The Jury Is In: Josh McDowell's "Evidence" & apologetics [Archive I]

March 15, 2001, 02:33 PM

After reading only the first of your long, drawn out rebuttals of Josh McDowells Evidence that Demands a Verdict, I have one comment to make. While you suceed in misinterpreting many Old Testiment references and using words like "I feel" and "obviously" more than "a" or "the", I find the true downfall in your assesment is that you have no concept of true Christian theology. You say that God cannot be loving because He will reject us for committing the smallest offense against Him (I apologize for not quoting directly) when the basic and underlying point of the ENTIRE NEW TESTIMENT is that we CANNOT possibly follow Gods commands. The Bible says that every onew of us has sinned(screwed up) and therefore cannot be good enough in God's sight. But God saw that we couldn't reach us and out of love sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to live like we should have and die even though he didn't deserve it. Jesus took our place in two ways. First, when God looks at us He doesn't see our sin, He sees Jesus' perfection if we ask Him to. Second, Jesus died in our place, to be punished for us, so that God could accept us in His justice. So, when we ask Jesus He includes us in the long list of people He's taken the place of and God can see us as holy even though we're not. As we are saved by God's gift(often referred to as grace), it doesn't matter what good works we do. The best person in the world isn't good enough without Christ and the worst person in the world is good enough with him. This is Christianity in a very small nutshell, get it straight.

March 27, 2001, 10:30 AM

In chapter 7 of "Jury" The statement is made
that there is another explanation other than
Lord, lunatic or liar. Such as, Jesus was
a "Legendary figure". How patently absurd.
How do I know this? Show me 11 reasonable,
grown men who were given the choice of refuting the legend of Paul Bunyon and his
blue Ox Babe or die, and they choose death.
Jury is critical of Josh McDowell, then you make totally unsupported ASSININE statements
like that. God help us all, like the commercial said, "These people VOTE!"

Richard Carrier

March 27, 2001, 02:40 PM

Please read my own more thorough essay Lord, Liar, or Lunatic? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/4b.html) (which links to all other papers on the subject). As to the "witnesses" dying argument, please read the relevant section of my summary essay (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html#martyrdoms) on the resurrection, and then the linked chapters that go into more detail. And try researching things more before inserting foot in mouth with unstudied assertions.

March 27, 2001, 08:27 PM

I am very much enjoying reading "The Jury is in: The Ruling on McDowell's Evidence". Jeffrey Lowler mentions that there are other Christian authors who are more scholarly than Mcdowell in defending Christianity. Who are those authors and are there reviews of their books on infidels.org?

May 23, 2001, 05:01 PM

I stumbled across this site today when looking for some academic evidence which stood against that used by Josh McDowell. I am fascinated by the site, but very disappointed with a lot of the library documents. There seems to be a strong line of just being thoroughly nasty about McDowell, and this demeans the evidence you are trying to put forward. Gordon Stein, in particular, litters his critiques with really nasty, and unnecessary personal comments about the author. By all means present your scientific evidence but please do it in a less infantile manner. There are some of us out here trying to investigate things in an adult manner!!

May 23, 2001, 06:09 PM

Thank you for your feedback. Personally, I tend to agree with your criticism, however the Internet Infidels have no real control over what an author writes or the style of writing that he/she uses other than to choose to publish or to not publish his/her work. And, of course, "unnecessary personal comments" are not limited to either side of the debate between theists and atheists.

Regards,
Don

Bill

May 23, 2001, 07:24 PM

I might add that Dr. Stein has much of value to contribute to this discussion, but he was ridiculed greatly by the so-called "Christian Fundamentalists" while he was alive. Some of their attacks upon him did get to be a bit too personal, probably contributing to the overall air of acrimony which existed between himself and McDowell.

And of course, as Dr. Stein died almost five years ago, its really too late to ask him to rewrite anything he wrote in the heat of his passionate exchanges with the fundamentalists.

Frankly, I too think that McDowell is fairly worthless as a scholar, and is more of a liar than an apologist. And I think that these evaluations are broadly held in the freethought community, and that too contributes to the overall air of acrimony.

== Bill

June 5, 2001, 03:48 AM

I was searching for some information about Josh McDowell's book Answers to tough questions about the Christian Faith when I came upon Gordon Stein's review of the book. If only Gordon Stein had actually read the book before writing the review. Some questions which he alleges that McDowell does not answer are addressed later in the book.

It is quite astonishing that Stein was even allowed to write that article when he had no knowledge whatsoever about the topic. He does not even know who the author of the four gospels are. That just takes the cake !

Truly unbelieveable ! I do encourage you to read the book by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, it answers a lot of relevant questions not only biblically, but also logically, scientifically and historically.

June 5, 2001, 08:07 AM

You can get answers for these questions in Josh McDowell's book Answers to tough questions about the Christian Faith.

Firstly about your heavens part, God is God. He doesn't need something or some place to exist. He just exists, He is not a created being, He is THE creator. Suppose a homeless person is being taken into a shelter, before he goes to the shelter, he still exists, he's still alive. He doesn't become alive after he gets into the shelter.. hope you get my point.

Regarding the age of the earth, I'm not sure about the 4004 B.C part but one possible explanation is this. When God created the earth, it doesn't mean the earth wasjust formed. God can create something that is old. Consider for example He created Adam and Eve fully grown. When Jesus turned water into wine, the wine was old and well fermented. Not freshly squeezed grape juice !

June 5, 2001, 12:53 PM

I disagree that you can get real answers in Josh McDowell's books. In my opinion, McDowell typically presents rather shallow apologetic "answers" which mostly impress only those who already believe. Often they are simply ad hoc "arguments" of the type that you present to allegedly explain the apparent age of the earth.

I think I understand the point that you intend to make regarding heaven and god, but if so then as far as I am concerned it is a nonpoint. If heaven is the abode of God, and if God created heaven at some point in time, it is certainly interesting to ponder where "he" resided before he created his own abode.

If "god" created the earth already "old," then "he" is quite a trickster. Personally, I'll go with science on this one rather than with your ad-hoc "one possible explanation."

By the way, rather than make multiple posts to the Feedback forum, why not become a registered user and make your posts in an appropriate forum where you can carry on this kind of discussion with others?

---Don---

June 5, 2001, 01:49 PM

Either you are the victim of faulty omniscience or else you are extremely presumptuous--or both!

Anyone who reads Stein's review (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/answers.html) and understands what he/she has read should be able to understand that when Stein says "there are errors in almost every question's answer" and "there is only one chapter in the book which is at all reasonable" he is thereby implying that he read the book. It should also be apparent that Stein has demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that he has at least some knowledge of the topic at hand.

Further, I have read some of McDowell's books (first as a Christian, and then later as a non-Christian) and I find them to be very shallow, the "scholarship" elementary.

By the way, "'knowledgeable' Christian," no one knows with certainty who authored the Gospels. The Gospels are pseudepigraphal; the identity of the actual authors is unknown.

---Don---

June 6, 2001, 02:53 AM

It seems a bit unbelieveable that you being a christian before.. or even being a non-christian don't know who the authors of the gospels are. Josh McDowell's answers are not shallow... they have only further enhanced and provided a scientific explanation for answers I already knew. True, he has hypotesised a few answers but they could be an explanation.. they can't be ruled out. And as he says, when ever yuo judge a book, any sort of book, you always give the author the benefit of the doubt...

Many scientists, historians, archaelogists etc. set out to disprove the Bible, but almost all of them turned to the Bible and are now christians. Coincidence ? I think not.

Re. where God existed before, He jsut existed, He is God, not a human that He needs a place to exist... He's a Spirit... It is incomprehendible to the human mind, because God is a unique being, He doesn't dwell in the same atmosphere we do. We dwell in time, He dwells in eternity... He has no beginning and has no end... He's eternal.

June 6, 2001, 12:13 PM

Given your simplistic approach to factual knowledge, there are quite a few facts and truths which must seem unbelievable to you. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that not you, not Josh McDowell--not anyone--knows with certainty who wrote the Gospels. As I said before, the Gospels are pseudepigraphal; the identity of the actual authors is unknown--by anyone--and the fact that they now carry the names of apostles has little to do with the identity of the actual authors. This is a fact which is known even to Christian scholars. Thus what is truly surprising is that you would purport to know with certainty that which Christian scholars themselves only wish that they could know.

Following are just two quotes (of literally hundreds of similar quotes which could be provided), both of them having to do with the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew and which provide just a glimpse into the problem of identifying the author of that Gospel.

Page 1NT, The New Oxford Annotated Bible
This Gospel is anonymous. The unknown Christian teacher who prepared it during the last third of the first century may have used as one of the sources a collection of Jesus' sayings that the apostle Matthew, according to second-century writers, is said to have drawn up. In time a title containing Matthew's name, and signifying apostolic authority, came to identify the whole.

Page 84, The Nature and Origin of the New Testament, J. Merle Rife, Ph.D.
Certainly the book as we know it was not written by anyone who had associated with Jesus. Such an author would not have had to depend on second- and thirdhand information furnished by such an author as Mark, who was not one of the close friends. The earliest attempt to solve the problem of authorship is found in one of the surviving fragments of Papias, the earliest known writer on such questions. Eusebius, Church History 3.39.16, preserves the Papias passage as follows: "So then, Matthew composed his oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and each one translated them as he was able." That is the best evidence we have of Matthean authorship, but it can hardly apply to our present Gospel, which is a revised edition of Greek work. ... It is all part of strained attempts to show apostolic authorship, or at least apostolic background, for certain books in a day when flourishing heresies led the orthodox to discredit whatever could not muster some show of apostolicity. In Stromateis 7.17 Clement of Alexandria says the teaching of the apostles ended under Nero. This emperor died in 68.

And so it goes with the other three Gospels ...

Page 180, Jesus: An Historian's review of the Gospels, by Michael Grant, Ph.D. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684818671/InternetInfidelsA/)
Disconcertingly, we do not know who any of the authors of the four Gospels were. The traditions that they were written by Jesus' apostles Matthew and John, and Paul's companions Mark (John Mark) and Luke, are in each case subject to grave and virtually insuperable doubts. In using the names of these men to denote the Gospels it would be more accurate to enclose them in quotation marks, for these works, like very many compositions of the ancient world, appear to have been composed by other, later men who affixed the names of distinguished forerunners to their writings. Security motives may have played a part; it was perhaps convenient not to affix one's name to the eulogy of a cult that had so many enemies. Others see the Gospels as a pious falsification to gain a hearing which the authors' own names would not have secured. But there have also been vigorous attempts to point out that, according to the views prevailing in the ancient world, this customary pseudonymity did not imply fraud at all; it might merely be due to a humble desire not to push oneself forward on such a sacred theme.

