Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

[Robert Tulip]

You have also failed to address the other two ancient sources listed. Any of the three disprove your contention that there is an, "absence of definitive early citation."

Scientifically, the burden of proof rests with the person making a positive claim.

Doulos makes the positive claim that there is "definitive early citation" of the Gospels and Epistles.

In Bart Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist?, he throws this same false assertion at DM Murdock but ends up with egg on his face, because the citation he alleges is actually not there.

It is not up to me to prove there is no citation. But in the example I checked, the Epistle of Barnabas, it turned out that the specific claims that Doulos made were not true.

All Doulos has done is come back with an assertion that his reference disproves my contention, but he has not bothered to explain the disproof.

I think the reason is that as with Barnabas, when you look at the data the claim Doulos has made will not stack up. Happy to be proved wrong.

[Doulos]

Yup. Bias is normal, as it simply reflects coming to conclusions.

I stand with you in the guilty docks

You miss my point. If you do nothing to combat your bias, you will be more likely to arrive at false conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Every human is guilty in one way or another of bias. Yes, me too. But that's not my point, and never was. From countless personal experiences, the majority of people turn a blind eye to their bias. When they are called out on it, they fess up, but not otherwise. This applies to atheists and theists. But from the atheist camp, I see more integrity, where friends of mine will swallow their pride and throw out one of their sacred beliefs after critical examination. You don't see that from theists. At least, I never have. The most common response when I mention bias is very similar to yours. "Yes, we have bias, so what..."

Perhaps I'm the odd one. I see bias as a sort of evolutionary disease. Puppeteer strings laid in place from unending selective pressure.

Strange, since my response to you has never been, "Yes, we have bias, so what..."

Rather, what I have repeatedly saying is that:

a) Being aware of our bias is the first step in being able to adjust and compensate for it... what you term "combatting bias.'

b) That even as you claim to be doing so, you are exhibiting the very behaviour you accuse theists of

"But from the atheist camp, I see more integrity, where friends of mine will swallow their pride and throw out one of their sacred beliefs after critical examination. You don't see that from theists. At least, I never have."

Most people talking to their own 'camp' are willing to concede points, since the broad strokes are still intact. As well, Ingroup Bias, possible Anchoring Bias. Probable Empathy Gap in relation to ingroup.

Your very definition of bias demonstrates bias, as you've chosen to use 'cognitive bias' which is based in large part upon the perception of illogical arguments. Since you consider the theistic argument illogical, you are thus pre-supposing the conclusion.

"I see more integrity...You don't see that from theists. At least, I never have."
Yes, because your view is biased (in both the layman's and cognitive sense) and you perceive them as friends. Possibly Confirmation bias in there as well, and probable stereotyping.

Generally, you seem to demonstrate a 'Bias blind spot.'

The very fact that you think ascribe bias to an opposing thought group, and radically less to your own should be a warning sign. The question is, are you able to "swallow (your) pride and throw out one of (your) sacred beliefs after critical examination?"

[Doulos]

You have also failed to address the other two ancient sources listed. Any of the three disprove your contention that there is an, "absence of definitive early citation."

Scientifically, the burden of proof rests with the person making a positive claim.

Doulos makes the positive claim that there is "definitive early citation" of the Gospels and Epistles.

In Bart Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist?, he throws this same false assertion at DM Murdock but ends up with egg on his face, because the citation he alleges is actually not there.

It is not up to me to prove there is no citation. But in the example I checked, the Epistle of Barnabas, it turned out that the specific claims that Doulos made were not true.

All Doulos has done is come back with an assertion that his reference disproves my contention, but he has not bothered to explain the disproof.

I think the reason is that as with Barnabas, when you look at the data the claim Doulos has made will not stack up. Happy to be proved wrong.

(Interbane: Is Robert demonstrating the 'integrity' you spoke of?)

Hello Robert,

You made the assertion that there is an, "absence of definitive early citation (of the New Testament)."

I posted 3 example texts to demonstrate you were incorrect.

You looked at one of them, (and you seem to imply that you never researched the topic previously!) and your argument largely rests upon that fact that you don't understand what 'citation' means in referring to ancient documents.

You also fail to adress the other 2 documents, either of which contradict your point. I'm glad you're happy when you're proved wrong. You must be thrilled at the moment then.

