Scholars and bias - a different look

[Jezz]

When discussing the historicity of the Bible and its various accounts, people invariably refer to the work of scholars in the field to support their arguments. And once this happens, subsequent arguments often degenerate into an attack on the scholars in question - generally, the charge of bias is levelled, as if that automatically discounts everything that the scholar says.

Of course, logically speaking, the issue of bias is a non-issue. If person A is biased to believe X and person B is biased to believe ~X, then one of them is still correct - regardless of bias. But I think there is more to this issue than that.

Let us suppose that a ficticious scholar exists who is completely unbiased regarding the issue of the historicity of the Bible. Now, suppose that this scholar, after thoroughly researching the issue, comes to the conclusion that it is historically accurate, and that 99% of what it says is true. How long do you think this scholar would maintain their lack of bias? Wouldn't a sensible scholar, upon reaching this conclusion, convert to Christianity?

Of course, this argument can be turned around. Suppose the scholar does the research and comes to the conclusion that the Bible was a myth. How long would the scholar remain unbiased? A sensible scholar would of course become anti-Christian (not necessarily straight-out atheist, because there are other religions he/she might wish to consider).

So I guess my point is - not only does bias logically not make a difference to an argument, but bias is to be expected from people making the argument. An "unbiased" scholar does not exist - a serious scholar is not going to do years of research without coming to some conclusion about what their research means.

The moral: when citing scholars, leave their theological biases out of it. Argue against the argument on its own merits. If their argument is sound, then their bias is merely a logical result of this fact!

[TheFiveSolas]

Though I have technical disagreements with some of the points you made, I agree with the gist of what your argument was attempting to say.
:thumb:

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Gotta watch those scholars---nasty breed they are!

[Socrates]

Jezz:The moral: when citing scholars, leave their theological biases out of it. Argue against the argument on its own merits. If their argument is sound, then their bias is merely a logical result of this fact!True enough. But so often, scholars are already biased, and what they claim as the conclusions of their research were actually their premises. Or else they present them as premises but claim that they are really conconclusions of most scholars.

A glaring example is the Jesus Seminar. Tom Wright, in Jesus and the Victory of God goes through some of their premises and how they "cook the discussion in advance". For example, Premise 45, "Only a small proportion of the sayings attributed to Jesus in teh Gospels was actually spoken by him."

See also Crouching Liberals, Hidden Atheists, or, Exposing The "Funk" of Two Thousand Years (http://www.tektonics.org/AD_RFY.html) to show how Funk brought his a priori materialistic bias into the Seminar. So it is disingenuous in the extreme to dismiss the Gospel miracles as the result of scholarly research, when they had already dismissed them before they began!

[Jezz]

Socrates:
True enough. But so often, scholars are already biased, and what they claim as the conclusions of their research were actually their premises. Or else they present them as premises but claim that they are really conconclusions of most scholars.

No arguments from me there. But in the case of a scholar such as the one you describe, there is still no need to point out their bias. The argument will stand or fall by itself. If the argument falls, then one can perhaps hypothesise that the reason they stick to a faulty argument is because of their bias. But this does not change the fact that it is not necessary to consider bias when evaluating the strength of the argument. The strength of the argument should be evaluated without regard to the bias of the author. Indeed, I would argue that in most cases, the strength of the argument needs to be evaluated without regard for the author at all!

Note that even in your Jesus Seminar example, you did not throw away the argument because of the bias of its author. You first determined that the argument was not logically sound, and then concluded that the only reason they adhere to the faulty argument is because of their bias. In other words, you examined the argument on its own merits - just as I suggested it should be done. :smile:

[Jezz]

TheFiveSolas:
Though I have technical disagreements with some of the points you made, I agree with the gist of what your argument was attempting to say.
:thumb:

Thanks, but just curious - what are your technical disagreements?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Welcome Jezz!!!

[Socrates]

Tom Wright has a good balance with critical realism. This recognizes that "facts" do not speak for themselves, but are interpreted according to paradigms largely formed from biases. But there is still such a thing as objective reality, which by definition is true regardless of what anyone thinks.

[Vorkosigan]

Jezz:[list]The moral: when citing scholars, leave their theological biases out of it.

Not a good idea. First, understanding a scholar's background, including what sort of cognitive and intellectual background they come out of, helps understand how an author arrives at conclusions. To use Socrates' example, Tom Wright's work is so bound up with his theological views -- he himself has declared that history and faith should be intermingled -- that his work has become unreliable as historical inquiry, though it makes fascinating and challenging reading on many different levels, not the least of which is watching a highly intelligent man engage in doublethink on a galactic scale.

Argue against the argument on its own merits. If their argument is sound, then their bias is merely a logical result of this fact!

This too is incorrect. For example, a recent report by the US government on wind energy condemned it is basically pie in the sky. How would you reassess that conclusion, though, knowing that the person who wrote the report was the former head of the National Coal Association? How would you assess a report on the dangers of tobacco from the Tobacco Institute?

Ultimately, of course, research does rest on its own merits in that you must respond to the arguments as made. However, concerns about the author's agenda may fairly be integrated into a judgment about the quality of the work, and about its conclusions. Some sources are more trustworthy; who do you trust more on the Iraqi rights situation, Amnesty International or the Iraqi Ministry of Information?

A glaring example is the Jesus Seminar. Tom Wright, in Jesus and the Victory of God goes through some of their premises and how they "cook the discussion in advance". For example, Premise 45, "Only a small proportion of the sayings attributed to Jesus in teh Gospels was actually spoken by him.

This is a basic premise of historical research. There is widespread agreement that (1) at least some of the sayings in the gospels did not come from Jesus (2) some of the non-canonical sayings may have come from Jesus. Everyone disagrees on what sayings are authentically of the Jesus tradition, and which ones are not, and there is no solid methodology for establishing which is which. The Jesus Seminar simply represents one way, a poll of scholarly opinion, to get at this question. But scholarly opinion in this area, as in so many in the case of the historical Jesus, is not worth much because it is not backed by solid methodology and unassailable evidence.

See also Crouching Liberals, Hidden Atheists, or, Exposing The "Funk" of Two Thousand Years (http://www.tektonics.org/AD_RFY.html) to show how Funk brought his a priori materialistic bias into the Seminar.

This too is historical method. Sound historical methodology means rejection of supernatural explanation. This "bias" was invented not by atheists but theists, in the 16th-18th century, as part of the explanatory and inquiry programs of modern science.

So it is disingenuous in the extreme to dismiss the Gospel miracles as the result of scholarly research, when they had already dismissed them before they began!

<shrug> Perhaps it is the Jesus Seminar being mispresented here. Do you have Funk et al's original thoughts on the matter?

Vorkosigan

[Jezz]

Vorkosigan:

Jezz:The moral: when citing scholars, leave their theological biases out of it.

Not a good idea. First, understanding a scholar's background, including what sort of cognitive and intellectual background they come out of, helps understand how an author arrives at conclusions.
Sure, it might help you in understanding how they arrive at conclusions. But my point is that it doesn't matter how an author arrives at a conclusion. What matters is the conclusion itself - does it rationally stand on its own? This can (and should) be evaluated without regard for who wrote it.


To use Socrates' example, Tom Wright's work is so bound up with his theological views -- he himself has declared that history and faith should be intermingled -- that his work has become unreliable as historical inquiry, though it makes fascinating and challenging reading on many different levels, not the least of which is watching a highly intelligent man engage in doublethink on a galactic scale.
And I will make the same comment to you here that I made to Socrates - presumably, you first concluded that his work was doublethink (without regard to Wright's bias), and then concluded that this was because of his theological bias. As with Socrates, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here. But if you did it the other way around, then what you have not really disproved the argument - rather, you've done exactly what you've accused Wright of doing, and what Socrates has accused Funk of doing (ie you've let your bias affect your conclusion).


Argue against the argument on its own merits. If their argument is sound, then their bias is merely a logical result of this fact!

This too is incorrect. For example, a recent report by the US government on wind energy condemned it is basically pie in the sky. How would you reassess that conclusion, though, knowing that the person who wrote the report was the former head of the National Coal Association? How would you assess a report on the dangers of tobacco from the Tobacco Institute?
Well, presumably if the conclusion is wrong, then there would be something inconsistent with the reasoning that lead to that conclusion. If I were to find such an inconsistency, I would thus conclude that the conclusion was wrong. And having concluded that the conclusion was wrong, I would then conclude that the inconsistency either went unnoticed (or was covered up) by the author most likely because of the author's bias.

