Studying carefully and critically the literature pro and against the case for Jesus' resurrection, I've identified a consistent pattern of dishonesty, sophistry and double standard in some skeptical scholars which is very similar to the one typical of paranormal skeptics like Richard Wiseman and Ray Hyman. Like in the case of parapsychology, this pattern tends to support the thesis that skeptics don't have good arguments against the position that they attack (psi, in case of paranormal skeptics; or Jesus' resurrection, in case of New Testament skeptical scholars). So, they're forced to use sophistry in order to support their case.
I'm going to give irrefutable evidence for this contention, using as an example the leading and influential agnostic New Testament scholar and historian Bart Erhman.
Bart Ehrman: the scholar:
Remember that the 4 main historical facts used commonly as evidence for Jesus's resurrection are 1)The burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea; 2)the empty tomb; 3)Jesus' post mortem apparences and 4)The origin of the Christian belief. (Actually, there are at least 12 historical facts that could be quoted as part of the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection, but just the 4 mentioned above sufficy to make a reasonable minimal case for it).
In his early scholarly works, Ehrman was skeptical of some of these facts. However, in his most recent academic works, he accepted that the historical evidence for these 4 facts is historically good and reliable.
Let's see the references:
1-Regarding the burial by Joseph of Arimathea and the empty tomb, Ehrman wrote: "the earliest accounts we have are unanimous in saying that Jesus was in fact buried by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, so it's relatively reliable that that's what happened. We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later" (From Jesus to Constantine: Lecture 4, the teaching company, 2003).
Please, read the above paragraph very carefully, twice if necessary, because it is essential and crucial to my arguments below.
2-Regarding Jesus' post-mortem appearences, Ehrman wrote "we can say with some confidence that some of his disciples claimed to have seen Jesus alive" (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium, 1999, p. 200)
3-Regarding the origin of the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection, Ehrman wrote "For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution" (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium, 1999, 231)
Like most New Testament scholars, Ehrman agrees with the historicity of the 4 main facts mentioned as evidence for Jesus' Resurrection. Ehrman's disagreement is methodological: Historians don't have access to miracles or supernatural events; hence, an historian cannot accept Jesus' resurrection as an historical fact (even if it ocurred).
By the way, the above references reveal the wholly ignorant, strongly prejudiced and misguided comments by Alex Tsakiris about the debate between Ehrman and Craig. In Tsakiris' podcast in which he interviewed Chris Carter, Alex commented that "In fact, if you go on YouTube as I have, you can hear some of these debates where these very convincing, well-spoken scholars and historians like William Lane Craig who is one of the guys who is a Christian Apologist who does this a lot. In the background here I’m playing a little bit of a clip from his debate with Bart Ehrman, who is a biblical scholar who has come to the conclusion that some of these claims in the Bible and the most important claims in the Bible don’t really hold up historically... You see, in my mind if you listen to the debate between Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig, Bart Ehrman mops the floor with him. If you can really be objective and stack up the facts point by point on who really has the strongest argument, there’s really no contest. But if you’re a committed Christian and you really want to believe the Gospel story exactly the way that it’s written, you’ll find plenty of solace in William Lane Craig’s arguments."
Tsakiris' comments reveal the hostility, ignorance, ill-informed criticism and anti-Christian bigotry that I've discussed in my previous posts. As a matter of fact, the debate between Craig and Ehrman was about the historicity Jesus' resurrection, and in Ehrman's published works (as I've demostrated above) HE ACCEPTS ALL THE FACTS MENTIONED BY CRAIG AS EVIDENCE FOR JESUS' RESURRECTION! (So the debate wasn't mainly about the relevant "historical facts", but about the best explanation of these facts).
Hence, to which "facts" of the Bible that only Christians like Craig believe in, is Tsakiris referring to? To the 4 facts mentioned above? Obviously not, because these facts are agreed by most New Testament scholars, including Ehrman himself as I've demostrated above.
To Jesus's resurrection? Well, Ehrman himself doesn't deny it, he only denies the historian's competence to claim that it occured. So, Ehrman's argument is purely a methodological one.
