Saturday, April 23, 2011

The Dunamis Word: Lee Strobel, The Resurrection Took Me From Atheist To Apologist

Elder Harvey Burnett has written a really good review of an article Lee Strobel in which he addressed an article by who attempts to argue that he is a better "Christian" than most Christians because he keeps the ten commandments. I agree with Strobel's approach instead of picking on Gervais' silliness (I'll save that for later), Strobel instead gives his testimony and follows up with summarizing his research regarding the Resurrection. This is a good post from Elder Burnett and a great article from Lee Strobel. Strobel's article is called "How Easter Killed My Atheism".

The Dunamis Word: Lee Strobel, The Resurrection Took Me From Atheist To Apologist
Enhanced by Zemanta

29 comments:

  1. Since Strobel's article is nothing more than an argument from authority (Hey! I'm a really good researcher and I researched this for two years!!!), who do you think has more thoroughly explored the minutia of the historical data, Lee Strobel or Bart Erhman (or even John Loftus for that matter)?

    ReplyDelete
  2. If all you got from Strobel's article is an argument from authority, maybe you should go back and re-read it.

    As for Bart Ehrman maybe you should go back and listen to this post on an exchange he did with Licona and I would also recommend looking at James White's comment on his podcasts from this week.

    Also Ehrman incessantly argues from authority. If you want to know what that fallacy looks like, you need to look to him. He has it down to a science. Maybe you should learn to think for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You didn't answer my question. Who do you think has more thoroughly explored the minutia of the historical data, Lee Strobel or Bart Erhman (or even John Loftus for that matter)?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oooo...let's play. I'll answer your question if you can answer why Ehrman's opinion carries more weight than Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, Darrel Bock, Paul Maier,Ben Witherington, James White, Mary Jo Sharp, or Craig Evans. And why?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not sure he does, but I don't know who all those people are.

    Now you, who do you think has more thoroughly explored the minutia of the historical data, Lee Strobel or Bart Erhman (or even John Loftus for that matter)?

    Are you reluctant to answer because you don't like the implication? Obviously it's an easy question...

    ReplyDelete
  6. So James White and Mary Jo Sharp? You were digging deep, I guess you thought the more names you could through out the better? White has no PhD and most of his graduate work was done at a non-accredited university and as far as I can tell, Sharp has no graduate education at all.

    So specifically for those two, absolutely Ehrman carries more weight when it comes to New Testament scholarship.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm not sure he does, but I don't know who all those people are.

    I see that you did a little more research in the next comment...good for you. However reading the multitude of polemics and personal attacks against James White is why you still don't know anything about the man. He is a top-notch scholar (he does have a Ph.D. and has a huge body of work) and you should go get more info about him. White has debated Ehrman after all and teach university courses in Church history, Apologetics, Hebrew, Koine Greek, Mormonism, and doctrines such as the Trinity. As for Mary Jo Sharp she is also well-respected although she has not completed her Ph.D. I find it hilarious that you seemed to ignore the scholars the other scholars I mentioned. And each of them have spent far more time exploring the the minutia of the historical data than you have.

    Now you, who do you think has more thoroughly explored the minutia of the historical data, Lee Strobel or Bart Erhman (or even John Loftus for that matter)?

    Think about it. Lee Strobel has been preaching, teaching, studying, and writing about the historical data for the Resurrection since the 80's. He didn't just study 2 years and then stop. I need to look up Ehrman's record to see how long he's been researching. However, remember that the Resurrection is not Ehrman's area. Textual Criticism is and that is the subject that he debated with James White on: toe-to-toe.

    Are you reluctant to answer because you don't like the implication? Obviously it's an easy question..

    I wasn't reluctant at all. I could see what you were trying to do. It was a trap and before I stepped into it, I wanted to see where your mind is. I'm not surprised. You say you have studied the other side and people who disagree with your side but if you had, you would know these current scholars and would not have to Google them now. I think that you need to keep Googling and if you don't want to use my blog, use Brian Auten's Apologetics 315. You need to really familiarize yourself with all the arguments and then form a decision. At this point I don't think you have weighed all the evidence or looked at all the material available.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'll spot you since 1978 for Ehrman's career. But there are way
    more scholars you should take into account than just William Lane Craig. Keep studying. Think for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  9. However reading the multitude of polemics and personal attacks against James White is why you still don't know anything about the man.

    I have no idea what this sentence means.

    (he does have a Ph.D. and has a huge body of work)

    If by Ph.D. you mean Doctor of theology or Doctorate of Ministry, then sure, but like I said, both are from an unaccredited university, so I still give Ehrman precedence.

