Steven Carr

Gary Habermas writes 'Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority.'

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles...s_3-2_2005.htm

If one quarter of professional biologists doubted Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, creationists would be trumpeting that fact from the rooftops and claiming that the theory was in enormous trouble.

Even I would claim that the theory of natural selection was controversial if *one quarter* of professional biologists disputed it.

If 25% of astrophysicists thought there were good arguments against the Big Bang, would Big Bang theory be a) undisputed or b) controversial?

Even defenders of the resurrection have to admit that their theories are in big trouble.

Peter Kirby

One or more arguments do oppose it. It is my burden to prove this in my essay in The Empty Tomb. 75% are the ignorant majority, if he is correct about the 75% figure.

Johnny Skeptic

What I would like to know is what evidence the 75% based their conclusions on.

Steven Carr

That wasn't really my point.

I don't know how accurate Habermas's figures are, but if one quarter of scientists rejected evolution, few Christians would claim that evolution was a fact which must be accepted.

I would join them!

Why then does Habermas base his apologetic on 'facts accepted by a majority', when his own figures indicate how controversial his 'facts' are?

Toto

Habermas is not using a scientific notion of proof. I believe that he and other apologists are implicitly using the working legal notion of proof - if you can introduce some expert testimony to the jury that supports your position, and the jury agrees, then the jury verdict will stand. Sometimes it is just a question of finding an "expert" who will allow the jury to act on its own prejudices, not necessarily the most competant expert.

I have never seen this made explicit, but it is the only sense I can make of it. It is why apologetics can be so frustrating - the arguments flow so facilely, but I can only picture an attorney calling a paid expert to the stand to testify about something that he hopes to get away with, damn all attempt to actually figure out the real facts.

Doug Shaver

I think a more significant datum is one he gives here:

Thus, the community of critical scholars is working under a persistent assumption that (a) there was a historical Jesus and (b) the gospels do record, however inaccurately and with however many legendary embellishments, some factual data about the man and his followers.

What I have yet to see, from either conservative or liberal scholars, believers or skeptics, a good justification for that joint assumption.

achristianbeliever

And yet how many of the professional historians and scholars believe Jesus existed? I don't believe its 75% believer and 25% disbelieve pretty much it seems 99% if not more do believe he did. Does that somehow show the skeptics who claim he didn't exist are dumb? Skeptics can't have it both ways.

Either the belief of Jesus historicity by historians and scholars show those who disbelief his existence are dumb just as the belief of evolution by biologists show that disbelievers of it are dumb, or what the historians and biologists believe doesn't mean anything skeptics cannot have it both ways.

My other question then is apparently 25% is enough for us to believe something is questionable. Well what about 24%, 15%, 10%? How far down are we allowed to go? I mean there are biologists somewhere out there who don't believe in evolution for whatever reason whether religious doctrination, or their just not smart or they know something other people don't. When exactly does percentage become important and who gets to decide?

This is why I pretty much ignore percentage because it doesn't show anything. I prefer looking at the arguments and coming up with my own conclusion based on my own opinion of the facts. I think its dumb to say well I'm in good company because 25% agree with me. Because then if 99% of experts disagree with you then you have to accept that as some sort of proof against you.

Toto

achristianbeliever - your are right that we should not accept arguments from percentage of authorities.

The problem is that humans are prone to make mistakes, and we can be more confident in our decisions if other rational people agree. If you think that you have logically proven something, but you can't convince anyone else, there's probably a problem in your logic.

So a consensus of experts is significant, even if it shouldn't be the end of the discussion.

Johnny Skeptic

Ok, experts aside, what evidence do you have where Jesus was buried?

achristianbeliever

What evidence is acceptable? After all the idea that Jesus was buried is a non-extraordinary claim. But because its connected to an extraordinary claim (ie. the resurrection) does that mean the burial itself also requires extraordinary evidence?

If the answer is no then what is your minimalist criteria to show the historicity of any non-extraordinary claim? And then give me an example of an historical event which does just meet this minimal criteria then I can compare the two and find out if I do have any evidence which does meet your standard.