This topic came up in another thread and I thought it needed its own. It's certain to come up any time the existence of Jesus is ever questioned.
On the one hand, "appeal to authority" is a recognized logical fallacy and for good reason. Even experts are required to provide reasons for what they believe and why.
On the other hand, we need to rely on experts in our life because it's just not feasible for us to try to learn everything. We need a mechanic to tell us what's wrong with our car. We need a doctor to tell us what's wrong with our health. Generally, when there is a consensus, I tend to accept it unless I find reasons to have doubts.
AronRa once confronted a creationist who doubted the scientific consensus that evolution offers the best explanation for the diversity of life and predictions for what to expect (or, in his words "is true"). Aron's response wasn't "shut up you crackpot, all the scholars say so." Instead he offered, "I can prove it to you, and then I can prove it again, and then I can prove it some more." An evolutionary biologist can defend the consensus on evolution by crushing any reasonable doubt with the weight of the evidence.
By contrast, when I first started studying Christianity and reading the Bible, I wondered what the "real story" was. I was expecting to find, as most people would expect, that Jesus was a regular religious leader who was deified by his followers after his death. In particular, I had a sort of Miguel from "The Road to El Dorado" image in my mind. Specifically, a religious and moral teacher who sought to soften the austere god of the OT and was eventually killed by the priests for it (not unlike the plot of the movie I just cited).
When I did my digging, I found surprisingly little for a man who had led such a large, popular and revolutionary ministry. Given the controversy he generated, I was expecting commentary by historians who lived in that century with some details about the ministry from a 3rd party perspective. I'd heard Philo commented on him but found nothing. The scraps, even those cited by apologists, were late (post 1st century) and oblique. Tacitus is the strongest evidence that there was any man behind the legends at all and his 2nd century reference is so oblique that it doesn't even mention Jesus by name.
Then I ran across the Jesus myth hypothesis. Intrigued, I started asking questions and found that, when confronted, scholars can't offer much reason for believing in some historical core aside from the assumption that there must be some man behind the legends. Even today when I confront "historists" as to what we can know about this enigmatic "Historical Jesus", I get nothing more than "a religious leader".
I remember recently being indignantly told, "We know more than that! He was a revolutionary religious leader." My sarcastic response was "Oh, thank you for adding that one adjective. That very helpful to understand the real person behind the myths."
So yes, scholarly consensus does mean something to me but whenever questioned, even scholars need to provide rational reasons why they believe what they do.
I am going to read Ehrman's Book, "Did Jesus Exist". Who knows, I may be convinced but I'll need to read more than "the Bible says..."
On the one hand, "appeal to authority" is a recognized logical fallacy and for good reason. Even experts are required to provide reasons for what they believe and why.
On the other hand, we need to rely on experts in our life because it's just not feasible for us to try to learn everything. We need a mechanic to tell us what's wrong with our car. We need a doctor to tell us what's wrong with our health. Generally, when there is a consensus, I tend to accept it unless I find reasons to have doubts.
AronRa once confronted a creationist who doubted the scientific consensus that evolution offers the best explanation for the diversity of life and predictions for what to expect (or, in his words "is true"). Aron's response wasn't "shut up you crackpot, all the scholars say so." Instead he offered, "I can prove it to you, and then I can prove it again, and then I can prove it some more." An evolutionary biologist can defend the consensus on evolution by crushing any reasonable doubt with the weight of the evidence.
By contrast, when I first started studying Christianity and reading the Bible, I wondered what the "real story" was. I was expecting to find, as most people would expect, that Jesus was a regular religious leader who was deified by his followers after his death. In particular, I had a sort of Miguel from "The Road to El Dorado" image in my mind. Specifically, a religious and moral teacher who sought to soften the austere god of the OT and was eventually killed by the priests for it (not unlike the plot of the movie I just cited).
When I did my digging, I found surprisingly little for a man who had led such a large, popular and revolutionary ministry. Given the controversy he generated, I was expecting commentary by historians who lived in that century with some details about the ministry from a 3rd party perspective. I'd heard Philo commented on him but found nothing. The scraps, even those cited by apologists, were late (post 1st century) and oblique. Tacitus is the strongest evidence that there was any man behind the legends at all and his 2nd century reference is so oblique that it doesn't even mention Jesus by name.
Then I ran across the Jesus myth hypothesis. Intrigued, I started asking questions and found that, when confronted, scholars can't offer much reason for believing in some historical core aside from the assumption that there must be some man behind the legends. Even today when I confront "historists" as to what we can know about this enigmatic "Historical Jesus", I get nothing more than "a religious leader".
I remember recently being indignantly told, "We know more than that! He was a revolutionary religious leader." My sarcastic response was "Oh, thank you for adding that one adjective. That very helpful to understand the real person behind the myths."
So yes, scholarly consensus does mean something to me but whenever questioned, even scholars need to provide rational reasons why they believe what they do.
I am going to read Ehrman's Book, "Did Jesus Exist". Who knows, I may be convinced but I'll need to read more than "the Bible says..."
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
