gstafleu

The thing is of course: there is no such thing as "evolutionism." If I "believe" in DNA, does that make me a "DNA-ist"? If I think that action=reaction holds true, am I then an actionist, reactionist or Newtonist? Evolution is a well established scientific theory, and there is no such thing as a "well-established-theory-ist." It's just called a scientist.

Gerard Stafleu

Jeffrey Gibson

What has this to do with how it is you know what you claimed to know?

Actually, in the interest of accuracy what he(?) actually said was that "it's clear to sociologists of religion that religious beliefs correlate very highly with the religious beliefs of one's parents."

He did not say that "sociologists of religion have determined" anything, let alone that "the religious beliefs of one's parents" is the basis for almost all religious identification".

Are you doing a Pete?

Jeffrey

Toto

Do you understand the difference between conversational English and mathematical formulae? Do you understand paraphrases?

If anything is clear to sociologists, it is only because they have done the research to determine that it is so, so the two statements are close enough for this thread.

The point here is that scientists base their belief in evolution on the scientific method, postmodernists to the contrary. (How many diseases have postmodernists cured?) Christians, however, almost always base their belief in Christianity on personal, social, or cultural factors. The OP was inspired by a particular Christian apologist (Mike Licona) who claims to have a logical proof of the truth of Christianity, and part of his argument is that NT scholars have determined certain facts about early Christianity. He has also denied that these scholars are mostly Christian and likely to be biased in favor of certain arguments.

Does this context clarify the direction of the thread? Perhaps it was not clear.

Jeffrey Gibson

I undertsand that paraphrases are often inaccurate representations of the statements they work from. Look at Pete's.

So you say. But do you know this for a fact? After all, they may just be repeating what a previous generation of sociologists have said was the case.

Says the one who made the second statement.

I thought they based it on what the use of the scientific method has shown them and on the explanatory and predictive power of the theory.

When did postmodernism, let alone how many diseases it's cured (??), become a dog in this hunt?

And I ask again -- how do you know that this is the case?

And in any event, I thought the topic of this thread was not why Christians believe what they do, but whether most NT scholars are Christians and what, if any effect, their being so, if they are, has upon their scholarly integrity.

I know what the question in the OP was inspired by. But what inspired the question in the OP is neither here nore there. The only thing that's important and/or relevant in the light of the question raised in the OP is the validity of the answers given to the question -- especially if the answer given is that it's true that most NT scholars are Christians. Leaving aside the fact that few if any have actually specified who it is that is being talked about when we speak of "NT scholars", I''ve so far rarely seen any hard evidence offered that supports the idea/claim that they are. Most of what has been offered here in support of this claim/idea has been supposition based on supposition.

Yes. And it also shows -- at least to my eyeys -- both that the direction of the thread is distinctly away from the OP and that it's been derailed by the "contributions" to it that you've been making.

Jeffrey

Toto

I have read fairly extensively on the subject, which I gather you have not, since you don't seem to know that the previous generation of sociologists did not say that.

Would you like to explain what you think the difference is in those two statements, or are you just trying to be difficult?

Some postmodernists think that the scientific method is just one way of knowing, a social cultural artifact and should not be privileged over other ways of knowing, which would make "evolutionism" just a cultural choice, like Christianity.

A combination of studying the academic research on the question and personal experience which conforms to these studies. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? I think I am restating a well known fact.

Says the one who can drag anything off topic on some irrelevant nitpick.

If you notice, the OP was a bit vague, which allowed the discussion to wander a bit. The OP didn't mention scholarly integrity or hidden biases, although one might assume that was the basis of the question. But if you are familiar with Licona's arguments, you would know that the real basis of the question was slightly different.

Have a nice day, Jeffrey.

Jeffrey Gibson

You are stating your explanation of your claim in a way that is so broad and so general that your claim about what is a fact not only cannot help but be true, but which is made true by definition. As such it is meaningless. What other factors that lead to, or which could be noted as the basis of, someone's believing in anything, let alone "Christianity" are there that are not -- and which cannot be legitimately labeled-- personal, social, or cultural?


Jeffrey

Toto

I was attempting to distinguish scientific investigation which attempts (and sometimes succeeds) in transcending personal, social, and cultural prejudices and inclinations.

Jeffrey Gibson

How can they if those who are engaged in them are, as they must be, being creatures of their cultures, have had to have come to believe what they believe about science, the nature of the world, and the value of engaging in science because of factors which are, and by definition have to be, personal, social, and cultural?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

That's nice. But it's not an answer to my question.

Jeffrey

Toto

Are you now or have you ever been a post-modernist?

Like I said, have a nice day.