And as if that were not enough to make it apparent that the identity of the authors of the Gospels is an unknown, Howard Teeple, Ph.D., in his book the Literary Origin of the Gospel of John identifies four distinct authors in that Gospel.

-----------

With regard to Josh McDowell, you are entitled, of course, to believe anything you wish to believe about whether his answers are shallow or profound. In twenty-eight plus years of study, however, first as a Christian and then as a non-Christian, I say that McDowell could only impress those whose own knowledge of the subject is as shallow as his.

With regard to your claim that many scientists, historians, archaeologists, etc., set out to disprove the Bible, but almost all of them turned to the Bible and are now Christians, the simple fact of the matter is that you exaggerate. You cannot possibly know that "almost all of them turned to the Bible and are now Christians." You would have no real idea of how many did NOT. Your statement is as patently ridiculous as its counterpart, "Many ministers and Christians set out to prove the Bible and disprove atheism but almost all of them turned against the Bible and became atheists." Yes, there have been those who set out to disprove the Bible and ended up becoming Christians, but there are also those who were ministers and Christians who had the opposite experience. Many who are in the latter category can be found here on the Secular Web.

Regarding "God's abode" prior to "his" alleged Creation, merely parroting Christian theology, as you have done, proves nothing other than that you believe what you believe. And regardless of what you believe, it is something of an oxymoron that heaven is now considered by many to be the abode of "God," yet "he" allegedly created it after he allegedly already existed.

June 28, 2001, 01:30 AM

Jay, I read a few of your pages of articles regarding ETDAV. It sounds like you are a little upset with J. McDowell. So much so that you've dedicated A LOT of time discrediting him. Do you have a mission in this? A purpose? What is your motivation? It seems to be more than a response. Are you trying to be informative as a philosopher, a teacher, a judge, or what? Or are you simply a critic set out to critique people like J. McDowell. You seem to have a deeper motivation. Do you?
Sincerely,
Bert Park, Joplin, MO

January 28, 2002, 03:10 PM

I have started reading the book (Evidence that Demads a Verdict) this past week and was cruising the web for further information and stumbled upon your site. I am a Christian and believe in Jesus Christ. It seems to me that none of us should be deeply concerned about what Josh McDowell or Jeff Lowder has to say about Jesus Christ or the Bible. It is my belief that one should read the Bible for his/herself and come to their own conclusions. The words of the Bible and Jesus are powerful and undeniable but each person has been give the responsibility to heed His words or not. Jesus was clear, He created us to be free to have that ability to choose in our lives. He will be saddened by those who chose not to heed His words but He knows the power of Satan. We often forget that Satan has power upon this earth until the second coming of our Lord. So the struggle continues.... it is YOUR choice. I would pray however that your eyes would be opened by the reading and heeding of the words of Jesus Christ.

-DM-

January 28, 2002, 03:36 PM

Lynn:

Whether any of us should or should not be "deeply concerned" about what McDowell or Lowder have to say is, of course, a matter of opinion. My personal opinion is that -- because Christians in general and Christian apologists in particular -- often make very far-reaching (and extravagant) claims about the importance of coming to a conclusion as to the validity of what the Bible says that the Gospelists say that Jesus said, it is quite important that we examine what people like McDowell and Lowder have to say.

I agree with you, however, about reading the Bible for oneself. I also agree that the words which the Bible says that the Gospelists say that Jesus said are indeed powerful. But I strongly disagree that they are undeniable. No book should be believed just because it says that it should be believed or just because others who believe it tell us that it should be believed. After all, every so-called Holy Book has its believers. Muslims, in fact, say that YOU and other Christians are misguided and will end up in hell for not believing the Quran, for not being a Muslim. You undoubtedly disbelieve that, of course. Keep in mind that the difference between you and the nonbelievers who make up the Internet Infidels is that you simply disbelieve one less "holy book" than we do.

In closing, I'd like to add that reading the Bible for myself is exactly the reason that I renounced Christianity as both untrue and
unworthy of my continued belief.

--Don--

February 26, 2002, 01:01 AM

i also have to approach the issue regarding ezekiel and isaiah. tyre was besieged at least five times, as far as i am aware. isaiah refers to an earlier event than ezekiel...and ezekiel refers to two different sieges. the indicator for this is in ezek. 26:8-11 contains the words 'him' and 'his' obviously referring to Nebuchadnezzar. in verse 12 it shifts to 'them' and 'they', signalling a switch from a man to a group. Alexander later uses Nebuchadnezzar's work as a bridge to tyre (hinted at in the prophecy), completing the prophecy of the judgment of tyre, ultimately by God.

As for the 40 years of babylonian control of desolate egypt, that is much more difficult; however, your statement of [there is no evidence of such a desolation (paraphrased)] is by no means up to your own standard of scientific proof to declare it 'obviously a failed prophecy'. No, it does not refer to a future 'nebuchadnezzar', you are correct, but it very well could have happened. 40 years is but a blink in history. larger eras have been lost to history.

the last issue i will address here is the issue concerning the 'unmerciful' God as you reference deut. 7:3 ( which is actually 7:2 ). Again, your argument doesn't meet your own standards for a 'good argument' since the Bible is very clear about God's merciful, loving character, but as it relates with justness and Truth. Canaan had already received its judgment from the beginning ( gen. 15:16; deut. 9:4 ). deut. 7:10 explains God's judgment and 7:9 states that God's covenant is not with all people, but with those that love Him. If, as the Bible says (we are using it as evidence against itself again, as is necessary for presenting contradictory evidences) God is ultimate Truth, then judgment is absolutely necessary. My feeling is that you are substituting 'tolerance of viewpoints' for 'mercy'. If God is Truth, we all deserve nothing, in which case, he is truly merciful!

Perhaps another night I will work on some of the other issues that you bring to the table, as they are of interest to me, but I find it ironic that you attack JMcDowell ( albeit perhaps fairly ) for his shortsighted failings, and then construct similar failings in your contextual readings and citings against him. the ensuing polemic could spin forever back and forth, always searching for human 'fallen' wisdom to precipitate faith, but we all know this is vanity. The Bible even in some fashion outlines such human conditions that lead to many of these discussions ( not that we should abandon intellectual pursuits ).

festina lente
ECC. 12:9-14

March 4, 2002, 10:07 AM

RE: The Jury Is In
The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence"
Jeffery Jay Lowder (editor)

My name is Montwayne Jon Smith. I am not unknown in our (Independent Christian Church, Churches of Christ) little circles. I am a graduate of 10 years of formal religious education in conservative institutions. I have a BA in Bible (Northwest Christian College, Eugene Oregon, 1976) and a ninety hour M. Div. in preaching (Lincoln Christian Seminary, Lincoln IL, 1986). I am the son of a Bible college professor (with Doctorate) who gave his life to the church as a pastor, missionary, lecturer and author. His idea of a good conversation is to discuss ideas and to debate issues. I myself spend 25 years in the ministry in the US and on the mission field (Ethiopia, Costa Rica, Mexico). I have taught Church History at the college level, in Spanish, at an accredited institution (Hope International University, Fullerton, Ca, 1997). I've been in hundreds of churches, lead countless discussions on all kind of themes related to Christianity, and personally led between 50 and 100 people to personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I�ve baptized five times the higher number who�s faith was already built, all I did was add the finishing touches. I have written and published a few articles, most for local circulation. I like to get down and answer the hard questions, to deal with the tough cases, to examine and address the difficult issues. I even think I am a pretty good thinker. Sooo....

I'm out. After a whole and reasonably successful career inside the church, I quit. I had no choice if I were to preserve intellectual honesty. I'm glad I'm out, and the arguments that you present are part of why I'm out; not that you presented them, I came across them 'way too late for my own dilemma, but they are valid and valuable arguments. Maybe I'm not as good a thinker as I though, since it took me so long to get to it. So much of what Josh says is nonsense or false. So much of what Christianity claims is foolishness and false. The damage to people occasioned by their belief in the doctrines of Christianity is incalculable. And the better someone is at conservative Christianity, the more damaged that person becomes. I detest the god of the Christians (the way I understand him); I am disgusted by the church (mostly). There are other logical arguments against the Bible, the church and the doctrines of Christianity that are important, and I assume you address them somewhere. I'll check this site out some more. I think I might like to participate. Who knows, maybe I can add something.

Its good to meet you.

Bill

March 5, 2002, 08:49 PM

It is really amazing to me just how many former Christian ministers eventually decide that they can no longer deal with the lies and deceit inherant in "professing Christianity."

I'm certain that various Christian churches and many Christians do a great deal of good for human society. But the old "there's one in every crowd" disease seems to apply in spades to the Christian ministry. With nobody around to tell the minister "no," an odd feeling of unfettered power seems to drive many Christian ministers to the sorts of insanity professed by the likes of Josh McDowell and other "conservative" Christians.

I attended a lecture just this last weekend given by retired (liberal) Presbyterian minister Don Bell, who now professes humanism as his creed. The subject of his lecture was the history of biblical criticism, and in particular, the question of the "historical Jesus." The point which Don made is that, after a couple of centuries of looking, there seems to be a consensus among key schollars that there is no THERE there (to appropriate a phrase from the vernacular). In other words, what we have of the New Testament is clearly so late (in historical terms) that it amounts to pure theology, and as such, it has no content whatsoever which might be ascribed to telling the story of the "historical Jesus." Thus, it is not at all out of the question that even the long-dead Jewish sage, Judah, could be the historical model for the character we meet over a century later as Jesus. (See the II Book-of-the-Month for March, 2002 (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=694) for more on Judah. See the II Book-of-the-Month for August, 2001 (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=693) for more on the idea that the "historical Jesus" probably lived a long time before the dates of birth and death usually attributed to Jesus. Many other very modern scholarly books on the subject of the "historical Jesus" reach either similar or compatible conclusions.)

Still, it is clear that religion has some good aspects, such as motivating people to contribute more to charity work (whether or not the money actually gets used for the intended purpose), helping people cope with difficult emotional states (such as grief and guilt), and helping "civilized society" function smoothly, with a minimum amount of "return to our animal roots" (with acts of vengence, etc.). These are aspects of Chrisianity which Humanism has yet to prove that it can offer a viable substitute for.

