Habermas Debunked

[Neon Genesis]

 

I only read this from Nathaniel "This is just false: the majority of biblical scholars are not Christians of any stripe at all, and of those who consider themselves Christians, most do not believe the Bible to be inerrant or inspired in any sense." And I knew that he's an idiot.

 

He's probably right that a large number of the biblical scholars don't believe in the inerrant word, but I'm quite sure most of them are Christian. Why else would they be biblical scholars? Not all of them can be like Bart Ehrman and love the cultural inheritance and read the bible like a Shakespeare-ian literature.

 

And of course, if a biblical scholar believe Jesus was God's son, died, and was resurrected by God for salvation for everyone (which is kind of the foundation for Habermas study) then they of course would be Christian! It's like having a study on what Ford owners think about their cars, and the response back is that 70% think the car is good but 30% think it's not, and then the apologist claims that these Ford owners do not own a Ford.

Actually Nathanial is correct that most bible scholars are either liberal Christians who don't believe in biblical inerrancy like the Jesus Seminar or secular scholars. Bart D Ehrman says himself in Jesus Interrupted that the views he endorses in that book are the mainstream view of biblical scholars and aren't really anything new. Ehrman says the problem is that most pastors at church learn this stuff about the Q gospel at bible school but don't tell their churches about it. He relates one story where he taught bible scholarship to one congregation and one Christian woman was upset not because of what Ehrman said but because she never heard it before even though their pastor knew about it. The Q gospel theories are the mainstream biblical scholarship view. It's just not being communicated to churches effectively.

[Ouroboros]

 

I only read this from Nathaniel "This is just false: the majority of biblical scholars are not Christians of any stripe at all, and of those who consider themselves Christians, most do not believe the Bible to be inerrant or inspired in any sense."

...

Actually Nathanial is correct that most bible scholars are either liberal Christians who don't believe in biblical inerrancy like the Jesus Seminar or secular scholars.

Can you find the differences?

 

You are then suggesting that a liberal Christian is not a Christian of any stripes at all. That's very contradictory.

 

I agree, most of the scholars are liberal Christians, but that is not to say they are not Christian of any stripe. Those two categories are separated by the label "Christian."

 

Bart D Ehrman says himself in Jesus Interrupted that the views he endorses in that book are the mainstream view of biblical scholars and aren't really anything new. Ehrman says the problem is that most pastors at church learn this stuff about the Q gospel at bible school but don't tell their churches about it. He relates one story where he taught bible scholarship to one congregation and one Christian woman was upset not because of what Ehrman said but because she never heard it before even though their pastor knew about it. The Q gospel theories are the mainstream biblical scholarship view. It's just not being communicated to churches effectively.

Sure.

 

And Bart also admitted that many of the scholars maintain a belief in Jesus and Christianity; however, their belief is not literalistic or extreme as before. They are just another form of Christian, not not-Christian.

 

Big difference.

 

I maintain that Nate is wrong in his statistical judgment.

[Neon Genesis]

 

Two of the 'facts' particularly have been plaguing me, that of James and Paul changing from, one a skeptic, the other a sworn enemy, to believers.

Another problem with this argument is that James and Paul were not skeptics of any sense of the word. Paul was a devout Pharisee and James was a Jew. They both already accepted the supernatural and believed in God and miracles. A skeptic is someone who demands evidence to accept a fact and relies on the scientific method to determine what is true. Given that the scientific method wasn't formed back then and there were no skeptics in the ancient world, it is silly to assert that James and Paul were "skeptics" just because they believed in a religion different from Christianity and just because Paul actively opposed Christianity doesn't make him a skeptic. They were believers who converted to another form of believers. It would be like arguing that since Osama bin Laden is opposed to Christianity, Osama bin Laden must be a skeptic and if he converted to Christianity, it would somehow miraculously prove the bible is real.

[bdp]

A thought occurred to me - Habermas polls these 'new testament scholars' about his trifling little 'facts' and whether they agree or not, but has he ever polled them as to whether they concur with his assumption that a supernatural resurrection of a dead body is the most likely explanation for his list of select 'facts'? I'd bet not, and I bet if he did he'd get a fairly low percentage of agreement.

[Vigile]

 

I recently got an insight into how the PhD program works and the politics involved. Since Habermas got a PhD, I suspect that the whole MF idea was his dissertation. He has to defend the idea that got him his PhD, otherwise, his whole house of cards will fall apart.

 

yep.