But, note the important distinction here - I first evaluate the argument. And if I find something wrong with it, then the charge of bias comes. If you do not examine the argument on its own merits, then all you are doing is letting your bias affect your judgement. For example, say I am an environmentalist, and as such I have a bias to not believe the report by the National Coal Association (NCA). However, upon examining the report I can't fault its conclusions. At this point, I could do one of two things:

1. Accept the findings of the NCA, despite the fact that it goes against my bias,
2. withhold final judgement until I can investigate it further, or
2. reject the findings of the NCA, claiming that although I can't find anything wrong with the conclusion, it simply cannot be right because the NCA is biased.

The most rational thing to do would be 1 or 2 (although with 2 - you shouldn't hold off indefinitely, especially if additional supporting evidence comes to light). Unfortunately, it is my observation that human beings will tend to take door number 3, which is irrational and is a case of letting your bias affect your rational judgement.

Ultimately, who wrote the wind energy report does not matter. What matters is if its conclusions are correct. To illustrate this point: how would your conclusion about the accuracy of the conclusion change if it was written by Greenpeace? Would you be more inclined to believe it? Despite the fact that it uses the same evidence and the same reasoning? If your evaluation of an argument changes based on who wrote it, then you haven't given the argument a fair hearing in the first place.


Ultimately, of course, research does rest on its own merits in that you must respond to the arguments as made.
With this, I completely agree! What I don't understand is why you then contradict this by saying:


However, concerns about the author's agenda may fairly be integrated into a judgment about the quality of the work, and about its conclusions.
On the one hand, you first claim that the conclusion needs to stand on its own. On the other hand, you say it is fair to consider the author's bias when evaluating the conclusion. How is that letting the the conclusion stand on its own? If the research needs to stand on its own merits, then why are you using any other information apart from the merits of said research to evaluate the research? Obviously, considering the author's bias is unnecessary for a critical evaluation, and so to include it in the evaluation merely opens the door for your own biases to pollute your evaluation.


Some sources are more trustworthy; who do you trust more on the Iraqi rights situation, Amnesty International or the Iraqi Ministry of Information?
Well, that of course depends on who you are. If you are a westerner like us, you'd be included to believe Amnesty International. But if you were a Baath party member, you'd be inclined to believe the Iraqi Ministry for Information.

And this kinda helps to prove my point. If you examine the bias of the relevant parties when you evaluate their arguments, what happens is that you tend to let your own biases cloud your objective judgement. As a result, you're more inclined to believe a conclusion that came from the person whose bias more closely matches your own (or conversely to reject a conclusion from someone with a conflicting bias) - regardless of the objective strength of the argument.

Further evidence of this phenomenon is to consider the fact that the charge of "bias" is only ever levelled in an assessment when:

1. The author's conclusion contradicts with the conclusion of the evaluator, and
2. The author's bias contradicts with the conclusion of the evaluator.

If author bias is so important in evaluating their argument, why is it that the charge of bias is only levelled in these circumstances?

------
I think perhaps I should make a clarification here - if accepting a report on face value, then obviously the reliability of the author is important. But I'm not talking about accepting an argument at face value - I'm talking about critically evaluating an argument. When critically evaluating an argument, it is important to disregard author bias, as all that can happen by considering it is that your own attitude towards their bias becomes reflected in your assessment.

I think one of my original point has been lost in all of this, too, so I'd like to reiterate it in the light of what was said: In the absence of any a-priori knowledge, we cannot know if an author came to their conclusion because of their bias, or if they came to their bias because of their conclusion. The only way we can make this determination is to examine the conclusion itself. And the only way to fairly examine the conclusion itself (as I pointed out above) is to treat the issue of "who wrote it" as unimportant.

Once you have come to an independent assessment of the conclusion, then you can make an assessment of the author's bias. If the conclusion was wrong, then one can surmise that the conclusion was affected by the bias. However, if the conclusion was correct, then is it any wonder that the author was biased to believe it?

[spl_cadet]

What Jezz is pointing out is that the bias thing is an example of circumstantial ad hominem.
Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false.

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
3. Therefore X is false.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."

There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false.

[Jezz]

Thanks spl_cadet. That is a pretty good summary of half of my argument. However, I don't think that this is the half where I had any new insight into the issue - the fallacy of "ad hominem" as an argument is probably well known by most people here (in theory, if not in practice!) But (I hope) there is more to my point than this.

The other half of my argument is where I though perhaps I'd had an insight that fewer people are aware of - in summary, not only does bias not necessarily determine truth, but also that perceived truth usually determines bias.

I'll run with your light socket example to try and illustrate again what I mean: "For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false." That's the first half of my argument. However, for the second half of my argument, I would take this one step further. Not only does her motiviation not make her claim false, but she has motivation to say this precisely because the claim is true. It is because sticking a fork in a light socket is dangerous that the mother becomes motivated to say it.

Using semi-logic notation as you did, I guess this looks something like this as applied to bias:

1. X is true.
2. Therefore, person A is biased to believe X.

Not only does the bias of A have nothing to do in determining the truth value of X, but on the contrary the bias of A is determined by the truth value of X.

To see how this applies to the point about the bias of biblical scholars:

Suppose, for an instant, that there is sufficient evidence to assert that the resurrection is a historical fact. We would thus expect the best scholars to come to the conclusion that the resurrection occured. And once they had come to this conclusion, it is likely that they would become Christians.

Conversely, suppose that there is insufficient evidence to assert that the resurrection is a historical fact, or perhaps even sufficient contrary evidence to assert that it wasn't a historical fact. We would thus expect the best historians (acting without bias) to conclude that the resurrection didn't occur. And once they had come to this conclusion, it would seem likely that they would become non-Christian (Muslim or atheist, perhaps).

The reason I see this extra observation as important is as follows: In the first case, if your own bias predisposed you toward rejecting the opinion of Christian scholars, then by extension this bias would predispose you towards rejecting the work of those who were most meticulous, and thus to accepting the work of those who are less meticulous. Similarly if you were predisposed towards rejecting the opinion of non-Christian scholars in the second case. Thus, to place emphasis on the bias of the scholars when evaluating their arguments can not only get in the road of helping you to make a correct judgement - it can actually bias you with a tendency to accept the weaker arguments.

[Socrates]

Socrates:


A glaring example is the Jesus Seminar. Tom Wright, in Jesus and the Victory of God goes through some of their premises and how they "cook the discussion in advance". For example, Premise 45, "Only a small proportion of the sayings attributed to Jesus in teh Gospels was actually spoken by him.

vork:This is a basic premise of historical research. There is widespread agreement that (1) at least some of the sayings in the gospels did not come from Jesus (2) some of the non-canonical sayings may have come from Jesus. Everyone disagrees on what sayings are authentically of the Jesus tradition, and which ones are not, and there is no solid methodology for establishing which is which.And this is argument by assertion, but all this must be demonstrated. The Jesus Seminar simply represents one way, a poll of scholarly opinion, to get at this question. But scholarly opinion in this area, as in so many in the case of the historical Jesus, is not worth much because it is not backed by solid methodology and unassailable evidence.

Socrates:


See also Crouching Liberals, Hidden Atheists, or, Exposing The "Funk" of Two Thousand Years to show how Funk brought his a priori materialistic bias into the Seminar.

Vork:This too is historical method. Sound historical methodology means rejection of supernatural explanation. See what I mean. The rejection of the supernatural is assumed and claimed to be part of "sound historical methodology". So it is crazy to claim that "sound historical methodology" has demonstrated the rejection of the supernatural!This "bias" was invented not by atheists but theists, in the 16th-18th century, as part of the explanatory and inquiry programs of modern science. This is for operational science, involving present-day observations. None of them regarded this as a method for actions of history, which are of course unobservable.

[Socrates]

Jezz:I'll run with your light socket example to try and illustrate again what I mean: "For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false." That's the first half of my argument. However, for the second half of my argument, I would take this one step further. Not only does her motiviation not make her claim false, but she has motivation to say this precisely because the claim is true. It is because sticking a fork in a light socket is dangerous that the mother becomes motivated to say it.Jezz raises a good point, which Tom Wright has also noted. In reply to the claim that the Gospel writers were biased, Wright says, of course they were biased, But what made them biased? He argues that only the historical fact of the Resurrection could have made them so. JP Holding argues for this in more detail in The Impossible Faith (http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html).

[Sheepdog]

yup :thumb:

in fact, the appeal to bias to dismiss a scholar's argument, unless evidence is shown that the bias is relavent, is one form of a circumstantial ad hominem. see here:
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/adhomine.html

[Jezz]

Socrates:
Jezz raises a good point, which Tom Wright has also noted. In reply to the claim that the Gospel writers were biased, Wright says, of course they were biased, But what made them biased? He argues that only the historical fact of the Resurrection could have made them so. JP Holding argues for this in more detail in The Impossible Faith (http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html).

Glad to see that I managed to get my point across eventually. :smile: The reason I brought this up is because of repeated calls by the atheists on this forum for evidence contributed by unbiased scholars, or historical records of unbiased witnesses to the resurrection. Quite simply, I don't think such a thing could exist.