[Doulos]

. . . Every human is guilty in one way or another of bias. Yes, me too. But that's not my point, and never was. From countless personal experiences, the majority of people turn a blind eye to their bias. When they are called out on it, they fess up, but not otherwise. This applies to atheists and theists. But from the atheist camp, I see more integrity, where friends of mine will swallow their pride and throw out one of their sacred beliefs after critical examination. You don't see that from theists. At least, I never have. The most common response when I mention bias is very similar to yours. "Yes, we have bias, so what..."

Perhaps I'm the odd one. I see bias as a sort of evolutionary disease. Puppeteer strings laid in place from unending selective pressure.

For many people it doesn't have to be a choice between: a) belief in God and b) striving to be a critical thinker. The more rigid one's religious beliefs, however, the less likely that critical thinking will become one's personal goal. Just a guess, but someone who believes that Noah really put a pair of every animal species on a boat is probably not really going to be very interested in critical thinking. A critical thinker must be dedicated to confronting his own cherished beliefs and be aware of his own biases. Though we are skillful at cognitive dissonance, such rigid beliefs are the antithesis of critical thinking.

Either that or the person who believes in Noah has had their critical faculties shaken out of their safety zone.

A large part of critical thinking is being willing (and taking rigorous pleasure in) laterally thinking about areas where one has certainty.

Are you creating a barrier to your own critical thinking by assuming that the opposing viewpoint must be illogical?

[Interbane]

Are you creating a barrier to your own critical thinking by assuming that the opposing viewpoint must be illogical?

Which one of us assumed the opposing viewpoint is illogical? If there are parts of the viewpoint that are illogical, there need be no assumptions. There could be a debate over the details of whether or not the part violates a logical principle. But typically such faults are easy to detect when you know what to look for.

But that's a tangent. I see no mention of illogical viewpoints in recent posts. Perhaps "unreasonable" would fit.

[Robert Tulip]

(Interbane: Is Robert demonstrating the 'integrity' you spoke of?)

Okay Doulos lets go through your comment line by line to demonstrate your scurrilous tactics.

Here you have opened up by implying that I lack integrity. But, as we look further into the details, it transpires that I am completely open about my comments, whereas you twist words to invent a distorted meaning because your argument lacks content.

Hello Robert,

You made the assertion that there is an, "absence of definitive early citation (of the New Testament)."

I posted 3 example texts to demonstrate you were incorrect.

You did not post any example texts. You referred to various texts. That is not posting them. You assert these texts are "definitive", but when I looked at one of them, it was nothing of the sort. So, the names of the sources you have raised are supposed to "demonstrate" something. A demonstration is not just a call to authority, it involves close textual explanation. You have not done this because as soon as we get into detail readers will see you are talking garbage. I am familiar with these games from evangelical apologists who readily stoop to deceit to win arguments.

You looked at one of them, (and you seem to imply that you never researched the topic previously!) and your argument largely rests upon that fact that you don't understand what 'citation' means in referring to ancient documents.

Of course I made no such implication about never researching the topic, and your inference is just another low debating tactic. You should read Earl Doherty's commentary on Ignatius. It would convert you.

Now Doulos says that the debate here, about "definitive citation" of the Gospels, is satisfied by ancient sources which do not name their source and which could well be based on another source. On this basis he accuses me of ignorance about the nature of citation. Readers should get this straight: Doulous claims a citation can be "definitive" when it does not even name the source, and is just a religious saying that could have come from anywhere. This is abundantly clear in the example I looked at in detail, Barnabas. I invited Doulos to show his other "definitive sources" were any better. He responded with ad hominem abuse about my lack of integrity and lack of understanding, all the while avoiding any discussion of content.

You also fail to adress the other 2 documents, either of which contradict your point. I'm glad you're happy when you're proved wrong. You must be thrilled at the moment then.

The delights continue. Now Doulos asserts his other "definitive sources" contradict me, even after I have said I am happy to be proved wrong if he can show this is the case, a challenge he squibbed in favour of ad hominem abuse. After failing to respond to my request that he shows that the texts he cited are "definitive citations", he asserts without foundation that I have been proved wrong.

