Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Do you mind if I answer a question with a question ?

Have 100% of a group of scholars (the scholarly consensus) ever been wrong on an issue ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

C'mon spam. Sincerely, directly, honestly. Do you really, really think it is proper to take a majority level of scholars as a demonstration of fact or -- as a proof of an argument (this was proven) ? As a SOP.

(You may of course do that with like-minded. I am asking in open public discourse, where there is known .. and respectable .. disagreement, where there are folks ready to go with the minority .. toe-to-toe, quote-to-quote, concept-to-concept.)

A simple yes or no. If you say yes .. that is fine, I will be happy to consider the whole issue closed. And if you like, you can expound on the differences between historical analysis and other disciplines, and I will be very happy to respond only with a nod.

Similarly if you consider the question itself unfair (I have tried to keep it very simple.) just say why, and we are done. And if your answer is "it depends, not SOP" .. please simply give some idea of the criteria .. and again, we are done.

Look, we know you folks like to make fun of Christians and apologists at time. That is understood on this forum, and sometimes there are valid humor-points. You should be able to receive a little turnabout, when the occasion warrants, even on the home front.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

Hi Steven - the idea of consensus is nothing new, and it has been worked out in the sciences (particularly medicine) and law.

The consensus of educated scientists on an issue within their expertise that they have investigated tends to be correct. It's not always true, and anyone who reads anything in the history of science knows that the expert consensus has often been overturned. But it's still the best answer available, and anyone who wants to overturn the consensus has something of a burden of presenting their evidence and arguments.

Of course, anyone who does overturn the prevailing consensus gets extra points, maybe even a Nobel Prize.

The consensus of scholars is that the Pastorals were not written by Paul or by the same person who wrote the other Pauline letters. That might not turn out to be correct, but anyone who challenges this has to do more than just proclaim their objection (as you have) but present evidence that will persuade others (as you have not.)

Scientists tend to be quite tentative in their conclusions, but there are issues where the evidence is so clear, and the consensus so broad, that we can call the conclusions "facts" without worry. The Shroud of Turin is a medieval fake, the Pastorals are pseudepigraphical, Steven Avery has no future in comedy.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Right. If 95% of the historians agree on a fact of history, it probably is right. Whether it is a "consensus" is another story. 5% could be 100 historians who studied the issue closely and came up with another view.

Or maybe we still have a "consensus" but nobody really is too sure. Remember you allowed for a 51% "consensus", as long as you "see it". Or who "sees it" ?

Here you have switched to a totally different issue ... who convinces who of what. That is a totally different issue of whether a majority is a demonstrable fact or a proof .. of anything.

Whether it is "correct" or not will never depend on whether 10% of the scholars hold one view, or 90%. A little while back the numbers were in reverse, so what. The truth is not dependent on majority scholarship, truth does not change as scholarship institutions undergo atrophy or rejuvenation.

Scholarship comes with a lot of pre-sups and difficulties, and, as in an issue like the ending of Mark, a lot of the scholars simply are not very familiar with the material. Also one group will consider their body of scholars as more important. Do the Chinese scholars with a Confucian background really understand the Pericope Adultera, the Pastorals ? Is it a democracy ? .. one scholar one vote ? Do you count peer-reviewed papers ? Who runs the journals ? What is the definition of a scholar ? Can an evangelical say that the scholars should be limited to those who actually believe the Bible, since the others will have a natural pre-supposition to try to have the Bible confused and errant and we want to keep out such bias.

For the most part, scholarship numbers on issues like this does not have to be challenged (although some may do that) .. it should be ignored. Here is where the posts from Roger Pearse hit the nail on the head.

See above. You have mixed, deliberately or accidentally, two totally different issues.

Declaration of Factoid as Proof .. per majority, consensus, "see it"
Changing Scholarship Views.

They simply are unrelated discussions, and you should not write as if they are the same. However I realize it allows you to set up an unlevel playing field.

Here I have to rein in the comedy here due to posting political reasons, however you are probably right on that one.