This applies especially to the case of the resurrection - I mean, suppose for the sake of argument that the resurrection happened. Then any witnesses who were a-priori unbiased toward believing it would do one of two things:

1. Explain away. Such a person would not likely make themselves available as a public witness if they were trying to pretend that it didn't happen, so we shouldn't expect to see records of such people as witnesses.
2. Believe. Such a person would almost certainly become an instant convert, and lose their "unbiased" status.

Thus to my mind, the phrase "unbiased witness [to the resurrection]" is essentially an oxymoron, and to demand that Christians produce such a thing is akin to demanding that they draw a square circle. Such a request is irrational and boils down to nothing but a cheap point-scoring exercise by the atheist making the demand. Although to be fair, I would wager that most atheists have never thought through to the logical conclusion of this demand, and probably aren't trying for cheap point-scoring on purpose. And of course, on the Christian side of the debate there are people guilty of making similar irrational demands.

[Kevin W. Graham]

It should also be pointed out that those who insist on attacking the partiality of a scholar, do so only to demonstrate the weakness of his or her own position, which has been reduced to pure ad hominem. Deal with the argument and stop shooting the messenger. This is a common problem I have with people who want to sweep the scholars I cite under the "liberal" carpet, and pretend that this categorization is all that needs to be said. Unfortunately, this cheesy method of argumentum is good enough for most Fundamentalists. They want to hear from their own choiristers for the most part.

On another thread the existence of the Jesus Seminar was used as a reason to dismiss the scholarship I provided. Also, a quote was given that said you could find at least one scholar to support just about anything. This sort of response simply will not do.

Jezz also brings up another good point. For example, scholars who say the Bible teaches the Trinity are generally Trinitarian to begin with. So why listen to them if they are obviously biased? Likewise, scholars who say the Bible proves God is non-existent are generally atheists. Big surprise there. But what of Liberal scholars? Generally they are those who come from traditional Christian presuppositions who have since altered their thinking. This they have done because of their research, in spite of what they believed initially. Many of the scholars I use who are labelled "liberal" are practicing Catholics and Protestants. Some may even be Trinitarian, but they can admit the Bible doesn't teach it. They can believe it was truth revealed through the Catholic Church instead of the Bible.

Likewise with the issue of monotheism. I've cited several Evangelical and Catholic scholars who now admit the Bible wasn't as monotheistic as traditional Christainity presumed, or at least how it is commonly defined. In most cases name-calling ensues, as they are immediately called liberals and/or heretics, and their opinions are trashed with reckless abandon, based on that single premise!

I think it says something indeed when both sides of an LDS/Christian debate draw upon traditional scholarship. Meaning, in my experience anyway, the Evangelical will cite strictly Evangelical scholarship while I will cite absolutely ZERO LDS scholars. Obviously this wouldn't impress anyone who isn't LDS just like we wouldn't be impressed if a JW made an argument citing 50 JW scholars and not one single non-JW. Evangelicals have taken their position for granted and have assumed that it will automatically be expected that their corner of scholarship be deemed the cream of the crop while all else is inferior. I can tell you that this isn't the opinion of say German or eastern European scholarship, who have a hard time distinguishing Western Evangelical scholarship from American televangelism which is considered a joke.

Too much of this approach results in circular reasoning.

As Doug Cowen wittingly pointed out:

"While Christian apologists often go to great lengths to demonstrate that the claim for biblical authority and exclusivity is, in fact, not circular (cf., for example, Bowman 1991; Geisler 1976; Groothuis 1990; Hanegraaff n.d.; Hawkins 1996; Hunt 1996; McDowell 1979, 1981; Morey 1980), none address the socially constructed and socially reinforced nature of their position. To do so would simply highlight the circularity."

http://www.cornerstonemag.com/cart/cowan1.htm


Anyway...my 2 cents.

[webulite.com]

I like your thought process. He are some of my thoughts.

I have also found true in what you say about scholars being attacked and their ideas being thrown out.

It seems to me that the scientific/acedmic process should not care about a individuals bias. The process is supposed to take an idea and work it into the process... if that idea makes sense it will rise and be accepted. Things like peer review will find errors in an idea, and only the cream of the persons ideas will rise to acceptance.

Now in pure science, we have experiments. People ideas are test via experiments, and the results are accepted when these experiments can be repeated by others with the same result.

This does not seem to be possible in bible acedemics... and as I have thought more about it, and looked at the scholarly community, I have actually come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as an acedemic process for bible research. It is a sad and scarey conclusion, but I see too many discussions here no result comes about... neither side will accept data from the other, etc...

I would love to find some that can explainn how a person can make a reputation in the bible scholarship communiity, and be accepted without being called biased? was Einsteain biased? of course... but you don't see physicists name calling and discounting peoples work as you do in the bible acedemic community.

What are the standards by which acedemics agree to play with? is there a manual that we can look to? I would love to see it if it exists.

It makes you wonder if we are really able to agree on anything....

cheers! webulite.com ... I got /religion damn it !

[webulite.com]

Jezz, good argument... but here is what it makes me think... on the issue of "do God(s) exist?" it would seem to me that we would have to accept at this point we can say "I believe god(s) exist", but cannot say "I know god(s) exists" or "I have demonstrated god(s) exist".

If we were to be able to claim the 2nd or 3rd, then we would be able to show our evidence to any sane/rational man, and they would have to agree with the evidence. Since that has not happened yet, I think we must admit that we can only claim #1

Now when you talking about the timing of waiting for more evidence to reach a conclusion, but only waiting a certain period of time... it made me think.... must we admit, in the case of christianity... that after two thousand years of many people tryiing, yet the evidence to demonstrate to the "reasonable man" has not been produced, do we conclude that at this point we cannot demonstrate that god(s) exist?

Cheers! webulite.com ... I got /religion !

[chsalvia]

Thus to my mind, the phrase "unbiased witness [to the resurrection]" is essentially an oxymoron, and to demand that Christians produce such a thing is akin to demanding that they draw a square circle. Such a request is irrational and boils down to nothing but a cheap point-scoring exercise by the atheist making the demand. Although to be fair, I would wager that most atheists have never thought through to the logical conclusion of this demand, and probably aren't trying for cheap point-scoring on purpose. And of course, on the Christian side of the debate there are people guilty of making similar irrational demands.

I don’t think atheists are asking for an unbiased witness to the resurrection. They’re just asking for early non-Christian testimony that corroborates the claims of the Gospels with a relevant historical/temporal origin. For example, a Jewish document from Jerusalem dating to ca. 50 A.D. that mentions, say, that a mysterious eclipse of the Sun occurred 20 years ago along with an earthquake, or which mentions incidental reports of a miracle worker from Nazareth. That’s basically what atheists are asking for.

But your argument about bias can flow either way. Let’s call the source of bias “X.”

If X is true, than anyone who realizes this will obviously be biased to believe in X, and thus any documents he may write will reflect this bias.

If X is false, than anyone who doesn’t realize this, or has motivation to ignore this, will obviously be biased to believe or promote X, and thus any documents he may write will reflect this bias.

However, this argument sort of hinges on whether or not a third party can actually find out if X is true, without appealing to potentially biased sources.

Now, suppose X is “smoking does not cause lung cancer.” In this situation, an unbiased person can investigate the situation, say by studying the long term effects of nicotine on the human body, and come to conclude that proponents of X are biased towards a falsehood.

But suppose X is “the resurrection occurred.” In this situation, an unbiased person cannot usefully investigate this claim, since the ONLY available information that is useful comes from biased sources. Now whether their bias is justified or not is not the point. The point is the ONLY useful historical information comes from writers that are obviously biased towards X. Nobody who was in a historical position to falsify X has provided us with any information. Therefore, a third party cannot usefully investigate the situation to find out if X is true, without appealing to potentially biased sources. It would be as if the only available information about the health affects of smoking came from tobacco companies.

Now, you can interpret this in two ways:

1. Since X is probably true, there would naturally be nobody in a historical position to falsify X, since anyone that tried would realize X is true. This is basically how most one-sided historical claims are treated.

2. Since we only have useful records from men who say X is true, we cannot trust these since they are obviously biased to believe X is true, i.e. we cannot independently confirm the validity of X.

Both of these conclusions are somewhat circular, although the second one correctly points out that X cannot be confirmed without appealing to potentially biased sources, and the first one points out that standard historical methodology usually accepts one-sided sources as fact. So at this point, other considerations must come into play.

Atheists of course argue that, just like any other religious movement, all documentation from proponents of the religion will be biased towards the religion, and so any claims that endorse the religion are practically useless. It is at this point that atheists ask for some form of external corroboration from an unbiased source – some reference that corroborates the claims. Of course, Christians will counter that the claims themselves are biased precisely because the events they describe actually occurred, and that one-sided claims are usually good enough for most historians.

