'Cold-Case Christianity'

[Enki]

But that's the point Enki. How did Bart pull off finding that the bible was not divinely inspired?

Because of all the very many alterations and mistakes throughout its history, suggesting that it is a very human collection of documents. So, if it was the inerrant word of God, why did He allow it to be changed so often? If, on the other hand, as Ehrman found so many discrepancies because of these very human mistakes, he took the view that it was a collection of documents that had human origins, rather than being God inspired.

I'm not saying that other arguments aren't applicable(although I, obviously tend to sympathise with Ehrman)  but he is a clear example of what Nearly suggested(I could quote numbers of people who gave up their faith on investigating it further'), which was precisely the point that I was responding to.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

I haven’t read the book, but the approach used is interesting. Since I’ve been on this forum, I’ve seen it asked on numerous occasions as to what method the non believer should apply when investigating claims of a potentially supernatural nature? Well, here it is...an inductive one!

Why do you think a naturalistic method like this is appropriate for the investigation of claims of the non-natural? 

A key property of the inductive process is that it has to be falsifiable. Starting with the evidence can lead to truth, but it is not guaranteed to lead to truth. With an inductive approach, faith has to be applied because certainty is not guaranteed, and in fact can never be guaranteed!

What relationship do you think faith to have to the determination of probabilistic truth values?

The detective may have set out with the intention of disproving the basis of Christianity,...

So far at least we only have Hope's word for that. With respect to the use of cold case methods though that seems unlikely because (according to the article) he was already a Christian when he started using them. 

... but the fact that he changed his mind showed that his worldview was falsifiable.

It's not a fact - or at least it's not yet been shown to be a fact. So far it's just an assertion by Hope.

He used the same techniques that were part of his job. Secular philosophies do not have a monopoly on inductive techniques; they are there for all.

I'm not sure what you mean by "secular philosophies" here (and nor I suspect are you) but no-one says they do. You're going to struggle though to explain why you think the naturalistic idea of falsifiability is relevant to claims of the non-natural.

In order not to take this thread off-topic, I’ll be starting a separate thread to expand on some of these themes...

Oh good.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

The detective may have set out with the intention of disproving the basis of Christianity,...

So far at least we only have Hope's word for that. With respect to the use of cold case methods though that seems unlikely because (according to the article) he was already a Christian when he started using them. 

Here's some information from Reference [6] on the Wikipedia article referred to in the opening post (*1)

When the author came to realize that the Gospel can be looked at much like the cold cases he solved as a homicide detective, he applied his skill to the assertions of the New Testament. In a preview of Cold-Case Christianity, Wallace says that he came to the "startling realization" that Christianity is as a convincing case as any of the ones he worked on as a detective.

which supports this statement in the Wikipedia article:

In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus

I think he hits the proverbial nail right on the head with this honest confession (emphasis mine)

Much of my skepticism as an atheist was rooted in the fact I had a presuppositional bias that prevented me from following the evidence where it led: I was a committed naturalist. I refused to accept the possibility that anything supernatural or miraculous could occur or exist. I was being unfair with the investigation from the onset. In essence, I was trying to answer the question, "Does God (a supernatural Being) exist?" by starting with the premise that nothing supernatural exists. It was an exercise in circular reasoning. I rejected any reasonable inference that pointed to God's supernatural existence because I rejected the supernaturalism foundationally.

(*1) 'Cold-Case Christianity:' The Gospel Through a Homicide Detective's Lens

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I haven’t read the book, but the approach used is interesting. Since I’ve been on this forum, I’ve seen it asked on numerous occasions as to what method the non believer should apply when investigating claims of a potentially supernatural nature? Well, here it is...an inductive one!

Why do you think a naturalistic method like this is appropriate for the investigation of claims of the non-natural?

Because the aim is to try and establish what is true when certainty cannot be guaranteed. We use inductive processes elsewhere when this is the case and as the detective has shown, he has merely adapted his approach for specific supernatural claims.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Here's some information from Reference [6] on the Wikipedia article referred to in the opening post (*1)

So we have a reference not in the article at all then, but rather somewhere else that the article linked to? OK...

"When the author came to realize that the Gospel can be looked at much like the cold cases he solved as a homicide detective, he applied his skill to the assertions of the New Testament. In a preview of Cold-Case Christianity, Wallace says that he came to the "startling realization" that Christianity is as a convincing case as any of the ones he worked on as a detective."

which supports this statement in the Wikipedia article:
Quote
In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus

No it doesn't, and nor does it support Hope's claim that he set out to disprove the gospel accounts. The article says that he converted in 1996, that he only began to apply cold case techniques after that, and that the book you reference wasn't published until several years later. His "investigations" before then may or may not have involved his experience of cold case techniques but that's a matter for speculation.