And by the way, Ehrman's argument is based on Hume's argument against miracles (an argument which is used also by contemporary skeptics like Wiseman against paranormal and afterlife claims), but which most philosophers (including Chris Carter) consider fallacious and invalid. In fact, I must suppose that Tsaskiris reject Hume's argument too, otherwise he would have to reject a priori the evidence for parapsychology and the afterlife and wouldn't be sympathetic to these matters. (And note that Hume's argument applies both to miracles and paranormal claims too, even if the latter are not miraculous. Hume's argument, if sound, would apply to the latter too and this is why skeptics like Randi, Shermer or Wiseman use it, in the form of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence")
If Tsakiris rejects Hume's argument against miracles in order to reject skeptical objections against the paranormal and the afterlife, then he cannot buy into Erhman's argument either. So which is the motive of Tsakiris' sympathies to Ehrman's case? Exactly in which part of his debate with Criag was Ehrman sweeping the floor with him?
If Tsakiris were cognizant of the technical literature about Jesus' resurrection, he would know that Ehrman was misleading the audience in his debate with Craig, because Ehrman was affecting a skeptical position which himself rejects as false and historially unjustified. He was falsely being skeptic of historical facts that in his own published work he has accepted as "historical facts" which can be reliably accepted with some confidence based on the historical evidence alone.
That Erhman mopped the floor with Craig? Well, regarding the 4 facts mentioned by Craig, it is impossible, since Erhman accepts all of them in his own published works. Regarding Jesus' resurrection? Impossible, since Craig met Ehrman's Humean challenge using the work of agnostic philosopher of science John Erman, who proved (using Bayes' theorem of probability) that Hume's argument is demostrably fallacious (in fact, John Erman's book is entitled "Hume's Abject Failure"). Bart Ehrman hadn't any answer to Craig's technical argument against Hume.
So, clearly Taskiris watched the debate with his anti-Christian wishful thinking glasses, not with the objective, rational and academically responsible classes of the best scholarly literature on Jesus' Resurrection (including Ehrman's) and the best works of philosophy regarding Hume's argument, Bayes' theorem and probability theory.
This kind of anti-intellectualism, prejudice and arrogant ignorance (masked with the language of science, "facts" and objectivity) is common in some paranormal circles, and it is one of the reasons why most philosophers, scientists and scholars in general, even open minded ones (like the authors of the book The Quantum Enigma) don't like to be associated with these
groups.
I've been increasingly dissapointed with this lack of intellectual rigour, ignorance and prejudiced bigotry which exist in some paranormal circles.
Bart Ehrman: The Debater
People unfamiliar with Erhman's own academic works, like Tsakiris, will be taken in by Ehrman's claims in his debate with Craig. In this debate and fully unable to reply consistently to Craig's arguments, Ehrman was forced to deny his own claims (published in his academic works) in order to contradict Craig¡s case.
For example, we see above that Ehrman considered that Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathea is relatively reliable because it appears unanimously in the earliest historical sources (This is the reason why most New Testament scholars, including atheists, accept this as a historical fact).
However, for debating purposes and in order to contradict Craig and undermine his case, Ehrman said in his debate with Craig "We don’t know if Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea."
Note Ehrman's affected and purely speculative skepticism, which is totally contrary to the claims that he has made in his own published academic works regarding Jesus' burial. Ehrman the scholar is different than Ehrman the debater.
Regarding the empty tomb, remember that Erhman has published that "We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later"
But these "solid traditions" that have convinced the scholar Ehrman and most scholars of the historicity of the empty tomb is, for debating purposes, "forgotten" by Ehrman the "debater", who said (in his debate with Craig): "We don’t know if his tomb was empty three days later."
Regarding Jesus' post-mortem appearences, remember that Ehrman the scholar has written in his scholarly works that "we can say with some confidence that some of his disciples claimed to have seen Jesus alive" and "For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution"
However, Ehrman the debater has a different opinion about this historical fact: "We don’t know if he was physically seen by his followers afterwards."
You can see how Ehrman the scholar/historian is different than the Erhman the debater. In the context of a debate, Ehrman is prepared to lie and misrepresent the evidence, even openly contradicting and publicly destroying his own published academic works, just in order to win the argument in front of an audience which, like Tsakiris, is solidly ignorant of the evidence and of Ehrman's own academic works explicitly supporting the evidence.
Analogy with Richard Wiseman and Ray Hyman:
Skeptics of the paranormal make use of the same tactics than Ehrman.
For example, Wiseman one day can say that "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven" (link here) and the next day to appear in TV saying that there is not good scientific evidence for remote viewing.
Ray Hyman can say one day that the evidence for the SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research.
And the next day he can publish an article on the Skeptical Inquirer saying that no good evidence for remote viewing exists.
This kind of duplicity, dishonesty and sophistry suggests that the case for skepticism regarding these matters is very weak, and this is why the skeptics in question make use of such a tactics.