This stalemate must then be broken with further historical and epistemological considerations. But, without going into that, I would argue that from the standpoint of the atheist versus the Christian claims of bias alone, where the atheist claims that pro-Christian testimony is useless because it is biased, and the Christian claims that pro-Christian testimony is biased because it is true, that the atheist position is superior on an epistemological/historical level. The reason is because the situation involving the documentary evidence for the early Christian movement is not a completely unique phenomenon. Historical knowledge of all religions – the experiences of the founders, the early movements, etc - comes in the form of documents which are always biased towards the truth of the religion. A religion that had early unbiased documents, which corroborated its specifically religious claims, would gain a significant advantage. And that is why atheists request this. For example, if we found the report of a pagan or Christian historian writing in the 7th century A.D. who claimed that he saw the moon split in half, this would be excellent, unbiased attestation for the religious claims of Islam. So far, no religion has really produced anything like this, although Christianity does have the unique advantage of supplying us with early independent biased documents.

[Jezz]

Wow, this thread is a blast from the past... my very first thread from when I joined TWeb...


Jezz, good argument... but here is what it makes me think... on the issue of "do God(s) exist?" it would seem to me that we would have to accept at this point we can say "I believe god(s) exist", but cannot say "I know god(s) exists" or "I have demonstrated god(s) exist".

If we were to be able to claim the 2nd or 3rd, then we would be able to show our evidence to any sane/rational man, and they would have to agree with the evidence. Since that has not happened yet, I think we must admit that we can only claim #1
I sort-of agree with the statement "If we were able to claim the 2nd or 3rd, then we would be able to show our evidence to any sane/rational man, and they would have to agree with the evidence."

However, even if I accept this your conclusion does not logically follow. For one thing, your assertion "since that has not happened yet" is one that I dispute. There are plenty of people who have been presented with the evidence for theism and agreed with it. It is an assumption on your part that those who disagreed with it were acting rationally or reasonably.

The problem is, that in order to prove your assumption, you must prove that there is room for reasonable doubt when it comes to the evidence. Which brings us back to the original question of "how good is the evidence?"


Now when you talking about the timing of waiting for more evidence to reach a conclusion, but only waiting a certain period of time... it made me think.... must we admit, in the case of christianity... that after two thousand years of many people tryiing, yet the evidence to demonstrate to the "reasonable man" has not been produced, do we conclude that at this point we cannot demonstrate that god(s) exist?
I believe that the evidence has been produced, and those who doubt it are acting unreasonably. But I usually don't see much point in bringing this up, because some people find it offensive (despite the fact that such people usually think the same thing about me...) - and also because, as I said, it is irrelevant. The conclusion of "unreasonable behaviour" is a deduction that follows from my conclusion that the evidence is reasonable, and hence it is best to simply stick with arguments about the evidence, and leave the mutual claims of being "unreasonable" (which are merely ad-hominems) out of it. Provided my opponents are willing to do the same...

Over all, I think your objection misses the point slightly. What I basically mean is, in summary:

1. In order to conclude that bias (or irrationality) has affected the result of someone's conclusion, or is the reason for their conclusion, one must first establish whether or not their conclusion is correct.
2. Given that one must first establish the veracity of the conclusion before concluding that bias was the effect or the cause of the conclusion, it is begging the question to use bias as a reason for judging their conclusion to be incorrect.

[Vorkosigan]

I believe that the evidence has been produced, and those who doubt it are acting unreasonably.

No credible evidence has been produced, ever. Were it not for the fact that most people are indoctrinated as children, there would be no theism anywhere.

Vorkosigan

[shunyadragon]

Jezz:

The moral: when citing scholars, leave their theological biases out of it. Argue against the argument on its own merits. If their argument is sound, then their bias is merely a logical result of this fact!
True enough. But so often, scholars are already biased, and what they claim as the conclusions of their research were actually their premises. Or else they present them as premises but claim that they are really conconclusions of most scholars.

A glaring example is the Jesus Seminar. Tom Wright, in Jesus and the Victory of God goes through some of their premises and how they "cook the discussion in advance". For example, Premise 45, "Only a small proportion of the sayings attributed to Jesus in teh Gospels was actually spoken by him."

See also Crouching Liberals, Hidden Atheists, or, Exposing The "Funk" of Two Thousand Years (http://www.tektonics.org/AD_RFY.html) to show how Funk brought his a priori materialistic bias into the Seminar. So it is disingenuous in the extreme to dismiss the Gospel miracles as the result of scholarly research, when they had already dismissed them before they began!
Your choice of references reveals your bias.

I found that a review of the different scholars revealed different aspects of scholarship in the Bible like a prism reveals a rainbow.

I appreciate Jewish and linguistic scholars the most. Jewish scholars give the best historical charactor to Judism throughout history and they are especially enlightening concerning the period when Jesus lived. Linguistic scholars contribute a lot because they appear less biased and usually but not always lack the stacked deck agenda.

The conservative scholars provide more insight into the traditional theological and literary aspects of the text because they go to great lengths to defend the inerrancy of scripture as is.

The liberal and skeptical scholars, and we ca not forget the crazy anarchists are great because they attack the inerrancy of the scripture, sometimes ruthlessly, and reveal many of the alternatives to blind faith.

[Jezz]

I don’t think atheists are asking for an unbiased witness to the resurrection. They’re just asking for early non-Christian testimony that corroborates the claims of the Gospels with a relevant historical/temporal origin. For example, a Jewish document from Jerusalem dating to ca. 50 A.D. that mentions, say, that a mysterious eclipse of the Sun occurred 20 years ago along with an earthquake, or which mentions incidental reports of a miracle worker from Nazareth. That’s basically what atheists are asking for.
Yeah, but as I pointed out in an earlier post, in doing so they are asking for a square circle. The better a document corroborates, the more likely that it would be included in the Scriptures of the Christians (ie, "biased"). And if it doesn't corroborate well, then it is dismissed as worthless for that reason. In point of fact, there are non-Christian documents that corroborate the Christian observations in broad terms. For example, the Jews called him a "sorceror", implicitly acknowledging that he performed miracles. Their only question was by what authority he performed them ("by Beelzebub"...)


But your argument about bias can flow either way. Let’s call the source of bias “X.”

If X is true, than anyone who realizes this will obviously be biased to believe in X, and thus any documents he may write will reflect this bias.

If X is false, than anyone who doesn’t realize this, or has motivation to ignore this, will obviously be biased to believe or promote X, and thus any documents he may write will reflect this bias.
Precisely true. That is why it makes no sense to try and use bias as a reason for dismissing a historical report.


However, this argument sort of hinges on whether or not a third party can actually find out if X is true, without appealing to potentially biased sources.
This is true. But the thing is, all sources are potentially biased. That was the point of my post. The question is not "Is the source biased?" but "is the bias a cause or a result of the report of X?"

(As a side note: since I originally posted this thread, I have read NT Wright's book "The New Testament and the People of God". He actually spends a great deal of time making the same point.)

Also remember to couple this with another observation that I have made: most knowledge comes from sources other than our own senses. Combining these two:

1. All sources are potentially biased.
2. The bulk of an individual's knowledge comes from sources.

From a pragmatic point of view, if you want to know anything that is beyond the realm of your direct experience, then you have to take it as an axiom that a party can find out the truth using only "potentially biased" sources. Otherwise you'd sink into perpetual agnositicism.


Now, suppose X is “smoking does not cause lung cancer.” In this situation, an unbiased person can investigate the situation, say by studying the long term effects of nicotine on the human body, and come to conclude that proponents of X are biased towards a falsehood.
Can they? Do you have any unbiased source that proves this? That this is something I can find out for myself comes only from reports that with a biased opinion of the effects of nicotine on the human body. Given that I've never performed the study myself, I've got nothing but these biased reports to go on for this information...


But suppose X is “the resurrection occurred.” In this situation, an unbiased person cannot usefully investigate this claim, since the ONLY available information that is useful comes from biased sources.
As I have shown above, this is in fact not a distinction at all. The only useful information that you or I have regarding the effects of nicotine on humans comes from biased sources as well.


Now whether their bias is justified or not is not the point. The point is the ONLY useful historical information comes from writers that are obviously biased towards X.
And the experiments on measuring the effects of nicotine on humans were conducted in the past, not the future - therefore, the information contained in the reports is also historical information, coming from writers that are obviously biased towards that conclusion.


Nobody who was in a historical position to falsify X has provided us with any information. Therefore, a third party cannot usefully investigate the situation to find out if X is true, without appealing to potentially biased sources. It would be as if the only available information about the health affects of smoking came from tobacco companies.
But the lack of contemporary witnesses falsifying the resurrection is exactly what we would expect if Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. To try and make this out as a reason to doubt the veracity of the reports is to stack the deck in such a manner as to rule out all historical verification of the resurrection.