Nonetheless, I cannot help but wonder about how much better off the world would be if we could somehow eliminate the "bad things" about the Christian, Islamic, and other major religions, keeping only their respective "good aspects" (such as those I've enumerated, above).

== Bill

July 19, 2002, 12:26 PM

Reading through your paper on Josh McDowell what struck me more then anything was the leap of faith taken on so many critical points. The number of times you use "I believe", "I is my opinion", "Many scholars believe" etc. is hard to count.
Maybe there is not a lot of difference between you guys and Christians. We both use the same vehicle to get to our destination. Except that, no matter if God exists or not, the end of your ride is over the cliff. For Christians at least we have the hope the someone built a bridge for us.

-DM-

July 19, 2002, 01:12 PM

If what you are interested in is hope that "someone built a bridge" for you at the "end of your ride," then there are many alternatives to the Christian belief system. To name a few: Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Theosophy. I think you would agree, however, that "hope" does not necessarily correlate with truth. In this regard, so far as I am concerned, the Christian belief system has so little concern for truth that the hope which it offers is not believable. If you feel otherwise, that is of course your privilege.

--Don--

Richard Carrier

August 1, 2002, 10:50 AM

If the complaint is that we all have beliefs, that seems rather inane to me (the word "Duh!" comes to mind). The issue is not whether we have opinions or beliefs, whether we think for ourselves, whether we study what experts have concluded, the issue is whether our opinions, beliefs, and thoughts, and the conclusions of experts we cite, are correct.

When you start there, you will find huge differences between us and most Christians: we have evidence, facts, and reason backing us up entirely. Christians, ultimately, have only that leap of faith you talk about. In contrast, our "leap" is not a leap at all: we walk comfortably across a sturdy bridge of evidence and reason to a faith justified. You leap a chasm on the mere naive hope some invisible being will materialize out of thin air and hand you a parachute. If that's not a serious difference I don't know what is.

So much for your faulty logic. Now to your faulty facts. Your hyperbole is showing: though you say "The number of times you use 'I believe', ' is my opinion', 'Many scholars believe' etc. is hard to count" I had no trouble counting mine, despite my essay being several hundred kilobytes and several dozen web pages in size. For these phrases are incredibly rare, contrary to your claims...

(1) "I believe" occurs only three times in the whole of "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story" and [i]none involve "critical points" as you allege. Indeed, only one is relevant to the central argument, and that is a mere idiom (you could delete the phrase without even changing the meaning or the truth of the sentence it is in).

(2) I never use the words "it is my opinion" but "in my opinion" and I use that phrase only 8 times. Of those, again, none pertain to critical points. In fact, three of those uses actually refer to examples of my support for the Christian case! Only two others pertain to relevant points against the Christian case, and in those two cases the opinion stated is merely one of many stated possibilities that support my overall argument, and is followed by several arguments in support of my stated opinion (and thus the claim does not rest on the opinion at all, but the arguments).

(3) I never once use "many scholars believe" or any comparable phrase--so it seems you find the menial task of even counting to zero "too hard" for you. No wonder.

Conclusion: not only is your complaint fallacious, it is factually false!

September 28, 2002, 09:15 PM

Very scholarly analysis and evaluation of McDowell and other apologetics' written works. I would surely recommend this to my family members and friends as required reading.

i have come to the same observations as you have done but not thru a thorough analysis of the biblical accounts about Jesus but only through a common sense approach on the interpretation of the All Pure, Omniscient, Omnipresent God.

If God is All Pure & Perfect and therefore cannot deal with impure beings as human beings have become because of sin, God cannot associate and deal with impure and imperfect human beings directly lest He become impure and imperfect in the process. Likewise, if Jesus is God, He too must be all pure and perfect, and during his lifetime on earth, He could not have associated with sinners, prostitutes, unhealthy and sickly human beings suffering from diseases like leprosy, homosexuality if this be deemed an illness, etc. The fact claimed by the bible however points to just that---that Jesus was even criticized by sanhedrins and pharisees to have been associating with the dregs of society and just like a doctor of medicine, Jesus came to heal and save the impure, the rejects of society, the criminals etc. How therefore can Jesus be God and an all pure and perfect God when he spent most of his time on earth ministering to the impure?

If it is proposed and suggested that association does not necessarily make a pure being impure, then why would God need to send Jesus to earth when He could not become impure by associating and dealing with impure beings in the first place? God did not need any help from man or angels during the process of Creation, or did He?

food for thought.

Bill Romero

April 12, 2003, 07:47 AM

I came across this site while looking for Josh McDowell's website (thanks for the link!) and it looked as if it might be interesting. Having read ETDAV I have found what I have read of this rebuttal unimpressive. In fact the horse seems to fall at the first fence. The first chapter concerning the uniqueness of the Bible - there is a long quote from Jeremiah about other prophets in Israel. The point being made was that there were other prophets who did not share the same views as the Biblical prophets. Josh McDowell's claim that there is a consistent viewpoint expressed in the Bible does not depend on any idea that there were no opposing views in Israel. In fact the prophets refered to are prophets of Baal, who is a different god. Consequently their writings, if there were any, were not included in the Bible, which is a collection of works believed to be 'from God' in Jewish experience. The views expressed by the Biblical prophets always seemed to arouse intense opposition. But that does not mean that they were not consistent with each other.

In Josh McDowell's introduction to ETDAV he states that his intention in writing the book was to provide a resource for Christian students in colleges and universites and other Christians who were struggling to answer the views of materialsts who were their teachers and examiners.

Josh McDowell says that at university himself, he thought that if a Christian had a brain cell it would die of loneliness, until he seriously looked at the evidence. Accusing him of bigotry is therefore unjust, he changed his mind in view of the evidence, though not in the direction that a complacent materialist might expect.

Having looked at the discussion of the trilemma and some other sections of the book I have to say that your disparaging comments about Josh McDowell's scholarship are a bit rich in view of the superficiality of your own. Yes, Jesus could be a legendary figure, but the trilemma is what one is left with once Jesus is recognised to have been a historical personality.

If I persisted and perhaps there would be a few good points made in your work, but so far I am completely unimpressed and I don't think I have the stamina to wade through the trash to find them. Sorry.

May 22, 2003, 04:01 AM

just something to consider...

i was just reading your refutation on etdav, what did interest me was the piece about the trilemma.
this trilemma can be answered by using gnostic scripture, if jesus was a historical figure, then he may have alluded to being god in a gnostic sense, which teachings state that man can achieve unity with god through gnosis, this statement, even to this day is misconstrued by christian orthodoxy as a vain claim, when it is not intended as such. jesus may have made that claim to bring the point across that man can become a part of god, and thus become god.
i feel that the trilemma does not give enough options for an answer to be given.

-DM-

May 22, 2003, 10:06 AM

Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback regarding The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/index.shtml) by Jeffery Jay Lowder (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/index.shtml) (Editor).

I agree that the so-called Trilemma doesn't cover the possibilities. The fact is that there are many more than three possibilities. Here are some possibilities (and there are probably others):
1) Jesus was Lord.
2) Jesus was a liar.
3) Jesus was a lunatic.
4) Jesus was both Lord and a liar.
5) Jesus was both Lord and a lunatic.
6) Jesus was both a liar and a lunatic.
7) Jesus was Lord as well as a liar and an lunatic.
8) Jesus was neither Lord, liar, nor lunatic, or any combination thereof. He was simply mistaken about himself.
9) His "biographers" lied.
10) His "biographers" were lunatics.
11) His "biographers" were lunatics who lied.
12) His "biographers" neither lied, nor were they lunatics. They were simply mistaken in what they wrote.

Whether the Trilemma can be answered using gnostic scripture, however, is a matter of opinion. Keep in mind that Josh McDowell would not consider any scripture other than the Bible to be authoritative, therefore it would be of little or no concern to him what any gnostic scripture had to say. Likewise, inasmuch as "The Jury is In" is a response to McDowell, gnostic scripture would probably be of little or no concern to Lowder. In any case, speculation about what Jesus might have said or meant by what he said, while interesting, doesn't really answer the Trilemma.

Regards,
-Don-

P.S. Please note that the Feedback forum is a fully moderated forum: no submissions are posted until approved by the Feedback Editor. See the FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10).

pastorbracken

August 13, 2005, 11:04 PM

Joe K.

August 14, 2005, 01:41 PM

As a Christian, I was not impressed with McDowell's method of argument. To me, Francis Schaeffer's book "He is there and he is not silent" was more intellectually compelling, but ultimately it is not a matter of debates but faith. There is a place for human logic, but McDowell relies too much on it in my view.

-DM-

August 14, 2005, 01:45 PM

... it is not a matter of debates but faith.There is no belief that cannot be held on the basis of faith. Faith is not a reliable path to truth, nor even to a "heaven."

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

One Who Replies

August 14, 2005, 02:17 PM

The rebuttals to JOsh McDowell have been curiously silent as to the fulfillment of the Israel restoration prophecies and the accuracy of the Bible in foretelling the unfolding of God's plan for his church and the Jewish people and nation and Jerusalem.....hmmmm?
Josh McDowell's "evidence that demands a verdict", both vols 1 and 2 and the newer edition which contains both(although shortened), is a good beginners study of apologetics. From there it is wise to remember "that a little learning is a dangerous thing" and keep studying, read "Scaling the Secular City", and "Reason for the Hope Within" and I also highly recc. "The Fingerprint of God" by Ross, and "The Encyclopedia of Chritsian Apologetics by Geisler and the website 100prophecies.org ,"Science Speaks" by Peter Stoner, "The Miracle of the Survival of the Jewish People" by Grant Jeffrey,etc.All of these books are referenced by Josh McDowell in his "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" series and all of these authors also cross-refernce Josh McDowell and his Evidence That DEmands a Verdict " , series, also "12 Keys to Isreal in Prophecy Today' by Clarence Wagner, and "Fulfilled Prophecy:Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible" by Hugh Ross .

Stacey Melissa

August 20, 2005, 08:17 AM

... So, the question legitimately asked is from where do intangibles come? Evolution does not provide a reason that ideals and values would benefit a species. Does a tree feel freedom and that helps it to grow better and produce offspring that survive better? As far as we know, only humans have metaphysical sensations. Could it be that such ideas come from a God, who cannot be proven, but who can be felt?
Hi Pastor Braken. If you stick around, you'll find that metaphysical naturalism and modern science offer answers to everything you've brought up.

