Originally Posted by Sauron

You have people who have staked their immortal souls on certain beliefs and doctrines, and have also decided that faith -- not evidence -- is how they will navigate the difficult parts.

In what way is that a good basis for doing biblical research?


No. I disagree that this is just two sides of the same coin, and people who make that claim are short-sighted.

Situation A:
1. If someone were a hard-nosed agnostic, it would do them no harm to admit that there was a Hebrew presence in Egypt (for example). The jump may be uncomfortable, but since the agnostic has signed up for evidence as the final arbitrator of such questions, he's on the hook and can't get off it. He will be roasted by his own professed standard, if he ignores any (alleged) evidence supporting a Hebrew presence in Egypt.

2. Moreover, his position is not absolutist: he can admit the existence of many things alleged in the bible, without giving up his agnostic viewpoint. He may be reluctant to do so, but in the end he can make that jump without doing too much damage to his overall position.

Situation B:
1. However, under no conditions can a biblical believer admit the opposite (no evidence for Hebrews in Egypt), regardless of how airtight the archaeological evidence is. To do so would lead to a cascade failure of the entire belief system:

There were no Hebrews in Egypt-->
The bible isn't 100% inerrant -->
There are mistakes in the bible -->
But I'm basing my life on the bible -->
Maybe there are mistakes in the gospels -->
What if the gospels aren't correct -->
What if Jesus' words aren't properly transmitted -->
What if I'm believing a mistake -->
What if I'm believing a LOT of mistakes -->
How can I trust anything anymore?

2. Moreover, the believer has already stated a priori that evidence is not going to be the deciding factor in their life, so they don't perceive themselves to be under any obligation to reconcile their beliefs with the evidence. At best, it's a secondary concern that can be suspended if it's inconvenient.

The distance of the jump the agnostic has to make is a lot shorter than the jump that the bible believer would have to make. In fact, the agnostic's jump could be classified as "uncomfortable", while the bible believer's jump could be classified as "damn near impossible." That's why the scenarios aren't the same.



Well, no. The evidence allows you to draw boundaries around possible explanations or groups of explanations, to rule some in, while ruling others out. Even with uncertainties about individual items, these broad circles can be drawn in archaeology, just like they are in evolution. We may not know the exact predecessor of a particular bird, but the evidence that birds evolved after amphibians is irrefutible. The same kinds of circles can be drawn with history and archaeology.

Originally Posted by Apikorus

There is a canard one often runs across, whereby a Christian apologist attacks the hermeneutic of suspicion, or "naturalistic presupposition," as a priori denying the possibility of miracles, etc. Yet Christians themselves have no problems at all in denying miracles attributed to Asclepius, Visnu, et al. It seems fair to begin with a naturalist perspective and deny a priori any special religious claims in order to start everyone out on an equal footing. Then we work forward adducing evidence from texts, linguistics, history, archaeology, anthropology, historical geography, etc. If some religious "truths" cannot be justified in this manner, then here's how we divide what should be taught in religion classes and in history classes.

Originally Posted by Sauron

Bumping this for Riverwind. You failed to address my post below, other than to shrug and accuse me of insufficient introspection

I'd like to get your response to the illustration of the "jump" below.

Originally Posted by No Robots

Who decides what is an a priori commitment, and what is a valid statement based on evidence? If I say there is no reasonable doubt that Christ was historical, and cite Arnal to back that up, is that an a priori commitment? And what if I say that the refusal to acknowledge Christ's historicity is an a priori commitment that it is held in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence?

Originally Posted by Sauron

Bumping this for Riverwind. You failed to address my post below, other than to shrug and accuse me of insufficient introspection

I'd like to get your response to the illustration of the "jump" below:

The distance of the jump the agnostic has to make is a lot shorter than the jump that the bible believer would have to make. In fact, the agnostic's jump could be classified as "uncomfortable", while the bible believer's jump could be classified as "damn near impossible." That's why the scenarios aren't the same.

Originally Posted by Riverwind

I do not respond to every single point in posts, especially when I feel that I have already said something that addresses the concern or that certain points are not worthy of a discussion.

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

I already showed you that your conclusions were illogical,

Originally Posted by Sauron

But the "results" are:

* non-repeatable;
* non-testable (to detect dishonesty or mistake);
* contradictory even within the sample set (christians disagreeing with each other);
* based on axioms that are contradicted by OTHER people of faith who claim similar experiences (muslim/buddhist experiences that contradict christian ones);

You have consistently evaded answering on this point, judge.

Originally Posted by Apikorus

Yet Christians themselves have no problems at all in denying miracles attributed to Asclepius, Visnu, et al. .