The difference when compared with your tobacco example is that we do have contemporary witness that disputes the claims of the tobacco companies. If the only reports we had from our time claimed that tobacco was not harmful, then wouldn't you believe it was not harmful? I mean, all the pharmaceutical companies that put out new over-the-counter drugs have reports claiming that their new drug doesn't have serious long-term side effects... do you doubt their reports? I mean, they're obviously biased, and yet there are no conflicting contemporary reports for (eg) paracetamol or asprin being bad for you.


Now, you can interpret this in two ways:

1. Since X is probably true, there would naturally be nobody in a historical position to falsify X, since anyone that tried would realize X is true. This is basically how most one-sided historical claims are treated.

2. Since we only have useful records from men who say X is true, we cannot trust these since they are obviously biased to believe X is true, i.e. we cannot independently confirm the validity of X.

Both of these conclusions are somewhat circular, although the second one correctly points out that X cannot be confirmed without appealing to potentially biased sources, and the first one points out that standard historical methodology usually accepts one-sided sources as fact. So at this point, other considerations must come into play.
Yes, that is essentially my point. Trying to use "bias" in an argument is always circular.

Atheists of course argue that, just like any other religious movement, all documentation from proponents of the religion will be biased towards the religion, and so any claims that endorse the religion are practically useless. It is at this point that atheists ask for some form of external corroboration from an unbiased source – some reference that corroborates the claims. Of course, Christians will counter that the claims themselves are biased precisely because the events they describe actually occurred, and that one-sided claims are usually good enough for most historians.


This stalemate must then be broken with further historical and epistemological considerations. But, without going into that, I would argue that from the standpoint of the atheist versus the Christian claims of bias alone, where the atheist claims that pro-Christian testimony is useless because it is biased, and the Christian claims that pro-Christian testimony is biased because it is true, that the atheist position is superior on an epistemological/historical level. The reason is because the situation involving the documentary evidence for the early Christian movement is not a completely unique phenomenon.
I don't quite understand your point, but given as you said you don't want to go into it further here I won't push it too much further here.


Historical knowledge of all religions – the experiences of the founders, the early movements, etc - comes in the form of documents which are always biased towards the truth of the religion. A religion that had early unbiased documents, which corroborated its specifically religious claims, would gain a significant advantage. And that is why atheists request this. For example, if we found the report of a pagan or Christian historian writing in the 7th century A.D. who claimed that he saw the moon split in half, this would be excellent, unbiased attestation for the religious claims of Islam. So far, no religion has really produced anything like this, although Christianity does have the unique advantage of supplying us with early independent biased documents.
And again, for the reasons I noted above, that's cooking the books in advance. Any non-Christian references to the main events of Christianity are by their nature going to be inconsequential.

[Jezz]

No credible evidence has been produced, ever.
Argument by assertion.


Were it not for the fact that most people are indoctrinated as children, there would be no theism anywhere.
The same is true for most of science.

[Vorkosigan]

Argument by assertion.

Jezz, if evidence were credible, there would be no need for faith. Nor would there be the constant need for reinforcement of believer's doubts. Were evidence is credible, no one has existential doubt. Do you agonize over whether Washington DC is really the capital of the US? Do you lie awake at night wondering whether Ted Bundy truly killed those girls in Florida? Do you experience the dark night of the soul contemplating whether antibiotics actually cure bacterial diseases? The reailty is that evidence from the behavior and speech of believers is that the evidence for god(s) is not credible. Otherwise no one would discuss faith; it would be a non-issue.


The same is true for most of science.

The difference being that science possesses methodologies for demonstrating its conclusions about the world, whereas religion does not.

Vorkosigan

[chsalvia]

Yeah, but as I pointed out in an earlier post, in doing so they are asking for a square circle. The better a document corroborates, the more likely that it would be included in the Scriptures of the Christians (ie, "biased"). And if it doesn't corroborate well, then it is dismissed as worthless for that reason.

I don’t think that requesting third party, non-Christian references to the founding events of Christianity is like asking for a square circle. You yourself argued that there are non-Christian documents that corroborate the Christian observations, albeit in broad terms. (I will address this claim in a second.) But the point is, you acknowledge that such corroboration is possible, unlike a square circle. The Christian religion is an historical event, and it is not unreasonable to speak of non-Christian references to these events. Again, I offer the example of the eclipse and the earthquake which accompanied Jesus’s crucifixion. A non-Christian witness could have easily observed these events, from somewhere else besides Golgotha, and reported this. Witnessing an earthquake/eclipse would not automatically make one a Christian. A traveling Greek would probably assume somebody angered Poseidon the Earthshaker.

And of course, Jesus had many enemies – the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Herodians. All of these heard about/witnessed his miracles, and yet they did not become Christian. So what about a Pharisaic document in Judea that mentions Jesus’s miracles? Why is that impossible, like a square circle? Atheists are asking for non-Christian historical witness to the events described in the Gospels. You claim such a thing is impossible, but clearly it is not. You even mention the Jews, and how they called him a sorcerer, but then go on to maintain that non-Christian reference to Jesus’s miracles would be impossible.


In point of fact, there are non-Christian documents that corroborate the Christian observations in broad terms. For example, the Jews called him a "sorceror", implicitly acknowledging that he performed miracles. Their only question was by what authority he performed them ("by Beelzebub"...)

Okay then…obviously by your own admission, what atheists are asking for is not like a square circle, since the Jews supposedly observed these miraculous things and did not become Christians.

However, I’d have to ask you exactly what references you’re talking about here. Where did the Jews call him a sorcerer, and say he was in league with Beelzebub? The first source that comes to mind here is obviously the Synoptic Gospels, which of course, are not non-Christian sources, and so are irrelevant to this discussion. The only slightly pertinent, non-Christian references of this nature that I can think of are the Rabbinical writings which refer to Jesus as a sorcerer, or the second century pagan and Jewish detractors. But of course, these date to well after the events, and are not written by men who claimed to have actually been around during the time of Christ, but rather by men who are reacting to the Christian movement of their time. They are thus useless as an historical witness.

So, in summary: It is not impossible that there could be non-Christian references to Jesus’s miracles, or to events in the Gospel. This is certainly plausible, unlike a square circle. You acknowledge this when you refer to the Jews. So it is not unreasonable, or illogical for atheists to ask for this information. It is not like asking for a square circle. If I could show you a first century Jewish document that refers to a sorcerer from Nazareth, I doubt you would start believing in square circles. BUT…in reality, there are no such references. There could be non-Christian references, but there are none that are historically useful. The only available useful information about early Christianity is from Christian sources.


This is true. But the thing is, all sources are potentially biased. That was the point of my post. The question is not "Is the source biased?" but "is the bias a cause or a result of the report of X?"

(As a side note: since I originally posted this thread, I have read NT Wright's book "The New Testament and the People of God". He actually spends a great deal of time making the same point.)

True, but in order to determine whether the bias is towards a truth, or towards a falsehood, it would be helpful to have non-Christian documents that corroborated some events. And as I believe I’ve demonstrated above, this is not like asking for a square circle.


Also remember to couple this with another observation that I have made: most knowledge comes from sources other than our own senses. Combining these two:

1. All sources are potentially biased.
2. The bulk of an individual's knowledge comes from sources.

From a pragmatic point of view, if you want to know anything that is beyond the realm of your direct experience, then you have to take it as an axiom that a party can find out the truth using only "potentially biased" sources. Otherwise you'd sink into perpetual agnositicism.

I feel you are making somewhat of a blanket statement here, which is not very useful. It goes without saying that all information comes from “potentially biased” sources – but you have to employ a little common sense to distinguish “significant potential for bias” and “insignificant potential for bias.” You might say that my Encyclopedia is “potentially biased” when it tells me that the population of Alabama is 4,486,508 people – but there’s no reason to assume that there is a significant potential for bias here. Whereas, with the example of the tobacco companies, and religion, the potential for bias is certainly significant. (I don’t mean to group Christianity with tobacco companies, but I think you get the point.)


Can they? Do you have any unbiased source that proves this? That this is something I can find out for myself comes only from reports that with a biased opinion of the effects of nicotine on the human body. Given that I've never performed the study myself, I've got nothing but these biased reports to go on for this information...

It seems to me that you’re basically trying to level the playing field here by pointing out that everything is biased to some degree. This is of course true, but it is not relevant. Just because every source of information is potentially biased to some degree does not negate the fact that certain sources of information have a more significant potential for bias than others. A report from the tobacco companies about the health effects of nicotine has a higher potential for bias towards a falsehood than a report about the average rainfall in the Amazon basin from Encyclopedia Britannica. Anything that does not have a significant potential for bias towards a falsehood is not even worth calling “biased” for the purposes of this discussion.