McDowell's books, as you say, are not written especially for a scholarly audience. Whether they are written for an adolecent audience, I don't know, but I do know his books are targeted at believers who have only mild doubts. As with the great majority of Christian apologetic works, his books are not targeted at non-Christians, let alone non-Christian scholars. I don't consider this a valid excuse for containing a great deal of logical fallacy, though. Sixth grade text books are targeted at a sixth grade reading level, but they still must pass factual and logical muster before being accepted in the curricula. McDowell's works should be held to a standard just as high.

Mathew Goldstein

August 20, 2005, 11:19 AM

However, my chief concern I suppose is with an apologistic, scientific or historical approach to God. Religion is ultimately a realm of metaphysics. To prove the existence of God or of Jesus Christ, especially with logical and scientific means is similar to proving that I am happy. I can know I am happy. I may demonstrate physical signs that I am happy. However, it is impossible to quantify what happiness is or to what degree that one is happy. Yet, I do hope that you can say that you are happy and have been in your life. Faith, as defined in Christian Scripture is believing to the point of action, that something is true, despite having no physical evidence. The scientific method says, "I will believe it, when I see it." Faith says, "I will see it, when I believe it."

We cannot necessarily know, and do not know, everything that is true. There is no disagreement about that. The disagreement is whether or not we are justified in believing based on faith, without sufficient evidence of the sort that we require of other fact claims. We may also diagree about whether there is sufficient evidence for the claims of religions. See Why I am an atheist (http://www.nonbeliver.org/commentary/Why_I_am_atheist.html)

There is good evidence that feelings and emotions generally correlate with physical states. We know that one or more chemicals are positively correlated (cause and effect relationship) with "feeling good", with pain, with sleepiness, etc. The pharmaceutical industry profits from this knowledge and everyone who owns stock in that industry is betting that this correlation is true.

I know that doesn't set well with folks who believe in the scientific method and trust only what can be emperically proven. But, life is full of the unprovable - love, freedom, value, thoughts - do these not exist, because one cannot put them up against a ruler? Even the belief that scientific or logical methods are the best way to approach life cannot be measured.

What is the point of going outside evidence and logical methods if not to falsely claim having explanations for everything when in fact we don't have such explanations? Why not just say we don't know instead of saying "God did it" when "God did it" is a meaningless and empty statement?

So, the question legitimately asked is from where do intangibles come? Evolution does not provide a reason that ideals and values would benefit a species. Does a tree feel freedom and that helps it to grow better and produce offspring that survive better? As far as we know, only humans have metaphysical sensations. Could it be that such ideas come from a God, who cannot be proven, but who can be felt?

Evolution does provide a explanation for what we call ideals and values benefitting a species and in any case evolution does not require everything be optimal. On the contrary, evolution predicts that biological phenomena will not be optimal because evolution is a messy and imperfect process. Many living creatures exhibit behaviors that qualify as "ideal and values" in the sense of acting to help others, this is not at all uniquely human. Insects exhibit such communal behaviors. A few other animals exhibit self-awareness - apes and dolphins come to mind. We have cognitive capabilities that appear to go beyond what others animals have but the evidence is strong that so did our extinct pre-modern primate ancestors such as neanderthals (who may be only indirectly related to us) and maybe even austrolapethicus. Even if only modern homo sapiens were the only animal on earth that ever achieved our cognitive capabilities that doesn't lead to the God exists conclusion, it just leads to the conclusion that such capabilities took a long time to reach here on earth. Qualitative functional differences can arise from evolved quantitative and structural changes because physical phenomena interact non-linearly. We are not just the product of the parts but the product of interactions between all the parts that can and do manifest new emregent phenomena not present in any individual part. This is true of non-biological phenomena also (in chemistry, physics, mathematics, engineering, etc.), it is not unique to biology.

One Who Replies

August 20, 2005, 01:43 PM

-DM-

August 20, 2005, 04:12 PM

well stacey melissa, if Josh McDowell is so juvenile in his scholarship, perhaps you can show all of us here (please do your OWN work) how Josh McDowells argument that the retoration of the jews to their land in 1948 and the temple mount in 1967 is not a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.Here you are again posting the same previously discredited malarkey. It's time to stop.

From this post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2528922#post2528922) in the Bahnsen-Tabash debate thread:

---

(From a previous post) prophecy: In the latter days my Jewish people will be returned to their land and will have their land(Israel) and their city (jerusalem) and their ancient language (hebrew) restored to them.There is no prophecy which specifically names present-day Israel as constituting the land to be restored. The fact of the matter is that the so-called "promised land" (the very first so-called prophecy in the Bible) encompasses a much greater expanse than the territory now occupied by Israel.

Boundaries of the "promised land":
GE 12:7 (The equivalent of the land inhabited by the Canaanites.)
GE 13:11-18 (Abraham resigns the plain of Jordan to Lot. God repeats his promise to Abraham: as far as he can see, North, South, East, and West.)
GE 15:18-21 (Torrent of Egypt near Gaza, to the Euphrates, including the entire land of Canaan as defined in GE 10:19 as extending from Sidon to Gaza and the Red Sea: Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and part of Iraq.)
GE 27:8-14 (Canaan.)
NU 33:5-56 & 34:1-15 (Canaan, including Philistia and part of Transjordan.)
DT 1:7-8 (From the wilderness to Lebanon, and from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates.)

... In other words, there is a great territory that will have to be given to the present-day Jews before this so-called prophecy/promise ever comes to pass. Further, if this is the first so-called prophecy, then it is also the first unfulfilled prophecy.

The original promise was made to Abram and it did not come about during his own time as promised--as can be seen by the necessity for "God" to repeat the promise, through succeeding generations, from Abram to Isaac, to Jacob, to Joseph (and his brothers), to Moses--and to also add condition upon condition (see below) as the fulfillment encountered repeated delays.

And although Joshua eventually succeeded in settling the group in Canaan, it has certainly NOT been an everlasting possession. Note, that even in the original partitioning of Canaan, it was allotted to Zebulin (JS 19:10-16), Asher (JS 19:24-31), and Naphtali (JS 19:32-39), and that not a one of these was successful in driving out the original inhabitants (per the added condition, see below) in spite of bloody battles (JG 11:30-33, 4:, 5: ).

Development of conditions associated with the alleged promise:
GE 12:7 (No condition.)
GE 13:11-18 (Ditto.)
GE 15:7 (Ditto.)
GE 15:18 (Ditto.)
GE 17:8-14 (Circumcision.)
GE 26:3 (Ditto.)
GE 27:8-14 (Ditto.)
EX 23:31-33 (Expel the original inhabitants, make no treaty with them.)
NU 33:50-56, 34:1-15 (Occupy Canaan.)
DT 11:22 (Keep the Law.)

No, the promised land prophecy has NOT been fulfilled--and it likely never will be. In fact, Israel will be lucky if it can hang onto what it has (it has already given back some small parts).

---

And so it goes. Biblical authors make so-called prophecy come true with the stroke of a pen, and Christians and Christian apologists make it come true by stretching the facts or by telling only part of them, or by stretching the prophecies or ignoring parts of them.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

One Who Replies

August 20, 2005, 05:39 PM

au contraire Mr DM, I think it is time for you to stop. The jewish people have been restored to sovereignty over the land of Israel, and they have had their Holy City (jerusalem) restored and their temple mount restored (they have military and political control over the temple mount but they permit it to be administered by the muslims). They have had their ancient language restored,etc. This is a good example of atheists not being able to see the forest for the trees. In 1948 the atheists argued that sovereignty didnt equate with restoration. Then in 1967 the atheists argued that military and political control over the temple mount did not pass muster with prophecy because the final jewish temple had not been rebuilt on the temple mount. As we speak orthodox jewish groups have already identified, vetted, trained and ordained "pure" young male priests from an unbroken levitical line to be ready to begin the sacrificial worship system of ancient Israel , moreover, three different organizations have contributed to the manufacture of all of the temple ritual worship instruments with precise and rigorous detail with the ancient originals. Also, orthodox rabbis have already identified, chosen and blessed a large stone form the original temple to be used as the cornerstone for the final temple. All the major Israeli political parties have now called for the rebuilding of the final temple. All that remains to be done is for a peace treaty to be signed and confirmed which will allow the temple to be rebuilt on the temple mount. Never in history have a people been nearly destroyed, and then the remnant scattered throughout the world and bitterly persecuted and attacked and then almost 2,000 years later been restored back to their original homeland and regained political and military sovereignty over that homeland.
This is one area where a little learning is a very dangerous thing and atheists have not done all their homework on it!. The latter day exodus and return to Israel was a modern day miracle. The jewish people used modern methods and also developed a unique and unprecedented technique for making arid desert "sand" grow crops. They made the land fertile again just as the Bible prophecied. In 1948, 1967, and 1973, the Israelis accomplished military miracles in their defeat of the attacking forces. I was personally involved in 1973 in a support role and I can tell you that the hand of God was with Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
Keep a very very close eye on Israel and Jerusalem today. Next there will be a peace treaty which will be signed and confirmed by foreign powers. Then when the newspapers and CNN are saying "peace and safety" and all is well with the jews and muslims in the middle east, get ready for all hell to break loose. If you cant see what is happening in Israel today in light of Bible prophecy then may God help you!

Stacey Melissa

August 20, 2005, 07:48 PM

-DM-

August 21, 2005, 03:11 AM

au contraire Mr DM...One Who Replies:

Nothing in your post addresses the fact that the this so-called prophecy has NOT been fulfilled in anything like the biblical proportions of this alleged prophecy--which changed many times, by the way, with various inconsistent descriptions of the land encompassed and the conditions on which it would be fulfilled (see my post, above). (Note: It is not to "God's" credit that "He" hasn't been as faithful as the Jews in this regard).

What it boils down to is that you are taking but a portion of the overall biblical "prophecy" and running with it as if the whole "prophecy" itself had been fulfilled. It hasn't been, and just like the Parousia--which is long overdue--it likely never will be.

Please don't continue to post this same malarkey over and over again.

-DM-

Sauron

August 21, 2005, 12:30 PM

I apologize, if I am not following all the right protocol. I'm not typically a forum kind of guy. I noticed on the site critiquing Josh McDowell's work there were several replies. And none of those seemed to quite fit any of the thread headings listed.