If pushed against a corner (like Erhman was in his debate with Craig), I'm sure that skeptics like Wiseman and Hyman would contradict his own published statements too, if it is strategially useful to debating purposes or to convince a given ignorant audience that the evidence for psi is not good.
I'm going to give irrefutable evidence for this contention, using as an example the leading and influential agnostic New Testament scholar and historian Bart Erhman.
Bart Ehrman: the scholar:
Remember that the 4 main historical facts used commonly as evidence for Jesus's resurrection are 1)The burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea; 2)the empty tomb; 3)Jesus' post mortem apparences and 4)The origin of the Christian belief. (Actually, there are at least 12 historical facts that could be quoted as part of the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection, but just the 4 mentioned above sufficy to make a reasonable minimal case for it).
In his early scholarly works, Ehrman was skeptical of some of these facts. However, in his most recent academic works, he accepted that the historical evidence for these 4 facts is historically good and reliable.
Let's see the references:
1-Regarding the burial by Joseph of Arimathea and the empty tomb, Ehrman wrote: "the earliest accounts we have are unanimous in saying that Jesus was in fact buried by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, so it's relatively reliable that that's what happened. We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later" (From Jesus to Constantine: Lecture 4, the teaching company, 2003).
Please, read the above paragraph very carefully, twice if necessary, because it is essential and crucial to my arguments below.
2-Regarding Jesus' post-mortem appearences, Ehrman wrote "we can say with some confidence that some of his disciples claimed to have seen Jesus alive" (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium, 1999, p. 200)
3-Regarding the origin of the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection, Ehrman wrote "For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution" (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium, 1999, 231)
Like most New Testament scholars, Ehrman agrees with the historicity of the 4 main facts mentioned as evidence for Jesus' Resurrection. Ehrman's disagreement is methodological: Historians don't have access to miracles or supernatural events; hence, an historian cannot accept Jesus' resurrection as an historical fact (even if it ocurred).
By the way, the above references reveal the wholly ignorant, strongly prejudiced and misguided comments by Alex Tsakiris about the debate between Ehrman and Craig. In Tsakiris' podcast in which he interviewed Chris Carter, Alex commented that "In fact, if you go on YouTube as I have, you can hear some of these debates where these very convincing, well-spoken scholars and historians like William Lane Craig who is one of the guys who is a Christian Apologist who does this a lot. In the background here I’m playing a little bit of a clip from his debate with Bart Ehrman, who is a biblical scholar who has come to the conclusion that some of these claims in the Bible and the most important claims in the Bible don’t really hold up historically... You see, in my mind if you listen to the debate between Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig, Bart Ehrman mops the floor with him. If you can really be objective and stack up the facts point by point on who really has the strongest argument, there’s really no contest. But if you’re a committed Christian and you really want to believe the Gospel story exactly the way that it’s written, you’ll find plenty of solace in William Lane Craig’s arguments."
Tsakiris' comments reveal the hostility, ignorance, ill-informed criticism and anti-Christian bigotry that I've discussed in my previous posts. As a matter of fact, the debate between Craig and Ehrman was about the historicity Jesus' resurrection, and in Ehrman's published works (as I've demostrated above) HE ACCEPTS ALL THE FACTS MENTIONED BY CRAIG AS EVIDENCE FOR JESUS' RESURRECTION! (So the debate wasn't mainly about the relevant "historical facts", but about the best explanation of these facts).
Hence, to which "facts" of the Bible that only Christians like Craig believe in, is Tsakiris referring to? To the 4 facts mentioned above? Obviously not, because these facts are agreed by most New Testament scholars, including Ehrman himself as I've demostrated above.
To Jesus's resurrection? Well, Ehrman himself doesn't deny it, he only denies the historian's competence to claim that it occured. So, Ehrman's argument is purely a methodological one.
And by the way, Ehrman's argument is based on Hume's argument against miracles (an argument which is used also by contemporary skeptics like Wiseman against paranormal and afterlife claims), but which most philosophers (including Chris Carter) consider fallacious and invalid. In fact, I must suppose that Tsaskiris reject Hume's argument too, otherwise he would have to reject a priori the evidence for parapsychology and the afterlife and wouldn't be sympathetic to these matters. (And note that Hume's argument applies both to miracles and paranormal claims too, even if the latter are not miraculous. Hume's argument, if sound, would apply to the latter too and this is why skeptics like Randi, Shermer or Wiseman use it, in the form of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence")
If Tsakiris rejects Hume's argument against miracles in order to reject skeptical objections against the paranormal and the afterlife, then he cannot buy into Erhman's argument either. So which is the motive of Tsakiris' sympathies to Ehrman's case? Exactly in which part of his debate with Criag was Ehrman sweeping the floor with him?