As for the tobacco companies, the reports about the negative health effects of nicotine on the human body obviously have an extraordinarily smaller potential for bias towards the truth, since they have little to gain from attacking the tobacco companies. Tobacco companies are good for the United States economy and produce a product which is enjoyed by many people, whereas there is little reason to say cigarettes are harmful unless they really are.


And the experiments on measuring the effects of nicotine on humans were conducted in the past, not the future - therefore, the information contained in the reports is also historical information, coming from writers that are obviously biased towards that conclusion.

Calling these reports biased is not particularly useful here. Yes, everything is biased, but unless you can establish a significant reason for bias towards a falsehood, it is not even worth calling something biased. As for the tobacco companies, they are biased towards a falsehood since the truth could significantly hurt their sales. This is obvious. But as for these reports on the negative health effects of nicotine, there is little or no potential for bias here.


But the lack of contemporary witnesses falsifying the resurrection is exactly what we would expect if Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. To try and make this out as a reason to doubt the veracity of the reports is to stack the deck in such a manner as to rule out all historical verification of the resurrection.

I find it strange that you claim this, but then also argue that there were early Jewish detractors of Christianity who witnessed Jesus’s miracles. Obviously, they did not become Christian so why would a report from them be like a square circle? Do you think that everyone who was historically connected in any way with the life of Christ absolutely must have become Christian in order to write anything about Jesus?


The difference when compared with your tobacco example is that we do have contemporary witness that disputes the claims of the tobacco companies.

Right.


If the only reports we had from our time claimed that tobacco was not harmful, then wouldn't you believe it was not harmful? I mean, all the pharmaceutical companies that put out new over-the-counter drugs have reports claiming that their new drug doesn't have serious long-term side effects... do you doubt their reports? I mean, they're obviously biased, and yet there are no conflicting contemporary reports for (eg) paracetamol or asprin being bad for you.

The way you use the term “bias” here makes it almost devoid of all meaning. Pfizer sells a lot of drugs, but there is no reason to think they are biased towards a falsehood. Their goal is to make money, so they are biased towards anything that would help them make money. Selling harmful pharmaceuticals with dangerous side effects, and then lying about it, would be antithetical to their goal, and so they probably would not do this if they can avoid it. Now, since they are biased towards selling their product, it is likely they may exaggerate the usefulness, or maybe even play down the side effects of their product. (Although their commercials seem to emphasize the side effects and give multiple warnings.) Of course, their product has to be approved by independent agencies, i.e. the FDA, and so it is pointless to suspect that a potential bias towards a falsehood regarding their drugs would significantly call into question the veracity of their reports here.

Whereas, with the tobacco companies, they began selling their products long before the health affects were known, and their entire industry is based on this product. Therefore, changing the product to eliminate the harmful effects entirely would be essentially equivalent to going out of business. Since this reality could result in serious negative consequences for these companies, they have a very significant potential to be biased towards a falsehood, and thus it is reasonable to suspect they may lie, or do anything they can to play down the harmful effects of nicotine.


I don't quite understand your point, but given as you said you don't want to go into it further here I won't push it too much further here.

My point is that there is a significant potential for bias when it comes to the claims of any religion. It seems that you should agree with me. All the early historical information for all religions comes solely from religious documents, which are biased towards the truth of the religion. Since many different religions conflict on key issues, these early documents are somewhat useless (when used alone) in determining the truth of any one religion. But, if some of the claims of these religions had non-religious confirmation from a hostile or indifferent source, such as a pagan astronomer in the 7th century A.D. who saw the moon split in half (in the case of Islam), then it would count significantly towards the veracity of that religion.

That’s all I’m saying. External corroboration would be very useful, and would be powerful evidence against detractors. In my posts here, I am mainly taking issue with your claim that external corroboration for Christianity is impossible. Clearly, this seems to be false.


And again, for the reasons I noted above, that's cooking the books in advance. Any non-Christian references to the main events of Christianity are by their nature going to be inconsequential.

What? Why would they be inconsequential? If you could get your hands on a first century Greek historian who recorded an earthquake and an eclipse around 33 A.D., or who referred to a sorcerer from Galilee who supposedly walked on water, then you would more than happily use this against atheists in your debates here. You seem to think that just because someone heard about Jesus’s miracles, or witnessed his life, they would automatically be Christian. And yet, you also seem to realize that certain detractors, such as the Pharisees, witnessed these very things and yet did not become Christian. So…asking for early non-Christian testimony that corroborates the Gospel accounts is clearly not equivalent to asking for a square circle.

[Vorkosigan]

For example, the Jews called him a "sorceror", implicitly acknowledging that he performed miracles. Their only question was by what authority he performed them ("by Beelzebub"...)

As Zindler recently demonstrated, all references to Jesus in the Jewish sources are either misunderstandings or later medieval insertions. See his recent The Jesus the Jews Never Knew.

Vorkosigan

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, but as I pointed out in an earlier post, in doing so they are asking for a square circle. The better a document corroborates, the more likely that it would be included in the Scriptures of the Christians (ie, "biased"). And if it doesn't corroborate well, then it is dismissed as worthless for that reason. In point of fact, there are non-Christian documents that corroborate the Christian observations in broad terms. For example, the Jews called him a "sorceror", implicitly acknowledging that he performed miracles. Their only question was by what authority he performed them ("by Beelzebub"...)
There are not any non-Christian documents that corroborate the Christian observations in broad or narrow terms from the period when Christ lived.






But the lack of contemporary witnesses falsifying the resurrection is exactly what we would expect if Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. To try and make this out as a reason to doubt the veracity of the reports is to stack the deck in such a manner as to rule out all historical verification of the resurrection.
The lack of any non-Christian reports of any of the events surrounding Christs life supports that these beliefs are a question of faith and not historical fact.

[Socrates]

As Zindler recently demonstrated, all references to Jesus in the Jewish sources are either misunderstandings or later medieval insertions. See his recent The Jesus the Jews Never Knew.
Zindler?! :lol::rofl::lmbo:

[Jezz]

Jezz, if evidence were credible, there would be no need for faith. Nor would there be the constant need for reinforcement of believer's doubts. Were evidence is credible, no one has existential doubt. Do you agonize over whether Washington DC is really the capital of the US? Do you lie awake at night wondering whether Ted Bundy truly killed those girls in Florida? Do you experience the dark night of the soul contemplating whether antibiotics actually cure bacterial diseases? The reailty is that evidence from the behavior and speech of believers is that the evidence for god(s) is not credible. Otherwise no one would discuss faith; it would be a non-issue.
Rubbish. There is always room for "existential doubt", as you call it. Should I feel so inclined to think that Washington DC is not really the capital of the US, I could easily construct a theory consistent with the information available to me:

1. Some unknown individual (called X), at some time in the past, created a map or history of the US and incorrectly named Washington DC as the capital.
2. Any subsequent reports that claim that Washington DC is the capital of the US simply used X as their source (or used a source that in turn depended on X).

And voila - suddenly, there is no good evidence that Washington DC is the capital of the US. (Doesn't my methodology look suspiciously familiar to many Biblical scholars that you know...?)

The same methodology can be used to introduce existential doubt about any evidence - Ted Bundy, antibiotics, etc. For evidence that this methodology works, I submit to you moon hoaxers, flat-earthers and holocaust mythers.

At the end of the day, I believe that Washington DC is the capital of the US because I have faith in my sources. In contrast to your opening statement, faith is necessary even when the evidence is credible. The very act of deciding that evidence is credible is an act of faith, because absolute proof is not possible.

It seems to me that perhaps you are using "faith" in a non-Biblical sense, which means that all you've succeeded in doing is changing from the fallacy of argument by assertion to the fallacy of equivocation.


The difference being that science possesses methodologies for demonstrating its conclusions about the world, whereas religion does not.
At least, that's what you were indoctrinated to believe when you were taught science at school... :lol:

That little diversion aside, your alleged difference is a red herring. Let us back up the truck a little - your original statement:

"Were it not for the fact that most people are indoctrinated as children, there would be no theism anywhere."

Perhaps you didn't intend to make a point here, and this was in fact a pointless statement. I'd be happy for you to concede that it was a pointless statement.

However, I'm going to work on the assumption that you intended to make some sort of point with this argument. Of course I happen to know that your end goal is to claim that theism is false. Working back from this conclusion, the only logical argument I can see that would lead to this conclusion, based on the above statement, is the following:

1. If X is only learned by indoctrination, then X is false. (premise)
2. If theism is only learned by indoctrination, then theism is false (substitution from 1: X->theism)
3. Theism is only learned by indoctrination. (premise)
4. Therefore, theism is false. (<=2 & 3 by modus ponen)

Premises 1 and 3 are the ones that are implicit in your statement. Now, if I've got this wrong I apologise - feel free to correct me. I will be working on the assumption that I've got this right, though.