I have been a Christian for 28 years and am currently a pastor. I want to apologize for the mean spirited comments that you have received from other Christians. I have yet to understand why some believe that you can change someone's mind by insulting them.

I am glad that you guys are writing a critique of ETDV. I firmly believe that no belief is worth holding on to if you aren't courageous enough to see it questioned. I haven't been able to read all the articles. After awhile, scholastic talk makes my head feel like it will pop. It's the same with some commentaries I study for sermons. One of the weaknesses that I've seen in the critiques thus far is that ETDV is being held to the standard of scholastics, when it was written for the general audience. When the line of logic in the book might seem a little lacking, perhaps it has been put on the 6th grade reading level that most popular books are written in. I am not saying that one shouldn't take McDowell up on his offer and test his evidence. However, it might be prudent to realize that most folks are not well versed in scholastic approaches. McDowell's book wouldn't be selling at Walmart, if it were written to the degree that most scholars expect.

I also wrote a rebuttal to one section of McDowell's ETDAV. I focused on Chapter 11, "Prophecy Fulfilled in History". My comments are derived from that effort, but apply to the entire body of ETDAV.

So having said that, here are a few points to consider:

1. professional behavior and intellectual integrity - I understand your point about who the audience for ETDAV is. However, even if the audience is the general public (and not academics), there are still problems with McDowell's accuracy, honesty and thoroughness. McDowell frequently:

a. quotes sources out of context;
b. omits parts of quotations that disagree with whatever point he is trying to make;
c. relies upon questionable sources, or sources of unknown origin;
d. outdated sources that have long since been updated;

These are mistakes that don't belong in *any* book, whether it is intended for the average person or for the university professor. Let's say for the moment that I am writing a book for high school students about how earthquakes occur. I might not go into as much detail in that book as I would for an expanded version that was intended for professional geologists. But I would NEVER do any of the items above (a, b, c or d).

2. factual errors and sloppy reasoning - McDowell also has made some truly amazing mistakes, such as:

a. confusing Petra with Bozrah when discussing the prophecies on Edom;
b. getting the Thebes in Greece confused with the Thebes in Egypt when discussing the prophecies about Memphis and Thebes.

You may not realize this, but McDowell farmed out most of the research work to a team of associates. McDowell was sort of the editor in charge of the ETDAV project. He failed to reconcile contradictions between the submissions, however. So in Chapter 11 we see two different colleagues of his giving different interpretations to the same prophecy.

3. scope of distribution - your comment about ETDAV being sold in Walmart is actually part of the reason why McDowell is so dangerous: a mass-marketed book full of errors only perpetuates bad reasoning and ridicule of christianity. I'm also not sure that your approach is correct; I don't think that McDowell intended ETDAV to be merely a mass appeal book. Robert Turkel aka JP Holding also tried to make that same claim, but it didn't stand up under scrutiny.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/apologetic.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/apologetic2.html

Note these comments from the preface of ETDAV:

Anyone who shares his faith regularly soon learns that certain questions about Christianity surface over and over again. With a little basic preparation on these questions, any regularly witnessing Christian can answer 90 percent of them.

One of Josh's greatest motivations for writing Evidence was to save students time in doing the research necessary to prepare a credible paper or message on the historical evidences for the Christian faith.

McDowell evidently intended this to be more than a mere starting point; it was intended to address a broad range of objections to christianity.

4. investment of time - Whether you agree or disagree with ETDAV, there is one thing I think both sides agree on: McDowell has made a LOT of claims, numerically speaking. Investigating them and/or debunking them does take time. Many people want to understand the issues behind biblical criticism, archaeology, evolution, etc. but are not prepared to invest the necessary time to do so. Instead, they want a 30 second summary, which (obviously) can't contain all the details. If you, or anyone else, wants to understand some of the reasons McDowell is wrong, then there is a minimum amount of time you need to dedicate, in order to do so.

However, my chief concern I suppose is with an apologistic, scientific or historical approach to God. Religion is ultimately a realm of metaphysics.

That's fine to believe. But what you've just said is that McDowell's writing ETDAV was a pointless exercise. I happen to agree with that viewpoint, but for probably different reasons than you.

I know that doesn't set well with folks who believe in the scientific method and trust only what can be emperically proven. But, life is full of the unprovable - love, freedom, value, thoughts - do these not exist, because one cannot put them up against a ruler? Even the belief that scientific or logical methods are the best way to approach life cannot be measured.

However, most of McDowell's claims were not of this kind. ETDAV made strong, testable claims about items in the physical world that can be touched, viewed, measured, etc. Now if you think that McDowell was barking up the wrong tree by approaching "proof" from that direction, then fine - I invite you to write him and give your viewpoint.

You may also be interested to know that the latest reprintings of ETDAV omit most of the Chapter 11 "Prophecies Fulfilled in History". I'm guessing that McDowell got skewered by so many corrections that he felt it was hurting his credibility by retaining those claims.

One Who Replies

August 23, 2005, 11:46 AM

Fortuna

August 23, 2005, 01:16 PM

I read a bit of McDowell's ETDAV last year, but I got frustrated with it. I actually just skipping around some of the parts I didnt understand.

It seemed apparent to me that ETDAV was proverbially "preaching to the choir". To make things more confusing, some of his stuff is initially hard to really comprehend if you are not from a Christian background (like myself). But, that wasn;t a bad thing because it made me find out or ask Christian friends some questions about where this or that tradition originated. But, that part was a good learning experience.
I am comforted by reading the snippet from the forward above that McDowell intended
it that way himself, to ;

"provide a resource for Christian students in colleges and universites and other Christians who were struggling to answer the views of materialsts".

So, he is assuming that his audience is from a Christian background and already adheres to a certain set of beliefs.

However, I did find most interesting some of the alternate interpretations of Hebrew scripture that are inherent in some of the beliefs (i.e. Messianic expectations) and how themes from Torah and prophets are reflected in the Jesus story (i.e. Jesus and Barabbas as a clever literary allusion to the scapegoat kippur ritual from Leviticus).

Trilemma.

I also was particularly put off by his trilemma setup. There are so many literary devices that use allusions to characters, themes and events from Torah, Prophets and other Jewish literature popular at that time (especially 1 Enoch). That's something that really jumped out at me the first time I ever read the NT gospels, that the author was casting his character in the mold of the old Jewish prophets, to the point of giving him some of the same miraculous events (i.e. Elisha's feeding miracle, the scapegoat theme, etc, there are many examples) and a certain weaving together of quotes from these(i.e. The herald in the wilderness) which to me is reminiscent of midrash.

He didnt seems to consider these literary or legendizing effects in his setup of the trilemma To be fair I remember that he does briefly mention this sort of thing elsewhere, but never really addressed it.
As I also remember He doesnt sufficiently deal with the fact that these texts were hand-picked and put together into a collection.

As far as I'm concerned whet I've said here barely scratches the surface of possibilities of the Jesus stories. His trilimma is a vast oversimplification, and a biased one at that. OTOH that might be just my misunderstanding of the intended audience for this book. The "choir" audience would never consider these alternative views anyway.

But, as PastorBracken said ;

When the line of logic in the book might seem a little lacking, perhaps it has been put on the 6th grade reading level that most popular books are written in.

I agree pastor. This book was not intended for someone like myself, but nevertheless I have to sdmit that I did learn somethings from it. It did give me a peek into the beliefs of these types of Christians. I'm more accustomed to reading stuff from Academic, Roman Catholics and Anglican scholars, who really dont seem to take the Bible as literally as McDowell's audience.

The only other comment I would make is something I read earlier in this thread to the effect of ;

Anyone can read the bible and understand it...

That is completely contrary to my experience with this type of literature. I find it VERY difficult to understand it without a lot of background information that would have to take many years to learn.

I dont find it to be simple by any means. Back when I was studying some of the NT stuff, one of my Catholic freinds told me that this is why he and many Caths don't really bother with reading it, because he just isn;t equipped to even begin to understand it. They instead read commentaries on them by priests, teachers and people hwo have studied them in some depth.

But, all this just goes back to the fact that McDowell had a specific audience in mind when he wrote the book. That audience themselves are from a wide dempgraphic, and he speaks to the lowest common denominator. I dont mean that in any negative or derogatory way anymore than does PastorBracken with his 6th grade comment. He has simply targeted his book to that audience, which is really just good Marketing.

I'm not the intended audience so its no wonder that I have so many reservations and misunderstandings.

Stacey Melissa

August 23, 2005, 01:19 PM

McDowell critics...meet the "Skeptics Annotated Bible"....talking about professional ethics!, .....McDowell pushes the envelope a bit as any good advocate tends to do and he builds a few straw men which dont defend well, but tu quoque! the atheists dont seem to to notice the multitiude of errors and outright fabrications in their top selling(?) beginner's guide!
I'm an atheist, and I've noticed tons of problems with the SAB. It's a quick and dirty starting point for finding possible problems with the Bible, but that's about it. I've mentioned this before in other threads here, too. I always investigate further upon reading about a possible Biblical problem in the SAB, because I just don't trust the SAB all that much.

You are aware that tu quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_tu_quoque) is a logical fallacy, right?

Still, it's nice to see someone admit that McDowell makes some straw man arguments.

One Who Replies

August 23, 2005, 02:50 PM

yes, tu quoque can be a logical fallacy but it isnt always, esp. if one is arguing against hypocricy! And I have made a fairly thorough study of EDTAV and for the most part, I think McDowell's research is sound. Keep in mind that this was a book written by committee, in part. Also, he used graduate research assistants, and if one has ever used such helpers one would know that they can be long on zeal and enthusiasm but sometimes a bit short on wisdom and balance, especially if they are ideologically committed to the arguments they are researching. The real problem, imho, is the evidentiary weighing one. Atheists see the glass as half empty and theists see the glass as half full on a lot of evidentiary issues.
For example, Bible prophecy, atheists like to move the goalposts in their favor, just as theists do. If I had a dollar for how many times an atheist has tried to argue that Tyre(which was once a mighty city-state/empire with an army and navy and a King which sent ambassadors and received ambassadors..and is now a backwater town of less than 20,000 people) has been "rebuilt" or that Babylon (which was once a city-state/empire and one of the seven wonders of the world ....) has been "rebuilt", I could actually afford to rebuild them!!! Most of what McDowell has to say is correct. Most of what Hal Lindsay has to say is correct, and Grant Jeffrey and Perry Stone.