    Think about it. Lee Strobel has been preaching, teaching, studying, and writing about the historical data for the Resurrection since the 80's. He didn't just study 2 years and then stop.

    If you think someone doing research for fluff apologetics books is comparable to rigorous scholarship, then there is a whole host of internet atheists who you have to give equal standing the likes of Habermas et al.

    I wanted to see where your mind is.

    Really????? How many times have I posted here?

    You need to really familiarize yourself with all the arguments and then form a decision.

    You always seem to forget I was a christian for 35 years. I "familiarize yourself with all the arguments and then formed a decision" during the period from 1991-2002.

    ReplyDelete
  10. However reading the multitude of polemics and personal attacks against James White is why you still don't know anything about the man.

    I have no idea what this sentence means.

    The reason you think James White can be dismissed is because you don't know anything about his scholarship or credentials. Feel free to assume that Ehrman is a better scholar than James White, but you are short-changing yourself. If he was really a cast-away do you think that Ehrman would waste his time debating him? I don't think so because although I don't agree with his conclusions I don't disagree that Ehrman is a fine scholar - neither do the scholars I listed that disagree with him. Why? Because they have integrity.

    If you think someone doing research for fluff apologetics books is comparable to rigorous scholarship, then there is a whole host of internet atheists who you have to give equal standing the likes of Habermas et al.

    You mean like you and John Loftus? If you think Strobel's book is "fluff apologetics" I shudder think what you must think of Loftus' writing and Richard Carrier's books. Get real. Strobel's books are based on the research of guys like Gary Habermas and Craig Evans. If you think their work is "fluff" then you have no idea what is going on in academia.

    Really????? How many times have I posted here?

    I wanted to see if I guessed right about how unwilling you are to follow evidence and look at the work of people who disagree with you. Turns out that you are really closed minded.

    You always seem to forget I was a christian for 35 years. I "familiarize yourself with all the arguments and then formed a decision" during the period from 1991-2002.

    You show no evidence of having done any such thing. If you don't know the works of Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, Darrel Bock, Paul Maier,Ben Witherington, James White, Mary Jo Sharp, or Craig Evans then I have to conclude that you don't know every argument or viewpoint of those who are scholars and hold the opposite viewpoint. All you seem to know about is William Lane Craig but it's easy to see your opinions on his work are deeply biased. WLC is a fine scholar but not the only fine scholar and they don't all agree with him on every point especially on methodology.

    So in 2002, you made up your mind and stopped seriously looking at anyone who disagreed with the position you decided to take. Sad. I on the other hand constantly challenge what I believe by looking at the work of people who disagree with me and seeing if I can find any merit in them. I keep finding that the Bible is right and they are wrong. IT is what it is. We are talking from 1991 to today.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You show no evidence of having done any such thing.

    Don't know what to tell you.

    I keep finding that the Bible is right and they are wrong.

    I have no doubt that when you start with a conclusion already in mind, you are able to continuously convince yourself that your desired conclusion is right.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I shudder think what you must think of Loftus' writing and Richard Carrier's books.

    I've not read their books. I would assume Carrier's are better than Loftus' but I have no idea.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If he was really a cast-away do you think that Ehrman would waste his time debating him?

    Dinesh D'Souza debated John Loftus, and Carrier Holding, so I don't think this line of reasoning gets you where you want to go.

    ReplyDelete

  14. Dinesh D'Souza debated John Loftus, and Carrier Holding, so I don't think this line of reasoning gets you where you want to go.


    I'm not trying to argue that Loftus is a hack with not legitimate right to scholarly debate. Nor am i saying that his research or scholarship should be ignored or given less weight than anyone else's. And Loftus ain't got a Ph.D. James White does. And you are the one arguing White should be discounted and Ehrman believed, but not on the basis of their work and scholarship and the truth of what they say. The faulty line of reasoning is yours.

    ReplyDelete
  15. summing up the point, I have never argued that John Loftus is a cast-away or hack.

    ReplyDelete
  16. And Loftus ain't got a Ph.D. James White does.

    As far as I can tell, he (White) does not. A Th.D. or a D.Min are not a Ph.D. A Th.D. is close, but especially not when it's from an unaccredited school. You can call him "Doctor" (I would suggest the use of quotes given his schools status) but you can't say he has a "Ph.D". Just FYI.

    And you are the one arguing White should be discounted and Erhman believed.

    Actually I was arguing that Strobel and Erhman (as apologists) have the same approach (i.e. a one-two argument from authority and experience punch. "I changed religions after studying really hard"), but Ehrman, given his education and area of expertise, is in a much stronger position to argue from authority (especially on New Testament and Textual Criticism) than Strobel is.