 

The whole 'minimal facts' thing is ruminating in my mind (pretty big word for a non PhD) and I'm sure, at some point, I'll post a point by point rebuttal of it, completely of my own and without opinion but with solid fact. I'm deeply insulted by this idea that you have to have a PhD to have solid insights into these matters, and that if you don't fall down in worship of his methodology then you haven't read Habermas.

 

Seems the entire premise of the argument hinges on an appeal to authority. You accept as fact x, y, and z because most scholars do.

 

Not only is an appeal to authority a logical fallacy, in this instance it is even more problematic, given that biblical scholars tend to be believers, who are not persuaded by the evidence as in other fields, but who look for evidence to bolster their beliefs, which is unique to this field of study.

[Ouroboros]

Seems the entire premise of the argument hinges on an appeal to authority. You accept as fact x, y, and z because most scholars do.

That's how I see it too.

 

Somehow Habermas and those who stand behind him argue that it is not appeal to authority, but I could never really grasp their excuse for why it is not.

 

My comparison, which falls flat because it seems like I never can really transfer my thoughts into text well enough, is how many Physical/Biological Anthropologists accepts/believe in different aspects of the Theory of Evolution. I'm certain that 99.99% are certain that we have a common ancestor to the apes. So by using Habermas' method, Evolution is more certain than Jesus' resurrection. So why don't they believe in Evolution then?

 

It's obvious that facts can't be established through opinions, even if those opinions come from experts in the field. Evolution is not evident because of all the opinions of the scientists, but because of the evidence they provide.

 

Not only is an appeal to authority a logical fallacy, in this instance it is even more problematic, given that biblical scholars tend to be believers, who are not persuaded by the evidence as in other fields, but who look for evidence to bolster their beliefs, which is unique to this field of study.

Very true. But I'm careful to use that as an refutation because only because someone has a preconceived notion that they're right about something doesn't make that thing wrong. They might have gone the wrong way about finding some truth, but it doesn't mean that it could still be true. But I agree. Their method is backwards.

[oddbird1963]

This Point of Inquiry Podcast featuring an interview with Hector Avalos gives some insight into the believer bias among the scholars who engage in the field of biblical studies.

 

Avalos is pushing for a more secularized approach to the field of biblical studies. The fact that the majority of seats for scholars are found not at public universities, but at seminaries and other religious academic institutions is an obstacle to this goal.

 

Habermas' effort MIGHT be more respectable if the field approached the material like a classics scholar approaches Homer. But when you are having devotionals and prayer at Society of Biblical Literature symposiums, the accusation of bias seems much more realistic.

[Vigile]

 

 

I think in addition to the appeal to authority fallacy, he then moves on to make a major non sequitur. Believe Jesus existed. Check. Believe he said the things attributed to him. Check. Believe the tomb was empty. Check. >>> For the first and last time in the history of the world, a man died and rose again. Does not follow.

 

Not one rational person on this planet will accept these premises lead to that conclusion. At best, assuming they are all true, they point logically toward Jesus being an illusionist no different than Copperfield.

[Ouroboros]

I think in addition to the appeal to authority fallacy, he then moves on to make a major non sequitur. Believe Jesus existed. Check. Believe he said the things attributed to him. Check. Believe the tomb was empty. Check. >>> For the first and last time in the history of the world, a man died and rose again. Does not follow.

Right.

 

It's like Robert Price explained once, even if the alternative, natural explanations seems very impossible, they are still more plausible than a one-time miracle.

 

Put it this way, the swoon hypothesis or mythical Jesus, however how much they would seem to be impossible, they're more probable anyway because miracles are by nature things that normally do not happen, i.e. miracles are by definition impossible, implausible, and improbable, otherwise they wouldn't be miracles.

 

So by saying that resurrection happened and was a miracle, is the same as saying an event happened that cannot happen. Miracles are as rare as anything ever can be. And compare that to alternative explanations that can happen, but just are really somewhat rare.

 

 

Not one rational person on this planet will accept these premises lead to that conclusion. At best, assuming they are all true, they point logically toward Jesus being an illusionist no different than Copperfield.

It's one of the more likely explanations. Jesus as a magician. Even if it's an extreme explanation, it's less extreme than a miracle.

[bdp]

Yes - the 'facts', such as they are, are mundane things that need no supernatural explanation.

 

Do you suppose that LNC has just somehow failed to notice this thread?

[stryper]

 

In ALL of these institutions, the idea of academic freedom is a joke at best.

 

 

 

Secular and religious both. If you don't play the politics, then you get slammed.