-DM-

August 23, 2005, 03:39 PM

Most of what McDowell has to say is correct. Most of what Hal Lindsay has to say is correct, and Grant Jeffrey and Perry Stone.And quite a bit of what these individuals have had to say is incorrect. This is not what we would expect were the so-called Holy Spirit a reality.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

Sauron

August 23, 2005, 04:30 PM

McDowell critics...meet the "Skeptics Annotated Bible"....talking about professional ethics!,

If you have examples of the four items I listed above from the SAB, please post them. Otherwise, you're just waving your hands.

Not that I will defend the SAB; I rarely use it or read it. But an accusation like yours should be supported, not merely alleged.

McDowell pushes the envelope a bit as any good advocate tends to do and he builds a few straw men which dont defend well, but tu quoque!

No, he exhibits the unprofessionalism I listed above. That is not "pushing the envelope", as you so lamely try to whitewash above. It is outside the envelope entirely. To remind everyone - McDowell:

a. quotes sources out of context;
b. omits parts of quotations that disagree with whatever point he is trying to make;
c. relies upon questionable sources, or sources of unknown origin;
d. outdated sources that have long since been updated;

the atheists dont seem to to notice the multitiude of errors and outright fabrications in their top selling(?) beginner's guide!

Is the SAB for sale? I thought it was an internet only web resource. Shows how much I know about it, I suppose.

Sauron

August 23, 2005, 04:44 PM

yes, tu quoque can be a logical fallacy but it isnt always, esp. if one is arguing against hypocricy! And I have made a fairly thorough study of EDTAV and for the most part, I think McDowell's research is sound.

I question your statement about having made a "fairly thorough study" of it. Having studied one chapter in detail, I'm in a position to know that it was chock-full with errors, sometimes several in a single paragraph. If that one chapter is representative of the entire book -- and there is no reason to think otherwise -- then ETDAV is rife with elementary errors in fact, history, logic and research.

But if you insist, then perhaps you'd like to open a thread in the BC&H forum and defend McDowell's ETDAV claims.

Keep in mind that this was a book written by committee, in part. Also, he used graduate research assistants, and if one has ever used such helpers one would know that they can be long on zeal and enthusiasm but sometimes a bit short on wisdom and balance, especially if they are ideologically committed to the arguments they are researching.

1. The fact that it was written by committee does not matter. Nor does it lower the quality bar for expectations. One has to simply select the committee members carefully and outline what is / is not acceptable evidence.

2. Yes, McDowell used grad students - from the wrong disciplines, without the backround to do the necessary research. Sad, but it does not excuse McDowell in any way. His name is on the book; he acted as the coordinator and editor in chief for the arguments. The final product is his own responsibility.

The real problem, imho, is the evidentiary weighing one. Atheists see the glass as half empty and theists see the glass as half full on a lot of evidentiary issues.

No, the real problem is that theists have set this up as a series of one extraordinary claim after another. But when pressed for extraordinary *evidence* to support the claims, they're stumped. All they have to offer is the equivalent of a scribbled note on the back of a napkin. When that gets rejected - as it naturally should be - the theists cry foul, never bothering to examine their own claim to notice the wide discrepancy between:

1. the quality of the claim; and
2. the quality of the evidnece

For example, Bible prophecy, atheists like to move the goalposts in their favor, just as theists do. If I had a dollar for how many times an atheist has tried to argue that Tyre(which was once a mighty city-state/empire with an army and navy and a King which sent ambassadors and received ambassadors..and is now a backwater town of less than 20,000 people) has been "rebuilt"

Tyre never fell according to prophecy. So the obligation is on the theist, who wants to claim that the prophecy was fulfilled in the first place. Of course, Tyre was rebuilt at various times in history, but the prophecy is more detailed than just that.

By the way: lee_merrill already started a thread on Tyre in BC&H. He had his ass handed to him. Several times. You might want to read that thread on Tyre first, before starting another one.

or that Babylon (which was once a city-state/empire and one of the seven wonders of the world ....) has been "rebuilt",

Same problem here. The theist has to prove that Babylon fell according to prophecy first. Good luck. (PS - there's also a lee_merrill thread on Babylon in BC&H as well. Same advice to you applies).

[Note: BC&H = the Biblical Criticism & History forum.]

Stacey Melissa

August 24, 2005, 06:24 AM

yes, tu quoque can be a logical fallacy but it isnt always, esp. if one is arguing against hypocricy!
The current thread is not about hypocrisy. You're throwing out a red herring if that's what you're trying to shift the topic to. "Red herring" is another logical fallacy, BTW.

The real problem, imho, is the evidentiary weighing one. Atheists see the glass as half empty and theists see the glass as half full on a lot of evidentiary issues.
The glass is supposed to be 100% full (or 0% empty, if that's how you like to look at it). 50% doesn't cut it. God isn't supposed to be 50% perfect.

For example, Bible prophecy, atheists like to move the goalposts in their favor, just as theists do.
I've never seen an atheist moving the goalposts with regard to prophecy. Plenty of theists, yes, but never an atheist. Atheists do often think of new objections, but that's just a matter of not thinking of every single objection all at once, and up front.

If I had a dollar for how many times an atheist has tried to argue that Tyre(which was once a mighty city-state/empire with an army and navy and a King which sent ambassadors and received ambassadors..and is now a backwater town of less than 20,000 people) has been "rebuilt" or that Babylon (which was once a city-state/empire and one of the seven wonders of the world ....) has been "rebuilt", I could actually afford to rebuild them!!!
It isn't just atheists who say the Tyre prophecy is failed. In the annotations for the Oxford Annotated NRSV, 3rd Edition, it explicitly notes that the Tyre prophecy failed.

-DM-

August 24, 2005, 06:50 AM

It isn't just atheists who say the Tyre prophecy is failed. In the annotations for the Oxford Annotated NRSV, 3rd Edition, it explicitly notes that the Tyre prophecy failed.It should be mentioned in connection with this that The New Oxford Annotated Bible(s) are the work of Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy (Editors). The notes are usually their work. They are two of the most trusted individuals in the field, trusted by both Christians (except perhaps fundamentalist Christians) and non-Christians alike.

Metzger is Professor of New Testament at Princeton. He serves on the board of the American Bible Society. He is a respected scholar of Greek, New Testament and Old Testament.

Murphy was the George Washington Ivey professor emeritus of biblical studies at Duke. (He died in 2002.) A highly respected scholar, he also served on the board of revisers for The Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

One Who replies

August 24, 2005, 08:59 AM

madmax2976

August 24, 2005, 11:11 AM

2. The EDTAV is a good beginner's apologetic. Since it shows poor reasoning skills in many instances, I would characterize it as a terrible beginners' apologetic. See the Sec Web library for a thorough critique of this book.

I like McDowell, but I like William Lane Craig better. Do you atheists have a debater that can beat William Lane Craig? I'm not even a professional philosopher or as seasoned a debater as Craig and yet even I would have no qualms about debating him. At least not in a forum such as this.

7. extaroridnary claims: I have some too: A stranger risks his life by running into a burning house to save another stranger's pet dog(this risk taker began as a chance fusion of amino acids and then became a single cell animal and developed into a mammal and then a human being based on survival of the fittest). Extraordinary claims require extraoridnary evidence! Great - find any atheist who would make such a claim and you can demand all the evidence you want.

LeeBuhrul

August 24, 2005, 06:09 PM

Sauron

August 24, 2005, 06:11 PM

There are many cross posts and my apologies if i omit a response to everyone. 1. I have visited Tyre and I have visited Babylon. If all of you have also personally visited, and you wish to argue that these "city states" were rebuilt, then all I can say is God bless you.

Whether you have visited them or not truly is not relevant. I can point you to skeptics and atheists who have also visited those sites, and come away with conclusions opposite of yours. So the conclusion is that personal visitation is not the same thing as proof.

2. All that matters is whether you can prove your point about fulfilled prophecy. Can you? I invited you to open a Tyre thread or a Babylon thread over in BC&H. If your position is that rock-solid, then go ahead. We are waiting.

2. The EDTAV is a good beginner's apologetic.

ETDAV is a bad apologetic, whether for beginners or advanced. No apologetic, whether basic or advanced, should contain the types of research errors I outlined above. For that matter, no serious research work of *any* kind should have such errors.

But ETDAV is neither a good work, nor is it a serious work. It is a security blanket for poorly educated fundamentalist christians who need a crutch to support themselves and their fundamentalist/literalist views.

Show me Mcdowell's critical errors which defeat his key arguments!

Well, I can't speak for the entire book's errors; I am sure there are many. But I am familiar with the key faults of his Ch 11 "Prophecy Fulfilled in History." To remind the reader, in that chapter McDowell presents calculations as to the probability of each event happening; i..e, 1 in 5000, etc. Again, this is an attempt to impress poorly educated fundamentalist christians, similar to how creationists like to do with abiogenesis "probability" calculations.

Anyhow, they fatal flaws in ETDAV Ch 11 are:

1. McDowell does not understand how probability works. He failed to separate independent from dependent events;

2. McDowell fails to provide the justifications for how the probability of each discrete event was arrived at. In fact, as I detailed in my document on ETDAV, here is actually how he arrived (ahem) at the figures:

The probability of each prophecy being fulfilled by chance was arrived at by getting an estimate from "a class in Christian Evidences" at Pasadena City College sponsored by Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship. (Stoner 1952, p. 71).

It scarcely needs to be mentioned that a Bible study class, sponsored by an evangelistic association, is hardly an objective source. Nor is it as desirable a reference as would be, for example, asking archaeologists, historians or geographers who specialize in the period for their estimations. In addition, Stoner’s probability figures accepted at face value all the supernatural claims that evangelicals place on the Bible, which is contrary to the spirit of investigation and the search for actual evidence.

3. McDowell fails to differentiate prophecy from the expected flow of history;

4. McDowell fails to present his claims in a falsifiable or testable form

Of course, there are dozens -- and I mean that literally - dozens of other mistakes that McDowell makes in that chapter. But right out of the starting gate, we find these particular four fatal errors running like a tragic faultline through the entire section of Ch. 11 in ETDAV.

Of course, if you want to discuss this, go ahead and open up a new thread in BC&H. We can debate this in real-time, instead of having posts delayed by moderator review and posting. In addition, your "message" will reach a wider audience. My prediction, however, is that you won't last beyond page 3 of the responses. :rolling:

3. McDowell is for junior high kids and college students (freshmen).

Only if you believe that it is acceptable for gullible jr high kids and college freshmen to be spoonfed mistakes and bad reasoning. First you offered the excuse that ETDAV was written by committee; now you are trying to ease the pressure by claiming ETDAV's audience is only young people. Neither of those two excuses works; the quality bar for accuracy does not get lowered. The level of *detail* might get lowered, but not the accuracy.