And you can call the Shroud a fake, as a fact, without getting objection here. It may well be, not my issue or area of expertise. Although I know one pretty savvy poster (memory from a few years back) who could give it a good defense, even from a very unusual general position, just from the science.

On the Pastorals you simply have to declare it by fiat (and majority of the usual gang of suspect "scholars", most of whom have a set of beliefs that view the Bible as untrue). Simply because in the discussions themselves the skeptics and fakeroonies don't come out too good. The last time I had the discussion in depth was on an email forum, and I found the arguments surprisingly weak for the forgery view (lets be honest with the terms). Thus the tendency to claim by fiat. The sad thing is that this is an institutionalized blunder at FRDB, to try to declare by fiat so as to not have to really examine the overall contrasting paradigms.

As far as I am concerned, if you declare a few books forgery by fiat, there is no place of discussion and dialog between the Bible-believer and the skeptic. You have already circularized. Then you will have a little inhouse discussion among the skeptics about this and that, but it is all irrelevant to the main issue. As you know, the real challenge to the skeptic position is very simple .. the Bible is true, Paul is Paul, Peter is Peter, Luke is Luke, Isaiah is Isaiah. By insisting that the facts are opposite even before the discussion begins, you create a skeptic ghetto, a little entertainment factory. And you lose the opportunity for real dialog and sharing.

That is what this is really about, the inability for the skeptic to acknowledge that there is a real challenge to his weltanschauung. That inability led to all the silliness on this thread with the bumbling 51% .. "see it" etc. There was nothing logical in any of that, as the skeptic will immediately reject the scholarship when it does not match their pet theory. It is all simply a ruse to close the ears and eyes to the real challenge, the road that cannot be traveled, nor even examined.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jakejonesiv

Hi Steven,

Has the Holy Spirit ever been wrong on an issue? Who gets to decide? Your arguments on scholarly consensus are a bit disingenuos because you ultimately place faith above reason.

Here is the difference. Real scholars use the scientific and historical critical methods to find the truth to the best of their ability within the limitations of the evidence. Apologists, on the other hand, believe they already know the answer, and merely use what is convienent in scholarly research to prop up articles of faith.

No amount of evidence, or research, or "scholarly consensus" will convince to to repudiate any essential doctrine of your faith, right? If so, you are using "scholarly consensus" as a red herring.

Apologies for being abrupt, but once one retreats to the impregnable citadel of faith, one has aboandoned the field of rational discovery.

Best,
Jake Jones IV

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Jake, you simply try to change the field. I would never insist that you accept a 'fact' because of Holy Spirit unction, the most I would do is offer the idea for consideration.

Yet you are claiming, insisting that I am to accept a 'fact' because of a:

" x% of modern 21st century scholastic understanding"

As I explained elsewhere, the only reason this is done is because the skeptic is close-minded, he cannot even try to think about (much less consider and evaluate) the basic challenge to his faith (or non-faith, your choice).

To do that he attempts a rather mindless and inconsistent appeal to a majority of scholars -- when it fits his view -- as he "sees it" -- and yet tosses this out the moment it is inconvenient.

You were not being abrupt with me at all, simply disingenuous and illogical.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jakejonesiv

Hi Steven,

I have not made appeals to scholarly consensus. I always argue the merits of the case, sometimes in excruciating detail that I am sure the average reader skips over.

I wish to challenge the consensus in several key areas. However, you wish to cling to the "consensus" of circa 1611 and only object when scholarship challenges your faith based paradigm. Any scholarship that can be construed as supporting your theological positions, you have no objection, and that is disingenuous.

Best,
Jake

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Then I do not understand why you came into the thread allying with the incorrect comments of spam and toto who were insisting on their perceived consensus on an issue as a proof or fact.

I'm glad to hear that you actually ally with my view.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

You still don't understand the issue, and now you are distorting my comments.

jakejonesiv

I don't understand how I ally with your view. I rely on reason and rational thought, as do Toto and spam, but your ultimate authority is faith, which trumps all facts or perceived consensus. You are illogical, but I mean that in the best sense of the term.

Do you deny that in your view, faith ranks higher than reason?

Best,
Jake