I think he hits the proverbial nail right on the head with this honest confession

"Much of my skepticism as an atheist was rooted in the fact I had a presuppositional bias that prevented me from following the evidence where it led: I was a committed naturalist. I refused to accept the possibility that anything supernatural or miraculous could occur or exist. I was being unfair with the investigation from the onset. In essence, I was trying to answer the question, "Does God (a supernatural Being) exist?" by starting with the premise that nothing supernatural exists. It was an exercise in circular reasoning. I rejected any reasonable inference that pointed to God's supernatural existence because I rejected the supernaturalism foundationally."

I don't. Leaving aside for now the definitional problems with "supernatural", "miraculous" etc, the untenable position that you can dismiss a prori the phenomenon of unknown unknowns, and the absence of any supporting argument for this supposed "reasonable inference" (which you cannot derive from accounts, consistent or otherwise), he still has the problem of applying naturalistic techniques to claims of the non-natural. As I said before, that's akin to using a Geiger counter to decide whether a ballet is any good.

The best - the very best - he could arrive at is that inconsistent accounts do not of themselves rule out the possibility of the claimed event being true. If he'd asked me, I could have told him that in the first place and saved him a lot of work.     

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

he still has the problem of applying naturalistic techniques to claims of the non-natural. As I said before, that's akin to using a Geiger counter to decide whether a ballet is any good.

But it is not a problem if you change your approach!

I used a mathematical analogy last week: If I claimed that 1+1=10, then there is no way to prove this to be a true statement if base 10 is used. However if base 2 (binary) is used, the statement is correct.

You are not prepared to change your approach so you will not get anywhere. Establishing whether or not something is true transcends any talk of naturalistic techniques If one is trying to ascertain whether or not something is true

• Mathematical truth
• Scientific truth
• Historical truth
• Spiritual truth

The starting point is the same and one uses either a deductive approach (if one can be certain about the conclusion) or an inductive one (if one cannot be certain about the conclusion, meaning that faith is used).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Because the aim is to try and establish what is true when certainty cannot be guaranteed. We use inductive processes elsewhere when this is the case and as the detective has shown, he has merely adapted his approach for specific supernatural claims.

No he hasn't - he's adopted them with reference to inconsistencies in the non-contemporaneous accounts of these claims.

More to the point though, these claims concern the supposed supernatural. What use therefore do you think techniques that are entirely naturalistic to be even if they were applied to these claims? The most they could achieve would be to say something like, "I can't find a natural explanation for this claim" but that's just a big "so what?" It would say nothing whatever to the truthfulness or otherwise of the supernatural claim.

And that's your problem here.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

But it is not a problem if you change your approach!

I used a mathematical analogy last week: If I claimed that 1+1=10, then there is no way to prove this to be a true statement if base 10 is used. However if base 2 (binary) is used, the statement is correct.

But that's a bad analogy because both answers are rationally obtained. Change the starting conditions and you get different answers, but they're both rational. Rationalism is though a naturalistic method - the whole point about religious faith on the other hand is that it dispenses with rationalism in favour of - well, what exactly? 

You are not prepared to change your approach so you will not get anywhere. Establishing whether or not something is true transcends any talk of naturalistic techniques If one is trying to ascertain whether or not something is true
Mathematical truth
Scientific truth
Historical truth
Spiritual truth

What do you think "spiritual truth" to be, and how would you propose to identify it in the absence of a non-natural method to test the claim?
 

The starting point is the same and one uses either a deductive approach (if one can be certain about the conclusion) or an inductive one (if one cannot be certain about the conclusion, meaning that faith is used).

Again, what relationship do you think "faith" to have to the probabilistic determination of truths?

Why so coy given that this goes to the heart of you position? 

[Nearly Sane]

Inductively dead people stay dead

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Inductively dead people stay dead

How about deductively dead ones?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

How about deductively dead ones?

lol, dodos too

[Hope]

that's not an argument, that's an assertion

It may be coming from me as rapporteur, but in view of his original purpose in doing the investigation - namely to prove that the material wasn't up to scratch, his argument as a result of his investigation is that it does.  He s therefore arguing with 1) his own preconceived ideas and 2) with those of others who hold similar ideas.

[Nearly Sane]

It may be coming from me as rapporteur, but in view of his original purpose in doing the investigation - namely to prove that the material wasn't up to scratch, his argument as a result of his investigation is that it does.  He s therefore arguing with 1) his own preconceived ideas and 2) with those of others who hold similar ideas.

But what you presented even if directly from him would still be an assertion, and still not an argument

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

It may be coming from me as rapporteur, but in view of his original purpose in doing the investigation - namely to prove that the material wasn't up to scratch, his argument as a result of his investigation is that it does.  He s therefore arguing with 1) his own preconceived ideas and 2) with those of others who hold similar ideas.