The aim of my response was to dispute premise 1. I did this by choosing something that I know you have faith in - science - and applying the same logic to it.

Science is indoctrinated. Noone is born with all their scientific knowledge. We learn it when we go to school. That's why we go to school. Teaching = indoctrination. If we weren't taught science, we wouldn't know how to do it, right? Therefore, the above argument also proves that science is false. Since I know that you believe science to be true, this must mean that your premise is false (ie, that if X is only known by indoctrination, then it must be false).

However, since making the last post, I realised I glossed over an important detail. That is, it is impossible that science is completely indoctrinated. Because if it was, then one could not account for its origin. But simultaneously, I realised that the same is true of theism - if theism was only learned by indoctrination, then theism must have been known by the first human beings. And if it was known by them, who taught it to them? There was noone around to indoctrinate them, right? They must have learned theism by some other method.

Even more damaging for your argument is that theism is not held by a select few, but has been held by the vast majority of all people in all places for all time - including societies that had been separated for millenia. If it is only learned by indoctrination, then how did it get to be so widespread?

This disproves your argument by attacking premise 3 instead of 1. Premise 3 is false - there is something else about theism that causes people to believe it other than indoctrination. There is no other way to explain the existence of theistic belief (other than to claim that humans have always existed...). I'm going to assume that you would identify this other source as evolution - naturally, I will identify it as the revelation of God. That can be an argument for another day. Regardless of which of these two you choose, the relevant conclusion is the same: the above argument is unsound, and the conclusion unproven, and the original statement little more than a sound bite.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin Graham wrote:


As Doug Cowen wittingly pointed out:
Do you mean wittily?

You then quoted the following comment from Doug Cowan (not Cowen):

"While Christian apologists often go to great lengths to demonstrate that the claim for biblical authority and exclusivity is, in fact, not circular (cf., for example, Bowman 1991; Geisler 1976; Groothuis 1990; Hanegraaff n.d.; Hawkins 1996; Hunt 1996; McDowell 1979, 1981; Morey 1980), none address the socially constructed and socially reinforced nature of their position. To do so would simply highlight the circularity."

http://www.cornerstonemag.com/cart/cowan1.htm (http://www.cornerstonemag.com/cart/cowan1.htm)

I responded to this very statement of Cowan's in an exchange that we had online; you can read it here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apolotalk/messages/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apolotalk/messages/)

The exchange is found in messages 13-22.

In brief, I showed that at least some of the writers whom Cowan cites here (I discussed my book on JWs and Craig Hawkins's book on Wicca) do not engage in circular reasoning on this subject and in fact were not going to great lengths to defend "biblical authority and exclusivity" at all. In my last post in that exchange, I explained also to Cowan that our failure to engage in sociological analysis is irrelevant. Here is what I said at the end of that post:


Here I will simply point out that Hawkins, Groothuis, and I (among others) are not making a sociological or historical argument in our books, and that we are philosophers and theologians by training who approach the religions about which we write from those vantage points. I would not expect a sociologist to make a theological argument unless he made a theological claim, and then of course I would expect him to back it up. Likewise, I do not think that one should expect a theologian or a philosopher to make a sociological argument unless he makes a sociological claim, and then of course he should back it up. Does this approach seem reasonable to you?
That's where the dialogue ended.

[shunyadragon]

Science is indoctrinated. None is born with all their scientific knowledge. We learn it when we go to school. That's why we go to school. Teaching = indoctrination. If we weren't taught science, we wouldn't know how to do it, right? Therefore, the above argument also proves that science is false. Since I know that you believe science to be true, this must mean that your premise is false (ie, that if X is only known by indoctrination, then it must be false).

However, since making the last post, I realised I glossed over an important detail. That is, it is impossible that science is completely indoctrinated. Because if it was, then one could not account for its origin. But simultaneously, I realised that the same is true of theism - if theism was only learned by indoctrination, then theism must have been known by the first human beings. And if it was known by them, who taught it to them? There was none around to indoctrinate them, right? They must have learned theism by some other method.The statement that science is indoctrinated does not refect the way science is taught. It is true that children do not know science and are taught science, but students are also taught to question science with skepticism, explore science with the scientific methods where the conduct experiments to test knowledge. This not true when children are taught theology. They are not taught to challenge and question beliefs, they are taught to believe. This is the meaning of indoctrination. Check your dictionary.


Even more damaging for your argument is that theism is not held by a select few, but has been held by the vast majority of all people in all places for all time - including societies that had been separated for millenia. If it is only learned by indoctrination, then how did it get to be so widespread? The evolution of theological beliefs is well known and universal with all the cultures of the world. I believe in God as the unversal source, but anthropologist can demonstrate that you do not need an outside source for theological beliefs to develop in cultures.


This disproves your argument by attacking premise 3 instead of 1. Premise 3 is false - there is something else about theism that causes people to believe it other than indoctrination. There is no other way to explain the existence of theistic belief (other than to claim that humans have always existed...). I'm going to assume that you would identify this other source as evolution - naturally, I will identify it as the revelation of God. That can be an argument for another day. Regardless of which of these two you choose, the relevant conclusion is the same: the above argument is unsound, and the conclusion unproven, and the original statement little more than a sound bite.There are plenty of ways to explain the beliefs. Can you explain the evolution of parallel beliefs in other cultures like the Native Americans and the Orient with the revelation form God claimed by Judeo-Christian traditions.

I would identify the source as God, but the result was evolution.

[Jezz]

The statement that science is indoctrinated does not refect the way science is taught. It is true that children do not know science and are taught science, but students are also taught to question science with skepticism, explore science with the scientific methods where the conduct experiments to test knowledge. This not true when children are taught theology. They are not taught to challenge and question beliefs, they are taught to believe. This is the meaning of indoctrination. Check your dictionary.
I disagree with some of what you have said, but I will not comment because even if true it's a red herring that's not relevant to the second argument.

Vork claimed that theism only survives by indoctrination. If that were the case, then where did it come from in the first place?


The evolution of theological beliefs is well known and universal with all the cultures of the world.
The theory that theological beliefs evolved (from animism to polytheism to monotheism) is certainly well known. Unfortunately, it is yet another modern-day myth. This theory was long ago debunked. It turns out that the "sky-God" phenomenon (belief in a benevolent, omnipotent Creator-God) is actually prevalent among the primitive cultures - the very cultures where the "theory of the evolution of religion" would predict that it would be absent. If anything, it seems more likely that polytheism and animism is a fall away from a more ancient monotheistic belief.


I believe in God as the unversal source,
So do I.


but anthropologist can demonstrate that you do not need an outside source for theological beliefs to develop in cultures.
And how, pray tell, did the anthropologists manage to demonstrate that? After all, if God is the universal source (as you seem to believe), there isn't an isolated culture that they can examine free of influence from an outside source. Every test sample they have is contaminated.


There are plenty of ways to explain the beliefs.
Of course there is. I will offer what I think is the best explanation below.

That was not the point of my post. As noted above, my post was a rebuttal to Vork's claim (paraphrased): "If it weren't for the fact that children were indoctrinated into their religion, theistic belief would die out." This is patently false, as even your own testimony here testifies. Theistic belief came from somewhere. Where did the first monotheist get the idea from? Clearly, it cannot have been from indoctrination. That was the original point. Do you at least agree with this - ie, that theism must come from something other than indoctrination?


Can you explain the evolution of parallel beliefs in other cultures like the Native Americans and the Orient with the revelation form God claimed by Judeo-Christian traditions.
Well no - I cannot explain the evolution of parallel beliefs, because (as I explained above) there was none.

As for the existence of parallel beliefs (ie, the "sky-god" phenomenon) - well, that I can explain quite easily. This is not a problem for Christianity. As a matter of fact, it's quite the other way around - the Judeo-Christian faith predicts that the sky-god phenomenon will be a more-or-less universal cultural phenomenon. The Bible and the Early Christian Fathers taught this ~2000 years ago, as did various OT writers even earlier. The existence of the sky-god phenomenon is actually fits the prediction of the Christian worldview - thus, it is evidence that the Christian worldview is correct.

[Vorkosigan]

Vork claimed that theism only survives by indoctrination. If that were the case, then where did it come from in the first place?

From the innate teleological biases that all humans have in order to function in a society of complex social primates.

The central problem of human social cognition is: how do know there are other minds? How do we know things in the world can have intentions? The answer is that we can't possiblity ever learn that; it is something built into our brains by millions of years of evolution, possessed to some degree by all animals.

Evolved into humans is a strong teleological bias -- a strong bias to impute intentions to things. We do this in ordinary intercourse -- "The man wants to give me a gift because his hand is extended with an object in it" but also, we do it to inanimate objects, all the time. Consider that humans will curse their computers, or make rude comments about the rain, as if it had rained on purpose, just to screw up their lives. These biases are necessary because in order to survive, we have to make guesses as to the intentions of things -- will the tiger pounce? asks about its intentions. Will Jane marry me? What is the likely effect of me not sharing this kill?