    ReplyDelete
  17. summing up the point, I have never argued that John Loftus is a cast-away or hack.

    "Recently, John Loftus has yet again made another statement that make me wonder if he truly understands what he is saying." Face Palm of the Day #69

    "As usual, his response leads to multiple Facepalms." Face Palm of the Day #51

    "John Loftus has been been commenting a lot on Dr Victor Reppert's blog lately. His latest driv[el]...er attempt...". Face Palm of the Day #48

    "Equating Prayer with superstition is really stupid" Face Palm of the Day #49

    "John Loftus has again posted something that makes me wonder if he really believes what he's write" My Common Sense is Tingling - 2/28/11

    "John Loftus has posted another mind bending affront to common sense." My Common Sense is Tingling - 2/26/11

    "Given that John Loftus posted the following: [x] I'd like to assume he is just making a joke but it is to stupid that it just isn't funny." Face Palm of the Day #54

    "John Loftus has again posted another article that offends common sense..." My Common Sense is Tingling - 1/30/11

    "Oh look! John Loftus has actually posted a useful post!" 1/12/11

    And although I could go on and on and on... this is the best example of you... um... "not" arguing that John Loftus is a cast-away or hack, "John Loftus has posted another quote on his blog that made me sick. He seems good at that. Sick not because it carries any weight but sick because it is devoid of meaning."

    No. you never do that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Saying that Loftus says stupid things, and laughing at his arguments, is not saying that he is a caste doesn't mean that I think that we do not need to look at what he is saying. If anything his is a case study of what not to do. At least I look over his scholarship and don't dismiss it because he doesn't have a Ph.D., nor a doctorate of any kind, as you have to Dr. James White. I Know enough about what Loftus writes because I actually read his material and you know nothing about James White other than the schools from which he earned his doctorate is not accredited.

    Actually I was arguing that Strobel and Erhman (as apologists) have the same approach (i.e. a one-two argument from authority and experience punch. "I changed religions after studying really hard"), but Ehrman, given his education and area of expertise, is in a much stronger position to argue from authority (especially on New Testament and Textual Criticism) than Strobel is.

    As I said earlier if you think that Strobel writes and speaks from authority you really need to go back and listen to his interview because you didn't hear it. He addressed how he seeds his work verses that of the scholars he works with.l You sure miss a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "John Loftus has posted another quote on his blog that made me sick. He seems good at that. Sick not because it carries any weight but sick because it is devoid of meaning."

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Again, you've only managed to show that i have strongly disagreed with John Loftus

    Saying that Loftus says stupid things, and laughing at his arguments, is not saying that he is a cast-away and doesn't mean that I think that we do not need to look at what he is saying. If anything his is a case study of what not to do. At least I look over his scholarship and don't dismiss it because he doesn't have a Ph.D., nor a doctorate of any kind, as you have to Dr. James White. I Know enough about what Loftus writes because I actually read his material and you know nothing about James White other than the schools from which he earned his doctorate is not accredited.

    Thanks for illustrate the Tu quoque fallicy. Bravo!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Meant:

    Thanks for illustration of the Tu quoque fallacy. Bravo!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ha. so did I commit a tu quoque or did I fail to commit a tu quoque? I read the original typo ladened post. LOL.

    But seriously, you should be aware that simply knowing the name of a logical fallacy does not absolve you from being called out when you make demonstrably hypocritical statements and it's only a "fallacy" if one attempts to tie it to an argument to discredit it (and even then it can be acceptable if one is making an argument from authority). You often commit what I like to call the "fallacy fallacy". Pointing out the fact that you make contradictory statements is no more a tu quoque fallacy than calling you stupid is an ad hominem fallacy.

    So I guess I did fail to commit it.

    Hope you learned something.

    "...is not saying that he is a caste doesn't mean that I think.."

    Huh? He's Hindu? Unclean? What? This typo ladened quote needs to be preserved for posterity

    ...and you know nothing about James White other than the schools from which he earned his doctorate is not accredited.

    Correct. Scholars are a dime a dozen, and apologist even worse. I have enough people whose work I regularly read, one must have some sort of filtering mechanism. Their school's reputation and accreditation is a good place to start.

    Back to the original question, you seemed make the claim that "time spent studying" is a valid way to compare arguments from authority with no other consideration. Do you honestly believe that someone researching apologetics as basically a hobby is comparable to someone earning a Ph.D. and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary under a highly respected mentor with all the rigor and pressure that an elite academic career entails? Honestly now. Also, never mind the question of access to resources or the command of languages for the moment (if I had to guess, I would bet Strobel doesn't read German, of course I could be wrong about that).