And it's interesting that you chose those two groups of people (jr high kids, college freshmen) as an audience. I already addressed such a scenario earlier:

These are mistakes that don't belong in *any* book, whether it is intended for the average person or for the university professor. Let's say for the moment that I am writing a book for high school students about how earthquakes occur. I might not go into as much detail in that book as I would for an expanded version that was intended for professional geologists. But I would NEVER do any of the items above (a, b, c or d).

I like McDowell, but I like William Lane Craig better. Do you atheists have a debater that can beat William Lane Craig?

1. I find it improbable that you "like" William Lane Craig at all; given the fact that you think McDowell is a good apologist, and given the low quality of your rebuttals, the odds are that you don't even understand Craig's arguments.

2. There are several debates between skeptics and Craig in the library. Go read them.

Quite frankly I see very little truly objective academic peer review for either side.

Then you would be wrong. The side of science/history/archaeology/etc. requires peer review. But the fundamentalists run from peer review like it was a contagious disease.

7. extaroridnary claims: I have some too: A stranger risks his life by running into a burning house to save another stranger's pet dog(this risk taker began as a chance fusion of amino acids and then became a single cell animal and developed into a mammal and then a human being based on survival of the fittest). Extraordinary claims require extraoridnary evidence!
What exactly are you asking for proof about? The paragraph above merely shows that you don't understand evolution or survival of the fittest. Proving that point is easy: that is not what 'survival of the fittest' says.

-DM-

August 25, 2005, 12:41 AM

The glass is supposed to be 100% full (or 0% empty, if that's how you like to look at it). 50% doesn't cut it. God isn't supposed to be 50% perfect.Exactly!

A Christian such as Josh McDowell, who allegedly has the Holy Spirit within, should not make the kinds of errors that have been pointed out. After all...

---

As Jesus [allegedly] put it, "It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." [MT 10.19-20]

"When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." [JN 16.13]

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." [1John 2:27]

---
-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

-DM-

August 25, 2005, 12:52 AM

The side of science/history/archaeology/etc. requires peer review.It is to the credit of these disciplines that they tend to be self-correcting as new discoveries are made and as the critical analysis of peer review is applied to ideas, both old and new.

But the fundamentalists run from peer review like it was a contagious disease.It is NOT to the credit of religious belief systems that they too-often stubbornly perpetrate and perpetuate error--until they are forced to adjust to the reality of what is known through science, archaeology, etc.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

One Who Replies

August 25, 2005, 03:05 PM

One Who Replies

August 25, 2005, 03:52 PM

Mr DM I. As to the Holy Spirit....are you really sure you want to go there? I suppose if one is 100% convinced there isnt a Holy Spirit one wouldnt worry about blaspheming same, but still.... are you sure? anyway, to take your argument to its slippey slope conclusion would require that the church and its leaders and even its parishioners be "perfect". All its authors, scholars, pundits and bloviators, etc be perfect. A bit elitist dont you think?

-DM-

August 25, 2005, 04:08 PM

A bit elitist dont you think?"God" is allegedly both omnipotent and perfect. It could be argued without stretching logic that such a god could, should, and would see to it that his representatives here on earth got it right, that anything less would be irresponsible on the part of a perfect and omnipotent "God."

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

One Who Replies

August 25, 2005, 04:17 PM

Sauron II. Interesting insult you launch at me when you say "odds are I dont understand William Lane Craig's" arguments. Which arguments of Craigs' do you think I dont understand? and which arguments of Craig's has sauron succesfully rebutted? has Sauron written any "balanced peer reviewed" articles or books?

Stacey Melissa

August 25, 2005, 04:19 PM

"God" is allegedly both omnipotent and perfect. It could be argued without stretching logic that such a god could, should, and would see to it that his representatives here on earth got it right, that anything less would be irresponsible on the part of a perfect and omnipotent "God."
I'd go even further. If God is perfect, everything he creates is necessarily perfect. If God created me, that means I'm perfect.

Not that I'm elitist about it, or anything. You're perfect, too, DM. And the same goes for you, One Who Replies. And Sauron, and....

P.S. - I, for one, am perfectly, 100% sure there is no Holy Spirit. I thus extend my middle finger in the general direction of the firmament, or wherever it may be that the Holy Spirit is claimed to hang out, without fear of repercussion.

One Who Replies

August 25, 2005, 04:33 PM

Sauron III: since YOU raised the issue: what is the statistical probability of random (nondihedral) abiogenesis? (primoridial earth)

Sauron

August 25, 2005, 05:53 PM

Sauron I. In the latter days the plains buffalo will return as they roam today (circa late 1800's),the sacred land of the apache will be restored, the apache ancient language and ways will be restored, the white man will not rule, but apaches will replace the white men as rulers, the apache will have their ancient circle at wyetokney restored. Kindly tell us the odds of this happening using commonly accepted statistical analysis.

1. I don't have to. I have made no such predictions or statements about their probability. However, McDowell did make such statements. Which is why this is still about McDowell, in spite of your attempt to shift the focus.

2. McDowell presented such statements on probability, yet failed to present the evidence on how he arrived at such numbers. Fatal flaw.

3. Not only that, but McDowell failed to differentiate independent from dependent events. If I were ever to take up your challenge, that is not a mistake that I (or any educated person) would make.

4. McDowell also failed to differentiate prophecy from the expected flow of history, and to present his statements in a testable form. Just two more mistakes that I would not make.

Your move.

-DM-

August 26, 2005, 02:00 AM

I'd go even further. If God is perfect, everything he creates is necessarily perfect. If God created me, that means I'm perfect.Stacey,

I agree. I have fairly often said exactly the same thing (I just didn't do so here--yet). After all, we wouldn't say, for example, that an architect who designed flawed houses was a perfect architect.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

Sauron

August 26, 2005, 09:58 AM

Sauron III: since YOU raised the issue: what is the statistical probability of random (nondihedral) abiogenesis? (primoridial earth)
Same answer applies. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2665692#post2665692)

1. I don't have to.

2. This is a discussion about Josh McDowell's ETDAV - which you endorsed as being a good apologetic. Do you plan to defend it, or not?

3. You've been invited twice to open a prophecy thread in BC&H. Yet you have not done so. In spite of this boast you made earlier:

If I had a dollar for how many times an atheist has tried to argue that Tyre(which was once a mighty city-state/empire with an army and navy and a King which sent ambassadors and received ambassadors..and is now a backwater town of less than 20,000 people) has been "rebuilt" or that Babylon (which was once a city-state/empire and one of the seven wonders of the world ....) has been "rebuilt", I could actually afford to rebuild them!!!

Any particular reason why you have failed to open such a thread? And while you're at it, if you really want to know about abiogenesis calculations then go ahead and open a thread in Creation&Evolution. I'll join you there as well. However, I'm not going to allow you to de-rail this thread, which is about Josh McDowell and the systemic mistakes he made in Ch 11 of ETDAV.

4. Would you consider changing your screename to "One who dodges"?

Stacey Melissa

August 26, 2005, 11:03 AM

Sauron III: since YOU raised the issue: what is the statistical probability of random (nondihedral) abiogenesis? (primoridial earth)
I smell yet another red herring. Quite a stockpile of stinky fish you have there.

We don't have enough information to make any kind of abiogenesis probability calculation - random or otherwise. That you would even suggest we do so indicates you might have a poor understanding of probabilities.

One Who Replies

August 26, 2005, 12:04 PM

sauron, thus far you are the artful dodger my friend, you have dodged almost every question I have asked, and no, "you do have to" answer if you want to retain any credibility at all, in my profession if you say the other side's calculations are wrong then you are required to show your own calculations. Why dont we start with the very first question I asked and that you completely dodged, concerning a stranger saving another strangers' pet dog.... A friend of mine who is a professor at Northwestern helped to 'vet' much of the research in the "selfish gene", so I know a bit about the topic. If you wont answer my question, then I wont waste my time with you. Sauron, if you are not academically sophisticated in the field of abstract statistical methodology then just say so and we need not continue our discussion....

-DM-

August 26, 2005, 12:28 PM

sauron, thus far you are the artful dodger my friend, you have dodged almost every question I have askedAlmost no one addresses every single point made by those with whom he disagrees. You have "dodged" many questions and points made by others. As one example, you have yet to answer the question that I asked about what my rankings in your "ranking test" would prove, the question that I asked you to answer BEFORE I did my rankings, although I went ahead and did it anyway. I bring up this one item because I am genuinely interested in your answer to my question.

"you do have to" answer if you want to retain any credibility at allCredibility with whom? You?

In terms of his credibility with me, it is very high.

in my professionYour profession as a Christian Missionary? Or your profession as a part-time teacher? If the latter, you are plain and simply wrong given that one can sometimes know that the calculations of another are wrong, or very likely wrong, without being required to show similarly unlikely calculations.

if you say the other side's calculations are wrong then you are required to show your own calculations.Not necessarily. I once had a Geometry teacher who made numerous mistakes on the blackboard in presenting geometric proofs. I would sometimes recognize those errors without necessarily knowing the correct methodology. It is perhaps similar with Sauron; he may have read enough about the invalidity of such calculations to know or strongly suspect that they cannot possibly be valid, yet be unable to make such calculations himself. In addition, as he rightly points out, you make claims about the validity of such calculations, thus it is up to you to support your claims.

if you are not academically sophisticated in the field of abstract statistical methodology then just say so and we need not continue our discussion....Are you? If so, what are your qualifications?

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

Sauron

August 26, 2005, 03:08 PM

sauron, thus far you are the artful dodger my friend, you have dodged almost every question I have asked,

Nonsense. You asked for a list of McDowell's mistakes. I gave that to you. But instead of addressing those mistakes, you wanted to derail the thread. I simply prevented that from happening.

You endorsed McDowell and ETDAV, yet when the mistakes in Josh's reasoning were pointed out to you -- at your request -- you failed to address or rectify those mistakes. Instead, you want us to forget that you endorsed McDowell and you now want to change the subject. Here we see you again trying to de-rail the thread. And no, I am not going to allow it.