I am completely happy to be proved wrong if the evidence supports Doulos. But we all know the reality - Jesus did not exist and apologists are just used to getting their way with empty assertions and appeals to authority, so they don't like it when people expose their faith as blind.

Sorry Doulos, the standards here are slightly higher than that.

[Doulos]

Are you creating a barrier to your own critical thinking by assuming that the opposing viewpoint must be illogical?

Which one of us assumed the opposing viewpoint is illogical? If there are parts of the viewpoint that are illogical, there need be no assumptions. There could be a debate over the details of whether or not the part violates a logical principle. But typically such faults are easy to detect when you know what to look for.

But that's a tangent. I see no mention of illogical viewpoints in recent posts. Perhaps "unreasonable" would fit.

Hi Inter,

I was responding to Geo's post where he holds up belief in God and contrasts it with 'critical thinking.'

If you'd like to propose a different opposite to critical thinking, that's fine. I felt that 'illogical' thinking was the best fit, but that's open for discussion.

[Doulos]

(Interbane: Is Robert demonstrating the 'integrity' you spoke of?)

Okay Doulos lets go through your comment line by line to demonstrate your scurrilous tactics...
I am completely happy to be proved wrong if the evidence supports Doulos. But we all know the reality - Jesus did not exist and apologists are just used to getting their way with empty assertions and appeals to authority, so they don't like it when people expose their faith as blind.

Sorry Doulos, the standards here are slightly higher than that.

(Please see Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:01 am for Robert's full post)

My apologies if you see any "ad hominem abuse." If you look at the context of my conversation with Interbane, we were discussing intellectual integrity in admitting when their viewpoint is wrong, not the broader sense of ethical integrity.

Might I point you to your own posts though, since you raise the ad hominem issue.
You have used the phrases:
"pathetic", "mindless", "tub thumping evangelism" (Robert Tulip's Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:54 pm post)
"naive", "Cat got your tongue" (Robert Tulip's Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:12 am post)
"Goggle eyed apologist", "Garbage", "flimsy straw-clutching", "Gospel tinted apologist glasses" (Robert Tulip's Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:39 am post)

If you are going to complain about ad hominem attacks, I'm all for limiting it. Might I suggest that you begin with your own posts.

For someone who throws out a lot of trash talk, you seem very thin skinned when even mild turns of phrase touch you

---
The Actual Topic:

You asserted that there is "absence of definitive early citation" before Irenaeus in 180 AD (see your post Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:16 am)

I gave you 3 texts which include definitive early citation:
- Ignatius (30-110 AD) quotes Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Galatians, Colossians, James, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, and I Peter.
- 'Epistle of Barnabas' (dated 70-130 AD) cites Matthew, and Mark
- 'Shepherd of Hermas' (dated 80-90 AD) cites John, the synoptic Gospels, Ephesians, 1 Peter, Hebrews, James and the Book of Revelations.

Sorry, I'm not going to post several pages of text here and spam the room. You've already demonstrated you know where to find the texts.

If you want to demonstrate high standards, might I suggest you deal with all 3 of the texts. Once you're done, I can post other texts which are pre-Irenaeas...

[Robert Tulip]

Doulos continues a strategy of evasion and deceit to conceal the lack of content in his argument. That is why I have found his remarks frustrating.

Evasion: I have repeatedly asked him to back up his assertions of definitive early citation of the Gospels. I looked at his sources and found they did not say what he asserts. He ignores my requests to back up his claims. When you are asked to justify a claim, doing so is not "spam". Not doing so creates the suspicion of evasion.

Deceit: Doulos says he has demonstrated that my criticism are disproven. But when I ask him to justify this assertion, he resorts to evasion. His latest post is again deceitful, as most of my criticisms of Christian apologists that he takes out of context were very specific and in no way were ad hominem criticisms of Doulos.

When I pointed out that I could not find any backing for his claim that Barnabas cites Mark, his response was not what we would expect in discussion of any normal historical topic, ie to show the evidence for why he made this claim, but to suggest that I "havn't even previously investigated the source material", as though my query can just be brushed off as ignorant.

And now he brazenly repeats the Mark claim again today, even after having ignored my polite request that he justify it.

[johnson1010]

That's the internet for you!

I haven't seen any real challenge to my initial post about the religiosity of scientists.