Originally Posted by Ecrasez L'infame

One of the reasons that I do not accept Creationism is that the overwhelming majority of professional biologists - if not all of them - tell me that the evidence indicates it is wrong. Nevertheless, I DO accept the possibility that there may not have been a historical Jesus, even though here the overwhelming majority of professional biblical scholars - if not all of them - tell me that the evidence indicates there was such a person. In one case I reject a theory because it is fringe, in the other I allow a theory is possible despite it being fringe. This is clearly double-standards, but is it justified?

The problem is inspired by a conversation I had recently. A friend of mine, an accountant, told me he doubted whether evolution was true. I knew he knew little about the subject, so my response was to tell him to get a doctorate in it - about six years full-time work from scratch - and then to see what he thinks. Of course, this is overkill; my friend is intelligent, and needed only to read half a dozen popular and easily available books by professional biologists - he would soon have changed his mind. But it wasn't simply that he was ignorant that made me react so strongly; rather I felt that, as a complete amateur in a scientific field, he isn't even entitled to hold an opinion. Professional biologists spend their lives thinking about these matters - obviously any paltry objection or argument he could come up after five minutes wool-gathering would have been considered and "again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rate scholars". In short: if just about every biologist in the world accepts evolution theory as true, my friend had no right to disagree.

Now, suppose my friend had answered that I should be able to convince him, to present the arguments and the facts and to persuade him. It so happens that I know a little about evolution, so I could have tried; but, as I say, my friend is smart, and starts seeing holes in the arguments I make that I'd never thought of, and before I know it he has me on the run. What follows? Do I conclude that I was wrong, he was right, and evolution is untrue? Of course not - what follows is that I decide I don't know the arguments and facts as well as I should; but I have no doubt that one of the aforementioned professional biologists would be able to show both of us where we were wrong, and easily persuade us that evolution is a true theory. In other words, for non-specialists, we can try to follow the arguments and weigh the evidence for ourselves; but because these matters are complex and we have limited time and knowledge, there comes a point where we simply have to trust the experts - we simply have to accept the argument from authority.

Now, I used the above phrase "again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rate scholars" deliberately, of course; it's the usual response by professional biblical scholars to the suggestion that there may not have been a historical Jesus (cited in Grant, I believe, but I can't remember who he got it from). So, my challenge to Mythicists (with whom, as I say, I have sympathy) is: replace all occasions of the word "biologist" in he above story with "biblical scholar", and "evolution" with "HJ". What's the difference? How can I unhesitantly accept the argument from authority in one case, and ignore it in the other?

Thanks

Robert

Originally Posted by Malach151

Then you have a small handful, like those by J.P. Meier, which are scholarly, but obviously admit of a greatly diminished view of both Jesus and the Gospels.

Originally Posted by Ecrasez L'infame

How can I unhesitantly accept the argument from authority in one case, and ignore it in the other?

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Read Meier as I have quoted him in the link above. I think you need to reconsider.
I find Sanders sorta rational but humstrung by his own preconceptions. I want to review his book. Anybody here knows about his religious affiliations?

Originally Posted by No Robots

It is a myth that there is a scientific consensus on evolution. See here.

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

It is certainly not a myth with regard to the consensus of scientific experts in relevant fields but discussions about evolution belong in the forum with that name. That would be the appropriate place to improve your understanding of the subject.

Originally Posted by No Robots

It is a myth that there is a scientific consensus on evolution. See here.

Originally Posted by Malachi151

When did historical Jesus because verified and justifiability known to exist?

Originally Posted by doctorzb

I still am HJ because this does not explain Mark, and the "Mark is constructed from the OT because certain passages have extremely slight resemblences" seems silly, and from the text I don't get the impression Mark is just making stuff up--In short, a living minor leader of some kind is not an extraordinary claim, so I accept it by default until I have compelling reasons not to.