If Tsakiris were cognizant of the technical literature about Jesus' resurrection, he would know that Ehrman was misleading the audience in his debate with Craig, because Ehrman was affecting a skeptical position which himself rejects as false and historially unjustified. He was falsely being skeptic of historical facts that in his own published work he has accepted as "historical facts" which can be reliably accepted with some confidence based on the historical evidence alone.
That Erhman mopped the floor with Craig? Well, regarding the 4 facts mentioned by Craig, it is impossible, since Erhman accepts all of them in his own published works. Regarding Jesus' resurrection? Impossible, since Craig met Ehrman's Humean challenge using the work of agnostic philosopher of science John Erman, who proved (using Bayes' theorem of probability) that Hume's argument is demostrably fallacious (in fact, John Erman's book is entitled "Hume's Abject Failure"). Bart Ehrman hadn't any answer to Craig's technical argument against Hume.
So, clearly Taskiris watched the debate with his anti-Christian wishful thinking glasses, not with the objective, rational and academically responsible classes of the best scholarly literature on Jesus' Resurrection (including Ehrman's) and the best works of philosophy regarding Hume's argument, Bayes' theorem and probability theory.
This kind of anti-intellectualism, prejudice and arrogant ignorance (masked with the language of science, "facts" and objectivity) is common in some paranormal circles, and it is one of the reasons why most philosophers, scientists and scholars in general, even open minded ones (like the authors of the book The Quantum Enigma) don't like to be associated with these
groups.I've been increasingly dissapointed with this lack of intellectual rigour, ignorance and prejudiced bigotry which exist in some paranormal circles.
Bart Ehrman: The Debater
People unfamiliar with Erhman's own academic works, like Tsakiris, will be taken in by Ehrman's claims in his debate with Craig. In this debate and fully unable to reply consistently to Craig's arguments, Ehrman was forced to deny his own claims (published in his academic works) in order to contradict Craig¡s case.
For example, we see above that Ehrman considered that Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathea is relatively reliable because it appears unanimously in the earliest historical sources (This is the reason why most New Testament scholars, including atheists, accept this as a historical fact).
However, for debating purposes and in order to contradict Craig and undermine his case, Ehrman said in his debate with Craig "We don’t know if Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea."
Note Ehrman's affected and purely speculative skepticism, which is totally contrary to the claims that he has made in his own published academic works regarding Jesus' burial. Ehrman the scholar is different than Ehrman the debater.
Regarding the empty tomb, remember that Erhman has published that "We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later"
But these "solid traditions" that have convinced the scholar Ehrman and most scholars of the historicity of the empty tomb is, for debating purposes, "forgotten" by Ehrman the "debater", who said (in his debate with Craig): "We don’t know if his tomb was empty three days later."
Regarding Jesus' post-mortem appearences, remember that Ehrman the scholar has written in his scholarly works that "we can say with some confidence that some of his disciples claimed to have seen Jesus alive" and "For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution"
However, Ehrman the debater has a different opinion about this historical fact: "We don’t know if he was physically seen by his followers afterwards."
You can see how Ehrman the scholar/historian is different than the Erhman the debater. In the context of a debate, Ehrman is prepared to lie and misrepresent the evidence, even openly contradicting and publicly destroying his own published academic works, just in order to win the argument in front of an audience which, like Tsakiris, is solidly ignorant of the evidence and of Ehrman's own academic works explicitly supporting the evidence.
Analogy with Richard Wiseman and Ray Hyman:
Skeptics of the paranormal make use of the same tactics than Ehrman.
For example, Wiseman one day can say that "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven" (link here) and the next day to appear in TV saying that there is not good scientific evidence for remote viewing.
Ray Hyman can say one day that the evidence for the SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research.
And the next day he can publish an article on the Skeptical Inquirer saying that no good evidence for remote viewing exists.
This kind of duplicity, dishonesty and sophistry suggests that the case for skepticism regarding these matters is very weak, and this is why the skeptics in question make use of such a tactics.
If pushed against a corner (like Erhman was in his debate with Craig), I'm sure that skeptics like Wiseman and Hyman would contradict his own published statements too, if it is strategially useful to debating purposes or to convince a given ignorant audience that the evidence for psi is not good.
They will prefer to look inconsistent instead of being wrong regarding his cherished skeptical beliefs.
0 comments:
Post a Comment