Just out of interest, what makes you think that was his "original purpose"?

And if you fancy offering a BOGOF, what relevance do you think the finding that inconsistent narratives also happen in murder cases has to the truth or otherwise of the gospel stories? 

[Gordon]

It may be coming from me as rapporteur, but in view of his original purpose in doing the investigation - namely to prove that the material wasn't up to scratch, his argument as a result of his investigation is that it does.  He s therefore arguing with 1) his own preconceived ideas and 2) with those of others who hold similar ideas.

Very nice I'm sure: but, and since you cited him I'm assuming you know the detail, how sound are his conclusions methodologically speaking?

That he and his similarly inclined acquaintances are convinced isn't in itself convincing unless we know the basis for them being so convinced and that this basis stands scrutiny - after all they could be mistaken.

So far all I can see is assertion.

[Hope]

Hope,

Nope. The "original issue" is what you decided it would be in your OP. Here in fact:

Has anyone read this book by a former atheist homicide detective (James Warner Wallace) who used the same methodology on the gospels as on a number of other 'cold' cases.  In the course of this process, initiated in order to disprove the basis of Christianity once and for all, he became convinced of its validity.  He even points out that the 'contradictions' match what you would expect to find from witnesses in any such case.

It is interesting how you have chosen to decide what was my thinking behind the OP, blue  If anything, my point was encapsulated in the sentences that follow the one you have highlighted.  That said, since it was meant to start a debate - which it has done - I'm not sure that I had any particular 'issue' in mind.  It is you who have picked up on a particular sentence, not me.

Note that "who used the same methodology on the gospels as on a number of other 'cold' cases". I replied about that "original issue" to the effect that in that case he was committing a category error. 

But I have yyet to see any evidence in support of that claim, blue.  As it stands, its just your opinion.

Vlad then replied to me by name and quoted what I'd said about this "original issue" and expressed his opinion that Wallace had begun "all that" - ie, my point to which he was replying - before his conversion.

If the Wiki article is to believed Vlad was wrong about that, and I explained why.

And I subsequently pointed out that a reasonable reading of the English language used in the article would suggests that Vlad was correct, not you.

Subsequently there was discussion about the article also referring to his conversion before unspecified "investigations", but that wasn't your original issue, it wasn't the issue I commented on, and it wasn't the relevant part when Vlad went off the rails when he referred to my post and mistakenly said that its contents concerned something Wallace had done before his conversion.

I think the problem is your assertion that - despite what the article says - Wallace made his investigations post-conversion, when the article makes it pretty clear that they came before the conversion.

As for your original point, what we have is someone who apparently is already a committed Christian deciding to apply his policing experience of cold cases and finding that it confirms (or doesn't disconfirm) the faith position he held anyway.

And I pointed out that the only 'faith position' it could confirm or otherwise was - at the time of the investigations - his atheism.

There are lots of problems with that, not least the risk of confirmation bias and the fact that the objections to the resurrection story being true are many and various - that the Chinese whispers effect may have corrupted the consistency of the subsequent narratives is the least of it.

When one sets out to prove that X is a pack of untruths, only to find that one's investigations suggest the opposite, I'm not sure that that can be deemed to be confirmation bias.  On the other hand, your insistence that the timeline is different to that indicated in the wiki doers smack of confoirmation bias.

As for " ... the fact that the objections to the resurrection story being true are many and various ... ", I'm afraid that this can be argued about just about anything if one is determined enough to do so.  It doesn't mean that one's argument is correct.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

It is interesting how you have chosen to decide what was my thinking behind the OP, blue  If anything, my point was encapsulated in the sentences that follow the one you have highlighted.  That said, since it was meant to start a debate - which it has done - I'm not sure that I had any particular 'issue' in mind.  It is you who have picked up on a particular sentence, not me.

Make your mind up! Either you had an original point or you did not - you can't first claim that it was ignored and then tell us that you didn't have one!

But I have yyet to see any evidence in support of that claim, blue.  As it stands, its just your opinion.

No, the category "naturalistic" and the category "supernatural" are different categories. You cannot therefore just assume that an investigatory method that is naturalstic will also work for the supernatural.   

And I subsequently pointed out that a reasonable reading of the English language used in the article would suggests that Vlad was correct, not you.

"Claimed", not "pointed out". You cannot "point out" something that is demonstrably wrong. The part I quoted, the part I commented on and the part that Vlad responded to was (we're told) begun after his conversion.   

I think the problem is your assertion that - despite what the article says - Wallace made his investigations post-conversion, when the article makes it pretty clear that they came before the conversion.

Read it again. He made some "investigations" of an unspecified nature before his conversion. He used his cold case techniques after his conversion. Now it could be that some of his pre-conversion "investigations" also involved cold case techniques but that would be just speculation.   

