy to be corrected on either point.

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Socrates_vs_Jesus

[evman150]

Originally Posted by John Doe

An expert claiming something true does not make it true. History is full of examples of the "qualified authority" of the time being wrong.

If you dig deeper, I don't think there are as many of these examples as you'd think.

Also, that cartoon on the skeptic page is misleading, because it is not argument from authority, it is argument from unqualified authority, as someone who has a vested interest in something is not a qualified authority.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by troutman

Being an expert in something does not guarantee you are correct about a particular theory. It may lend weight or probability to the statement made.

In the case of a historical Jesus, it is suggested that this theory is accepted without reservation by a number of biblical scholars. This can give us comfort that the theory is correct, but is not definitive. I would still want to see how they came to this view (what is the evidence). Are these scholars biased (ex. were most faithful Christians to begin with?). What do they know about the quality of evidence? As a lawyer I might have different ideas about the admissibility of certain types of evidence (ex. the unreliability of hearsay evidence).

In the case of Socrates, I would think the evidence for his historical existence is better by a few degrees, then the evidence for Jesus. We have first-hand accounts of Socrates, made during his life. I have not studied either question in much detail, and I would be happy to be corrected on either point.

History is a particularly difficult case with regards to this discussion. How well can we really ever know history?

I'd say it's a lot different than the astronomer in my example.

Also, there are no guarantees in knowledge (arguably) outside of a priori truths about mathematics and linguistics. This shouldn't be the basis for discourse, however.

If you can trust that the floor is going to be there when you step out of bed in the morning, then we have a starting point for a discussion. Doubting everything Descartes-style is a non-starter.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by troutman

In the case of a historical Jesus, it is suggested that this theory is accepted without reservation by a number of biblical scholars.

Question? what is a biblical scholar?


Is it someone who reads the bible for understanding with an unbiased attitude or just someone passing the word around threw explanation?

Christopher Hitchens studied the Bible,Book of Mormon and Koran inside out but is known as a famous athiest, he picked those books apart so much he made Priests and Pastors squirm.


Was Hitchens a scholar?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by T@T

Question? what is a biblical scholar?

*oh.good.lord...*

Originally Posted by T@T

Is it someone who reads the bible for understanding with an unbiased attitude or just someone passing the word around threw explanation?

Closer to the former and most certainly, emphatically not the latter. Put most simply, a biblical scholar is an academic specialist in "biblical literature." Biblical literature may be loosely defined as any ancient literature that is either contained within the Bible, is closely related to the Bible, or contains relevant information about the history and production of biblical books.

The currently largest professional organisation of biblical scholars is the Society of Biblical Literature. The documented mission of the SBL reads as follows:

Originally Posted by The SBL

Strategic Vision Statement:
Founded in 1880, the Society of Biblical Literature is the oldest and largest learned society devoted to the critical investigation of the Bible from a variety of academic disciplines.* As an international organization, the Society offers its members opportunities for mutual support, intellectual growth, and professional development through the following:

· Advancing academic study of biblical texts and their contexts as well as of the traditions and contexts of biblical interpretation
· Collaborating with educational institutions and other appropriate organizations to support biblical scholarship and teaching
· Developing resources for diverse audiences, including students, religious communities, and the general public
· Facilitating broad and open discussion from a variety of critical perspectives
· Organizing congresses for scholarly exchange
· Publishing biblical scholarship
· Promoting cooperation across global boundaries

*SBL has been a member of the American Council of Learned Societies since 1929.

Some of the most recent publications from the SBL include:

· Postcolonial Perspectives in African Biblical Interpretations, by Musa W. Dube, Andrew M. Mbuvi, and Dora R. Mbuwayesango, eds.
· Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task Past and Present, by John S. Kloppenborg and Judith H. Newman, eds.
· Predicting the Past in the Ancient Near East: Mantic Historiography in Ancient Mesopotamia, Judah, and the Mediterranean World, by Matthew Neujahr
· The Politics of Pessimism in Ecclesiastes: A Social-Science Perspective, by Mark R. Sneed
· Social Theory and the Study of Israelite Religion: Essays in Retrospect and Prospect, by Saul M. Olyan, ed.
· Levites and Priests in Biblical history and Tradition, by Mark Leuchter and Jeremy M. Hutton, eds.