    Bottom line, the arguments should be considered on their own merits, but if the argument is "I changed religions after studying really hard", then I'm going to go with Princeton.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Again, you've only managed to show that i have strongly disagreed with John Loftus

    For the record, what I think I've demonstrated is that you think what John Loftus says "carries no weight" and "is devoid of meaning."

    But no, you think he shouldn't be casteded away and is worth listening to. I get it...

    ReplyDelete
  25. I read the original typo ladened post. LOL.

    You're one to talk about typos. Kind of petty, but I've come not to expect more of you.

    But seriously, you should be aware that simply knowing the name of a logical fallacy does not absolve you from being called out when you make demonstrably hypocritical statements and it's only a "fallacy" if one attempts to tie it to an argument to discredit it (and even then it can be acceptable if one is making an argument from authority). You often commit what I like to call the "fallacy fallacy". Pointing out the fact that you make contradictory statements is no more a tu quoque fallacy than calling you stupid is an ad hominem fallacy.

    I didn't make contradictory statements. I stand by saying that John Loftus makes silly and stupid arguments but that does not mean that you shouldn't read it. I want everyone to read John Loftus' work so they can see how silly it is. That's not saying ignore him or cast him aside. And I never argued that Loftus should be ignored because he doesn't hold a doctorate from an accredited university. Like you did regarding James White. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. I'm saying look at what this man is saying and this is why its wrong. Do you get it? It doesn't seem like it at all. Considering the way you "read" scripture, I can't be surprised you don't understand what I'm saying. And you can't seriously think you weren't making an argument and dodging that you know nothing about James White's work.

    Back to the original question, you seemed make the claim that "time spent studying" is a valid way to compare arguments from authority with no other consideration. Do you honestly believe that someone researching apologetics as basically a hobby is comparable to someone earning a Ph.D. and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary under a highly respected mentor with all the rigor and pressure that an elite academic career entails? Honestly now. Also, never mind the question of access to resources or the command of languages for the moment (if I had to guess, I would bet Strobel doesn't read German, of course I could be wrong about that).

    James White knows Greek, German, and Hebrew. You still have failed to really say anything meaningful against Lee Strobel. He's not arguing for authority. He' clear about not being an expert and only points to the experts and makes them easy for lay people to understand. That's it. Ehrman on the other hand is arguing base on his own authority...which evaporates to what it's really worth against those in his field who disagree with him - including James White.

    Bottom line, the arguments should be considered on their own merits, but if the argument is "I changed religions after studying really hard", then I'm going to go with Princeton.

    So if the argument doesn't come from someone from Princeton, it has less value? That's not considering arguments on the basis on its own merits. Try harder.

    ReplyDelete
  26. When I talk about Strobel, why do you always "defend" him by talking about White? It's weird.

    So if the argument doesn't come from someone from Princeton, it has less value? That's not considering arguments on the basis on its own merits. Try harder.

    Oh sweet mother...

    Yes, if and only if the argument is an argument from authority.

    ReplyDelete
  27. When I talk about Strobel, why do you always "defend" him by talking about White? It's weird.

    Why do you keep trying to shift it to Strobel? We've changed the discussion because you want to discuss why you should believe Strobel. I'm saying comparing him to Bart Ehrman is unfair and not something that Strobel himself is trying to do. Strobel is not saying "Believe Christ Because I said so." Strobel is saying that he has looked at the evidence I've interviewed scholars who are just as knowledgeable as scholars like Bart Ehrman and they come up with different conclusions based on evidences that he then presents. I'm saying that a better comparison is between Ehrman and James White or Ehrman and Craig Evans or Ehrman and Darrel Bock or Ehrman and Gary Habermas. And there are others.

    Yes, if and only if the argument is an argument from authority.

    Which is exactly what you did.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm saying that a better comparison is between Ehrman and James White...

    No. There's no comparison between Princeton and the unaccredited Columbia Evangelical Seminary.

    I just read the transcript of the Ehrman/White debate. Wow, given how Ehrman brutalized him during the crossfire I think I won't waste any more time on "Dr" White.

    And of course you are right. Strobel is no Ehrman either.

    ReplyDelete

  29. No. There's no comparison between Princeton and the unaccredited Columbia Evangelical Seminary.

    I just read the transcript of the Ehrman/White debate. Wow, given how Ehrman brutalized him during the crossfire I think I won't waste any more time on "Dr" White.


    I disagree with your "assessment" of their debate and you should re-read it - the whole thing. And try to be objective this time.

    And of course you are right. Strobel is no Ehrman either.

    No one ever claimed he was. Least of all himself. That doesn't make Strobel wrong. And Ehrman is wrong because he is wrong.

    ReplyDelete