So again:
are you planning to defend McDowell, and your statements about him?

and no, "you do have to" answer if you want to retain any credibility at all,

Considering how:

1. I gave you a detailed list of McDowell's mistakes;
2. You are avoiding opening up the prophecy thread in BC&H in spite of bragging that you could defeat skeptics - and you have ducked/dodged this three times now;
3. You have tried four times to unsuccessfully shift the topic away from McDowell and onto me;

So given the above, I think my credibility is quite safe, thank you. On the other hand, you are squirming like an earthworm that sees the hook approaching.

and in my profession if you say the other side's calculations are wrong then you are required to show your own calculations.

What can I say? Then you are incompetent and should be fired from your profession.

Here are the facts:

1. McDowell (and you, by endorsing him) have offered a bogus probability calculation, chock full of bad reasoning.
2. I have identified those flaws, as well as explaining *why* they are flaws;
3. It is not necessary for me to show an alternate answer to some other unrelated question, in order for me to successfully to point out the flaws in McDowell's answer.
4. McDowell failed to produce a probability calculation that worked. And you have failed to address the holes in McDowell's argument.

Why dont we start with the very first question I asked blah blah blah

1. Because you have made claims in this thread first. You claimed to be able to defeat skeptics, you stated that ETDAV was a good apologetic, etc. etc. etc. There are already claims on the table.

2. He who claims first, has first burden of proof. So the spotlight is *still* on you.

if you are not academically sophisticated blah blah blah

1. This isn't about me. This is about McDowell, and your endorsement of him/ETDAV.

2. If you are sufficiently qualified in this field, then you should already recognize and admit the mistakes/missing data in Mcdowell's calculations. Thus you are being intellectually dishonest by dodging this point.

3. On the other hand, if you're not an expert in this field and you've simply learned how to type a few big words from a google search on "probability", well then --- you are likewise dishonest.

Sauron

August 26, 2005, 03:29 PM

I smell yet another red herring. Quite a stockpile of stinky fish you have there.

We don't have enough information to make any kind of abiogenesis probability calculation - random or otherwise. That you would even suggest we do so indicates you might have a poor understanding of probabilities.

Ah Stacey - you gave it away. :thumbs: Any complex event like abiogenesis is a multi-variable problem in probability that cannot be solved. In fact, you can't even set up the conditions for writing the problem; the necessary elements to be considered cannot be successfully enumerated, nor can their dependencies and interactions be fully mapped out. The only way around it is to make all sorts of gross level assumptions - but then those assumptions must be defended. And if our friend He Who Dodges knew as much about probability as he wants us to *think* he does, then he would have realized all this. (Besides, there is no evidence that McDowell used abstract statistical methodology here; why would he? The calculations in Ch 11 of ETDAV are straightforward probability)

So Stacey - you smell a red herring? I smell someone trying to peddle themselves off as academically more endowed than they really are.

Not necessarily. I once had a Geometry teacher who made numerous mistakes on the blackboard in presenting geometric proofs. I would sometimes recognize those errors without necessarily knowing the correct methodology. It is perhaps similar with Sauron; he may have read enough about the invalidity of such calculations to know or strongly suspect that they cannot possibly be valid, yet be unable to make such calculations himself.

There's actually somewhat more to it than that. But I'm not going to say any more about it, until He Who Dodges starts defending his statements about McDowell. "Shift the burden" is not a game that I am going to let him play here.

I also notice that he is very unwilling to enter into the larger BC&H forum with this penny-ante hogwash about prophecy that he is peddling. For some reason, he prefers:

(a) a forum with a low visibility where
(b) postings are necessarily delayed due to moderator viewing.

A strange position to take, for someone who brags about being a great, big slayer of prophecy skeptics. :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

In addition, as he rightly points out, you make claims about the validity of such calculations, thus it is up to you to support your claims.

Indeed. But our friend here, "Dances with Distractions", needs to start supporting his claims about McDowell and ETDAV.

-DM-

August 26, 2005, 04:20 PM

There's actually somewhat more to it than that.I see. My point is that OWR is wrong simply on the hypothetical basis that I offered; there is not necessarily any requirement that you know anything about such probability calculations other than to recognize when they are flawed.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

pastorbracken

August 27, 2005, 01:31 PM

[QUOTE=Mathew Goldstein]
There is good evidence that feelings and emotions generally correlate with physical states. We know that one or more chemicals are positively correlated (cause and effect relationship) with "feeling good", with pain, with sleepiness, etc. The pharmaceutical industry profits from this knowledge and everyone who owns stock in that industry is betting that this correlation is true.

In regard to the causal relationship of these chemicals, do we really know enough about endocrinology to assert that our bodies are the cause of these chemicals or if the emotions are the cause. My guestimation is that what is done physically can affect the mind/spirit and that what goes on spiritually can also affect the body. That cannot be proven, because one cannot prove there is spirit or mind empirically.

[QUOTE=Mathew Goldstein]
What is the point of going outside evidence and logical methods if not to falsely claim having explanations for everything when in fact we don't have such explanations? Why not just say we don't know instead of saying "God did it" when "God did it" is a meaningless and empty statement?

It is just as easily countered that there is no point with using logical or scientific methods. I am not so arrogant as to believe that I have all the answers. Yet, one must acknowledge that science cannot provide the answers to all questions, simply because not all questions are of an empirical nature. To try to prove God's existence with science is like trying to determine the mass of an object with only a ruler. It isn't the right tool.

[QUOTE=Mathew Goldstein]
Evolution does provide a explanation for what we call ideals and values benefitting a species and in any case evolution does not require everything be optimal. On the contrary, evolution predicts that biological phenomena will not be optimal because evolution is a messy and imperfect process. Many living creatures exhibit behaviors that qualify as "ideal and values" in the sense of acting to help others, this is not at all uniquely human. Insects exhibit such communal behaviors. A few other animals exhibit self-awareness - apes and dolphins come to mind.

Perhaps you are better read than I am about evolution, but I have never seen an evolutionary explanation for ideals and values. And you miss the point of my argument in two ways. You may recall that I used a tree for my argument. For ideals and values to be of evolutionary benefit, they must cause a living organism to be stronger than organisms that do not have the benefit. Additionally, this benefit would have to cover the full spectrum of organisms, animate and inanimate, to demonstrate that things such as freedom have an evolutionary impact. You do not address that argument.

Secondly, your assertion that other animals may have self-awareness does not have any bearing on the evolutionary benefit of freedom, love or any other intangible feeling. Your assertion implies that I believe that only humans have that capacity. That is errant thinking and arguing. As matter of fact, I do believe that perhaps all living things have some level of cognition. The Bible gives us a few examples of that, incidentally. Balaam's donkey is given a moment of speech to reprimand him. Paul writes that all of creation groans in expectation of Jesus' return.

However, Evolution Theory for Creation of Species is a theory. It is not fact. Many scientists treat it as fact, but it remains a theory. And it is increasingly becoming recognized as an inadequate theory for what it purports to prove. Despite what seems to me to be stretches in conclusions from the scant evidence available, evolution theory fails in one glaring way -- where did all the primordial stuff come from? Evolution theory does not even attempt to provide the first cause. Yet, many will take this one theory and build an argument that follows this basic line - God does not have to exist, God cannot be proven scientifically, therefore God does not exist. But, evolution theory does not give justification that there wasn't a supernatural first cause. There is no scientific theory today that can answer this one question, where did it come from? Oakum’s (ms) Razor says the simplest conclusion is usually the correct conclusion.

That's all the time I have today

Stacey Melissa

August 27, 2005, 01:49 PM

Perhaps I'm only displaying my relatively shallow understanding of statistics here (my education amounts to Business Stats, a.k.a. "Stats for Dummies" at university, plus a basic understanding of Bayesian analysis, gleaned from studying spam filtering algorithms), but isn't "abstract statistics" an oxymoron? Even Bayesian analyses have their basis in empirically gathered data.

I also Googled for abstract statistics, and even tried to find the topic buried at Wikipedia, all to no avail.

Here's something interesting I found in the Statistics article at Wikpedia:

The basic steps for any statistical research involves
1. plan the research including determining information sources, research subject selection, and ethical considerations for the proposed research and method,
2. design the experiment concentrating on the system model and the interaction of independent and dependent variables,
3. summarize a collection of observations to feature their commonality by suppressing details (descriptive statistics),
4. reach consensus about what the observations tell us about the world we observe (statistical inference),
5. document the results of the study.
For one thing, due to sample sizes of one, or even zero, we can't carry out those steps to determine the probability of abiogenesis, nor could McDowell have done it to determine the probability of anything in Chapter 11 of ETDAV.

Stacey Melissa

August 27, 2005, 03:38 PM

PastorBraken - Rather than derailing this thread on McDowell's apologetics, you may wish to post your questions in the Evolution/Creation forum and/or the Science & Skepticism forum. We have answers to every question and criticism you have posed, and I, for one, would be happy to provide those answers in the appropriate forum.

If that's not something you have time for, you can find brief answers to most of your questions in Talk.Origins' article, "Evolution is a fact and a theory" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html), in their Index to Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/), and in their FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html).

pastorbracken

August 27, 2005, 04:53 PM

Stacey,

It is kind of you to guide the "rookie." Evolution was mentioned and I was just following the train of conversation. Like I mentioned from the start, I'm new at this kind of thing. Thank you for your patience.

In a previous post, you mentioned the sixth grade reading level and the honesty and logic that must still be in those text books. I'm afraid that I wasn't clear on my addressing the sixth grade reading level. In my creative writing classes, I was taught that to be published in mass media, that one had to write at a sixth grade reading level. I thought that was ridiculous, but there you go. Incidently, have you read many sixth grade text books? The ones I have read are full of problems.

I agree with you that writings on apologetics or anything else presented as fact, must be well researched and presented in a reasonable manner. What I've read of McDowell, for the greater part is presented well and seems to be well documented. I don't have time to research his research team's work. Are there some hicups? A couple. There are just as many in the rebutal work that I've read. It seems to me that there has been a lot of emphasis on the few problem areas to the extent of ignoring the greater whole.

One of the difficulties with apologetic work is that much of it is based upon the interpretations of ancient historians, many of whom wrote from bias and from a much less stringent requirement of documentation. This leaves the researcher a great deal of wiggle room to interpret from their own bias, even if the intention is objectivity. The result is that two different opinions could be equally provable. The arguments boil down to who's historians are the most correct, which again comes down to a matter of faith.

This time, I really have to get back to work.