Biblical scholars are primarily academics who are employed at the university and college level in religion faculties across the world. I am personally a faculty member of the Institutt for religion, filosofi og historie in the Fakultet for Humaniora og Pedagogikk at the Universitetet i Agder, a public university in Kristiansand Norway. Biblical scholars spend dozens of years in university training at the graduate and post-graduate level in order to develop expertise in ancient languages (including but not limited to Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Syriac, Ugaritic, Akkadian, Ethiopic), modern, scholarly languages (German, French, Dutch), in ancient Near Eastern history and culture, Graeco Roman civilization, in literary criticism, archaeology, linguistics, philosophy, comparative religions and sociology. They are Ph.D. trained and undergo the standard examination by way of peer and tenure review as all other professional academics.

FYI, there is really no such thing as an "unbiased attitude" in the study of any of the disciplines in the humanities or social sciences. Some would even argue that bias is unavoidable, even in the natural sciences. In any case, many (probably most) biblical scholars are personally "religious" to varying degrees, but the long established standards of intellectual honesty and academic integrity that are promoted by the SBL demand an "a-religious" approach. This means that as a Christian, studying the emergence of Christianity from within early Judaism, I am professionally bound to conduct my research according to naturalistic presuppositions and constraints, and to publish only findings that conform to a naturalistic, scientific worldview that is historically and culturally plausible, and which are rigorously supported by all the available evidence.

Originally Posted by T@T

Christopher Hitchens studied the Bible,Book of Mormon and Koran inside out but is known as a famous athiest, he picked those books apart so much he made Priests and Pastors squirm.

"Priests" and "pastors" are not always—or even often—"biblical scholars". There are a few, but by far most within the field are professionally attached to university faculties, and not employed clergymen and clergywomen. Hitchens may have "read" the Bible, but he could never be confused with someone who was actually a serious and competent student of the Bible.

Originally Posted by T@T

Was Hitchens a scholar?

Hitchens's academic credentials were not at a high enough standard to legitimately qualify him as a "scholar"—at least not in the common understanding of the term. He was a brilliant writer and an excellent rhetoricist and publicist, but do not misconstrue these skills for actual, scholarly training and ability.

He most certainly was not a biblical scholar, and his frequent happy trouncing of clergy members notwithstanding, he would have found himself badly outmatched in any exchange about the Bible with any actual biblical expert. To my knowledge, he never engaged in an exchange with an actual biblical scholar in any of his debates or panels. The closest he likely came were debates with Frank Turek, William Lane Craig, and Shmuley Boteach. None of these men are professionally trained biblical scholars. Frank Turek likes to bill himself as a credentialed Ph.D., but he exhibits such an unsophisticated perspective of the Bible that he is easily confused with a diploma-mill recipient. Bill Craig holds a Ph.D. from the University of Birmingham, but his training is not in biblical studies.

I liked Hitchens, but his grasp of issues pertaining to the Bible, the history of religion, philosophy, ancient cultures, and many of the social disciplines was rudimentary at best.

[Cheese]

^^ it might be suggested that if all/most/some of the biblical scholars were positive that a Jesus of the bible existed, that information and its sources would have flowed freely down to the public in a manner that is easily viable and justifiable?

The reason people like Hitchens had an easy time ripping apart those who speak of Jesus and the various other groups, is because there does not seem to be anything/one else relevant to tear apart?
Further, IF the scholars know and or are ~100% sure that Jesus lived, why didn't they stand up and take him on? Why didn't they come to the side of those who chose to put themselves in Hitchen's scope?
I dont think Christopher would have turned any discussion down, and didnt that Im aware of unless they were complete ######bags.

Those with the knowledge should freely share in a way that the public can understand it "plainly and clearly". To this point in time I am not aware of anything or anyone that has done so. Hitchens was able to make things very very clear even when he was utilizing his dictionary like vocabulary.