These habits of humans are fallout from our innate patterns of thinking -- imputing intentions. God too is fallout from that -- many people claim to "feel" that the universe has a higher purpose, but they are simply experiencing their own teleological biases.

Humans function by "bootstrapping" their cognitive processes into new domains. For example, humans use the logical relationships they have to solve social problems and apply them to other kinds of problems (research indicates that if logical problems are recast in social formats, humans solve them far more effectively than if they are presented in typical abstract formats: If ~A then ~P). The reason we're bad at statistical thinking is because social beings don't behave like dice, and the reason we have trouble with modern physics is because humans are evolved for a world that is Euclidean and Newtonian, rather than Einsteinian.

An important fallout of this tendency to impute purposes and intentions to things in the world is, of course, the supernatural. When you think about it, supernatural beings are really just disembodied minds. What is God but simply a gigantic mind, hanging in never-never-land? What is a ghost but a kind of mind? The idea that the world is composed of other minds is part and parcel of our evolutionary package, and it is the reason humans first thought of the supernatural -- which is really the belief that the universe has a purpose. What is the ID movement but an appeal to that innate bias? Most people reject the idea that they are just random beings in a heartless universe, because it is against everything that they are evolved to be (key links in networks of status-conscious social primates who easily form new social groups).

Indoctrination is necessary for the survival of specific beliefs -- there would be no Christianity if children weren't trained from birth to believe in it -- but it is unnecessary for the feelings and ideas that are the basis of religion -- the idea that the world is full of other minds, and that reality has a purpose.

Vorkosigan

[FormerFundy]

This recognizes that "facts" do not speak for themselves, but are interpreted according to paradigms largely formed from biases. But there is still such a thing as objective reality, which by definition is true regardless of what anyone thinks.

I agree that "facts" do not speak for themselves. They are not self-interpreting. For example, one could have been phsycially present at the crucifixion and the resurrection and had no idea what the meaning of these "historical" events were. They have to be intererpeted in accordance with the belief-system of the person observing.

This is the reason why presuppositional apologetes reject evidential apologetics.

[chsalvia]

The theory that theological beliefs evolved (from animism to polytheism to monotheism) is certainly well known. Unfortunately, it is yet another modern-day myth. This theory was long ago debunked.

Long ago debunked? I never received that memo. :wink:


It turns out that the "sky-God" phenomenon (belief in a benevolent, omnipotent Creator-God) is actually prevalent among the primitive cultures - the very cultures where the "theory of the evolution of religion" would predict that it would be absent. If anything, it seems more likely that polytheism and animism is a fall away from a more ancient monotheistic belief.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, Jezz. What early cultures believed in an omni-benevolent Creator “sky-God”? This sounds like Christians reading their own beliefs back into more primitive cultures.

Let’s take a look at what the earliest known cultures believed. The Sumerians, for one, according to the earliest records, did not believe in an omni-benevolent “sky-God”, but believed in a triad of major deities, An, Enlil and Enki, who themselves were created by more ancient deities. Furthermore, none of these gods created the world, but the water-God, Enki, established the cultural norms and order of nature and civilization. Mankind in fact, is said to be created from the mother-goddess and the water-God. The fact that mankind was created by a “mother-goddess”, Ninmah, Nammah or Ninhursag, is a very primitive belief, which probably arose from the simple observation that women give birth to children.

Here’s a translation of the original tablets where these myths are to be found:

http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcslmac.cgi?text=t.1.1.3#
http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcslmac.cgi?text=t.1.1.2#

There is no indication here that these beliefs came from a more primitive belief in an omni-potent sky-God, or monotheistic Creator God. In fact, all Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean creation myths explain that the creation was a collaborative effort, and was often the result of cosmic warfare. (cf. Enuma Elish, Babylonian Theogony, and the Atrahasis Epic.)

These primitive beliefs extended even into archaic Greece, e.g. Hesiod’s theogony, where mother-Earth, Gaia, and Ouranos, heaven, are the progenitors of all gods.

Where, in any of this, do you see a universal belief in a “sky-God” who created the universe? In fact, in the earliest myths, (the Sumerian/Babylonian myths), the sky-God, Anu is usually not very active. The establishment of civilization, and the ordering of nature as well as the creation of mankind is variously attributed to Enki or Ea, the water-god, along with the mother-goddess, or some national god, e.g. Marduk or Ashur. These gods themselves were begotten by more ancient gods, who in turn arose from a watery chaos.

[shunyadragon]

Long ago debunked? I never received that memo. :wink:I do not know of any debunking that has taken place. The natural evolution of theology has been demonstrated. Yes theologies similar to Christianity have evolved in other cultures isolated from Judeo-Christian beliefs.

In Buddhism Mahavairocana, the primordial Adi-Buddhi principle resides in heaven and never is manifest on earth. All Buddhis emanate from the Adi-Buddha. This 'Father God' of all Buddas (messiahs) is called 'Ta Jih' in Chinese and 'Dainichi' in Japanese meaning Great Sun. It is odd that many western theologians consider Buddhism agnostic or atheist. The understanding of Buddhism is not very clear from the narrow mind of western theology.

I do not think the Bible addressed the world view of primal religions directly. It would take some stretch of interpretation.

[Jezz]

From the innate teleological biases that all humans have in order to function in a society of complex social primates.
Right. As I suspected, you attribute the existence of theistic belief to evolution. In other words, you recognise that indoctrination by itself is not sufficient to explain why theism persists.

So now, do you recognise that when you said:

"Were it not for the fact that most people are indoctrinated as children, there would be no theism anywhere."

...you were incorrect?

I'll ignore the rest for now. This was the original point I was trying to make. The rest is a distraction in the context of this original point.

[Vorkosigan]

Right. As I suspected, you attribute the existence of theistic belief to evolution. In other words, you recognise that indoctrination by itself is not sufficient to explain why theism persists.

So now, do you recognise that when you said:

"Were it not for the fact that most people are indoctrinated as children, there would be no theism anywhere."

...you were incorrect?

No Jezz, "theism" is a specific supernatural stance, one among many. It has to be indoctrinated, just as the confucian belief in elemental chaos or the taoist belief in fly fairy immortals have to be indoctrinated as well. The teleological biases are just the basis for human belief in supernatural, its ground. How humans explain these biases to each other -- specific religious/supernatural stances -- that has to be indoctrinated.


I'll ignore the rest for now. This was the original point I was trying to make. The rest is a distraction in the context of this original point.

I am sorry to have confused you with difficult and novel ideas.

Vorkosigan

[Jezz]

No Jezz, "theism" is a specific supernatural stance, one among many. It has to be indoctrinated,
And we're back to where we started, and you still haven't answered the point...

Let me try and make this simple for you:

1. Theism as a stance has either existed eternally or it began a finite number of generations ago.
2. If it began a finite number of generations ago, then there was a group of people (perhaps a group as small as one person) who became the "first theists". Before this group, there were no theists.
3. The "first theists" could not have arrived at their beliefs via indoctrination.

It is as simple as that. Your statement "theism has to be indoctrinated" must be false, even by your own view of human history.

To try yet another way, try asking yourself this question: If theism must be indoctrinated, then where did the first theists get their belief from?


I am sorry to have confused you with difficult and novel ideas.
:rofl: Just because I can recognise a red herring when I see it does not mean that said red herring confused me. Red herrings are a diversionary tactic (one of many) used by people who can't shore up their core argument any other way. To engage it is only to lend an undeserved appearance of legitimacy to the diversion.

[Sheepdog]

my thought exactly. when someone rasies the charge of bias, the natural question should be, can you show me that the scholar's bias affected their ability to analyze the evidence?

now if i could dismiss the credibility of every skeptic because of bias, i'd be a happy man :smile:

[shunyadragon]

And we're back to where we started, and you still haven't answered the point...

Let me try and make this simple for you:

1. Theism as a stance has either existed eternally or it began a finite number of generations ago.
2. If it began a finite number of generations ago, then there was a group of people (perhaps a group as small as one person) who became the "first theists". Before this group, there were no theists.
3. The "first theists" could not have arrived at their beliefs via indoctrination.
True, but they could have made them up.


It is as simple as that. Your statement "theism has to be indoctrinated" must be false, even by your own view of human history.

To try yet another way, try asking yourself this question: If theism must be indoctrinated, then where did the first theists get their belief from?
I believe in the universal revelation from God, but considering the creative imagination of humans, I also fully realize they could have been easily invented by humans. There is clearly quit a diversity of colorful beliefs in the many cultures of the world and the theistic view is not exclusive to the Judeo-Christian belief.