RoadRunner79 Wrote:Why is that (not believing gives him more credibility)? Is this a principle, that can be applied elsewhere?
For me, it depends on the reasons, not the position. I may even agree with someones conclusions, but not with their reasons or method, I don't think that makes them more credible.
Yes, a position of rational skepticism is more credible, in any investigation or research. It means you have a standard of evidence that must be satisfied before you'll accept something as true. It means you try not to go in with the intention of proving the issue in question to be true. Lack of skepticism is not associated with resistance to error.
If Ehrman was convinced that the Biblical account of Jesus were true, many Christians would be quick to tout his skepticism as an indication that the evidence must be particularly persuasive. That's why skeptics are more credible.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