[Textcritic]

^
It's not that simple. Books about religion that are not "religious" in nature tend also not to be best sellers. Publishers are businesses like any other, and they tend to follow the money, and consequently, I am sure that huge numbers of what are potentially excellent books about these topics, written for the general public are simply never written.

Bart Ehrman is like a superstar in our field if only because he has made a perceptible dent at the popular level, and has also managed to retain his academic integrity. The vast majority of books that are published in biblical studies at the popular level tend to be one of two types: either historically baseless and scandalous sensationalism that appeals to conspiracy theorists and eager skeptics with axes to grind; or equally historically baseless myopic tripe that is marketed to provide existing believers with a pacifying sense of apologetic certainty.

To be frank, the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is a little mundane. If you would like, I could give you a primer.

[Cheese]

^^ thanks! I think the reason guys like Hitchens and others have clicked with the public is that they had the ability to make the mundane into something that was clear and to the point. They took what was presented to the public by theologians and made it clear that most if not all of it is bunk.
Im at a loss as to why the religious scholars cant do the same thing? I understand Erhman's hypothesis, but that certainly is NOT the vision/version of most of today's Christians, and in fact he at times lends more credence to the atheist viewpoint with some of his ramblings. (I admittedly have not read all of his books). Lets face it though it is all hypothesis with nothing that really stands out as fact.
I would LOVE to be better educated in this regard, and would absolutely appreciate your efforts to illuminate, but please do so in a clear and viable dialogue that presents your sides version so non-academics like myself walk away scratching our head (or asses if preferred) .

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

...The reason people like Hitchens had an easy time ripping apart those who speak of Jesus and the various other groups, is because there does not seem to be anything/one else relevant to tear apart?

No. The reason Hitchens had an easy time tearing apart apologists about the Bible is that apologists by and large are not trained in biblical studies. Most of them have philosophical training of some measure, but in my experience, philosophers quite often make for poor historians and literary critics...

Or am I misunderstanding your question?

Originally Posted by Cheese

...Further, IF the scholars know and or are ~100% sure that Jesus lived, why didn't they stand up and take him on? Why didn't they come to the side of those who chose to put themselves in Hitchen's scope?
I dont think Christopher would have turned any discussion down, and didnt that Im aware of unless they were complete ######bags.

I don't think Hitchens was ducking anyone, but by the same token, I don't have an answer as to why he never debated any biblical scholars. Perhaps this also has something to do with the fact that I suspect most biblical scholars share Hitchens' incredulity about religion and the Bible on some level? Perhaps it has something to do with concerns about their own public perception? Perhaps most simply could not be bothered? The debate format is hardly the best venue for disseminating information. I think most scholars would agree with me that our promotional energies are better spent in the classroom, especially at the undergraduate level.

Originally Posted by Cheese

Those with the knowledge should freely share in a way that the public can understand it "plainly and clearly". To this point in time I am not aware of anything or anyone that has done so. Hitchens was able to make things very very clear even when he was utilizing his dictionary like vocabulary.

If only it were all so simple.

For the record, Hitchens was too often guilty of constructing straw-men from his repertoire of half-truths and quasi-intellectual sound-bites that he gleaned from an amateurish passing interest in such matters. He sure sounded good. That doesn't mean he knew what he was talking about.

There is a reason why Hitchens had a devoted following numbering in the millions, while the most popular biblical scholars in the public eye tend to entertain only thousands. Communicating academic information at a popular level is most often a very difficult task, and quite frankly, most biblical scholars—like most professional academics—tend to struggle with attempting to filter the complexities of their own studies and to distill it at a popular level. Grasping the various nuances in ancient literature is hard work indeed! Ehrman is the best there is at the moment, and he is no Hitchens!

So, having said all that, yes, I think I agree with you in principle. Biblical scholars absolutely need to do a better job at communicating with the public. This is not a new issue. In fact, the SBL has embarked on a project to precisely that end. But bear in mind: if it takes a National Endowment for the Humanities and several years of planning, this ought to say something of how difficult it really is to achieve this goal.