Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
I’m sidestepping Fischer and Newall for a moment to focus on one instance of a fallacy that both of them seem to have overlooked. It as one type of an “appeal to authority”. [M]ost people do not have a sufficient background in the subject to properly evaluate the evidence. Anti-Stratfordians [those questioning the authorship of … Continue reading “Logical Fallacies of Historians — Appeal to “Just Knowing””
A related informal fallacy is post hoc, ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”) which holds that if one event follows another then the former must have caused the latter. (Similarly, cum hoc, ergo propter hoc involves the assertion “with this, therefore because of it.”) That Chamberlain’s government pursued a form of appeasement … Continue reading “Logical Fallacies of Historians: After A, therefore Because of A”
A false dilemma is seen whenever only two possible options are given when there exist others. (This fallacy is also known as a false dichotomy). For example, a person might insist, “you’re either with me or against me” and hence force the listener to join forces or else be taken as an enemy. In general, … Continue reading “Logical Fallacies of Historians: the False Dilemma (Dichotomy)”
The fallacy of the circular proof is a species of a question-begging, which consists in assuming what is to be proved. . . . [I]t is exceedingly common in empirical scholarship. (Fischer, 49) (Note that this expression is different from its misuse elsewhere to mean “this raises [or suggests] the question . . .”; here … Continue reading “Logical Fallacies of Historians: Begging the Question”
If your theory explains the evidence does that mean it is probably correct? If “everything fits”, is your theory therefore surely right? There’s a problem with that way of thinking and it is taken head-on by Paul Newall in a chapter titled “Logical Fallacies of Historians” in Tucker and Kane’s A Companion to the Philosophy … Continue reading “Logical Fallacies of Historians: “If It Fits — Be Careful!””
This post continues my assessment of the claims made in a doctoral dissertation by Michael Zolondek (supervised by Larry Hurtado and Helen Bond of the University of Edinburgh) that Jesus scholars use the same methods as historians of other fields. The sorts of methods he is addressing are specifically the “criteria of authenticity”. Though challenged … Continue reading “Part 2 of Testing the Claim that Jesus Scholars Use the Methods of Other Historians”
Many have attempted to establish a doubtful question by a phrase such as most historians agree . . . it is the consensus of scholarly opinion that . . . in the judgment of all serious students of this problem . . . The fallacy of the prevalent proof makes mass opinion into a method … Continue reading “The Fallacy Few Historians Have Avoided”
The problem with trivial objections is that they leave the central thesis largely untouched. It is fallacious to oppose a contention on the basis of minor and incidental aspects, rather than giving an answer to the main claim which it makes. . . .The fallacy is akin to that of the straw man. Instead of … Continue reading “Trivial Fallacies of a Hostile Anti-Mythicist”
Did you know that the “New Atheists and their online acolytes” have “a long list” of historical ideas that are “wildly wrong”? If this situation has been causing you sleepless nights then you will be relieved to learn that Tim O’Neill has started a new blog to bring these dimwits to their senses. It’s called . . … Continue reading ““New Atheists Are Bad Historians””
Associate Professor of Religion, James McGrath, helpfully offered me the following advice: Perhaps your time would be better spent interacting with those historians and philosophers of history who don’t agree with your presuppositions, and seeking to understand why and address those issues, rather than insulting those who have understandably not written a full-fledged monograph in … Continue reading “Having interacted with historians who do not agree with me, as advised . . .”
Continued from Responding to standard arguments for Jesus’ historicity (1) . . (ii) he was from Nazareth . . . . Not only is the fact that he was from Nazareth a feature of all versions of the stories but Nazareth itself appears, with Jesus being scorned and rejected there. This was clearly a problem … Continue reading “Response (2): the Bethlehem-Nazareth fallacies”
Tim O’Neill makes a statement about history that I have never encountered in any work by any historian explaining to readers what he or she does. The only persons I have heard make the claim come from theological faculties when they try to place the evidence for Jesus on the same (or even higher) level … Continue reading “Getting History for Atheists Wrong (Again – and not just Probably) — #2”
Since recent posts have in some way drawn me into the question of the historicity of Jesus once again let me set out where I stand. There is nothing new here. I have never, as far as I recall, set out an argument that Jesus did not exist. The reason? I have no interest in … Continue reading “Interlude: Why I Doubt the Historical Existence of Jesus”
At about 57 mins of the MythVision podcast O’Neill underscores the importance of Paul’s claim to have met James the “brother of the Lord”. Not only is Paul’s claim from a contemporary of Jesus but it is even from one who is opposed to his source: Paul is saying, says O’Neill, “Yeh, I have met … Continue reading “Bad History for Atheists (3) — Proof-texting, Circularity, Fake Facts, Insults”