And I pointed out that the only 'faith position' it could confirm or otherwise was - at the time of the investigations - his atheism.

Perhaps if you tried reading the article you wouldn't keep screwing up about this? His unspecified investigations were before his conversion; his use of cold case techniques came after his conversion.

When one sets out to prove that X is a pack of untruths, only to find that one's investigations suggest the opposite, I'm not sure that that can be deemed to be confirmation bias.

This "setting out to prove" bit is - so far at least - just your assertion, and even if it turns out to be true it's irrelevant because there's no way for naturalistic cold case methods either to prove or to disprove supernatural claims. 

On the other hand, your insistence that the timeline is different to that indicated in the wiki doers smack of confoirmation bias.

Please stop lying about this - it's getting dull.

As for " ... the fact that the objections to the resurrection story being true are many and various ... ", I'm afraid that this can be argued about just about anything if one is determined enough to do so.  It doesn't mean that one's argument is correct.

No it can't. The arguments against claims of the supernatural do not necessarily transfer as arguments against claims of the natural. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because of all the very many alterations and mistakes throughout its history, suggesting that it is a very human collection of documents. So, if it was the inerrant word of God, why did He allow it to be changed so often? If, on the other hand, as Ehrman found so many discrepancies because of these very human mistakes, he took the view that it was a collection of documents that had human origins, rather than being God inspired.

But Ehrman is in error here isn't he......
Firstly we are talking about divinely inspired thus recognising a role for the human writer.....Ehrman and yourself are confusing divine inspiration with divine dictation.

Secondly, the inerrent word of God business...Ehrman should have recognised that there are human authors inspired by God. The bible is inerrant in it's message about the relationship between God, individuals, and human institutions through different genres of writing. Encyclopedic or arithmetical inerrancy is a notion of fundamentalism and new atheism.

A very human collection of documents? We have loads of them? How many continue to inspire 2000 years after the event.

The works of Harold Robbins are a very human collection of documents....past copies of the sun are very human documents. Something which proposes that only the son of God can reconnect us with God rather than technique is a rarity.

I have every sympathy with Bart Ehrman but I suppose it shows that you can be in the thick of something.....and still get the wrong end of the stick.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

A very human collection of documents? We have loads of them? How many continue to inspire 2000 years after the event.

On this point specifically, several do but - even if the Christian documents were unique in this respect - what relationship do you think there to be between "continue to inspire" and truth?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

On this point specifically, several do but - even if the Christian documents were unique in this respect - what relationship do you think there to be between "continue to inspire" and truth?

You can be inspired to and by the truth Hillside.

or you can continue to be inspired to and by ''stuff''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You can be inspired to and by the truth Hillside.

or you can continue to be inspired to and by ''stuff''.

No doubt you can be, but the question concerned why you think being inspired by something has anything to say to whether or not it is true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No doubt you can be, but the question concerned why you think being inspired by something has anything to say to whether or not it is true.

Several million years ago certain spirits fell from heaven and were incarnated at various times. You are one, Einstein might be one, Dawkins, Dennett and Sam Harris definitely are. Now, these spirits have a passion for finding out just what is true and they have the gift of scientism, or is that science?...when you are around I never can tell the difference.....which mean that only they are willed and indeed will  find the truth.

They are inspired, in their trousers, by science or should that be scientism?........they are enjoying the garden without the fairies in the only true and righteous inspiration......Did not Prof Cox not say....the universe is wonderful and inspiring?

......And that my dear Hillside is BUT ONE EXAMPLE of how inspiration can lead one to truth.

[jeremyp]

As Hillside would say you have committed a Bourne imperative here.
This homicide detective has looked at the Gospels and determined that they do indeed contain reportage and literature that is recognisably ''witness statement''.

But anybody can see they manifestly do not. Not only that, but it is pretty obvious that there was effectively collusion between the authors.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But anybody can see they manifestly do not. Not only that, but it is pretty obvious that there was effectively collusion between the authors.

Manifestly do not? I don't think that is true.
In terms of collusion....There's plenty of antitheists who swear blind the inconsistences between the accounts prove things never happened.....You seem to be pissing all over your brethren on this one.

[jeremyp]

Manifestly do not? I don't think that is true.

Witnesses tend to talk in the first person. Witness statements could not credibly include narrative about incidents at which the witness was not present. Witness statements are made by people who were witnesses. If the statement is anonymous, it has no real credibility.

In terms of collusion....There's plenty of antitheists who swear blind the inconsistences between the accounts prove things never happened.....You seem to be pissing all over your brethren on this one.

It's well established that Matthew and Luke had Mark as a source. It's also possible that John had at least one of the three synoptics as a source.