Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which fallacy, and why?

Argumentum ad populum. Davey is arguing that because Jesus message didn't get the numbers of converts in his own nation his message was weak.

[Gordon]

Argumentum ad populum. Davey is arguing that because Jesus message didn't get the numbers of converts in his own nation his message was weak.

If Prof D is arguing exactly that, and I haven't looked, on what basis would his argument be fallacious? That a charismatic figure attracted minimal interest in their own time could be due to a variety of reasons.

Even if you felt Prof D's approach was fallacious it wouldn't be an ad pop : you seem to have invented the inverse of the ad pop as a new fallacy, the argumentum ad unpopulum, perhaps.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If Prof D is arguing exactly that, and I haven't looked, on what basis would his argument be fallacious? That a charismatic figure attracted minimal interest in their own time could be due to a variety of reasons.

Even if you felt Prof D's approach was fallacious it wouldn't be an ad pop : you seem to have invented the inverse of the ad pop as a new fallacy, the argumentum ad unpopulum, perhaps.

You are equating minimal response or interest with weakness of message. Are you safe in that respect? I think not. Atheist are in the minority in the world. Does that make the message that there are no reasons to believe in God weak? You would probably be the first to claim argumentum ad populum then.
If not an AAP then he is still committing a fallacy. You can use the doubt over what it should be called to turdpolish the prof's statements if you wish.

[Gordon]

You are equating minimal response or interest with weakness of message. Are you safe in that respect? I think not.

Super - but I'm not claiming that: you said Prof D was: remember.

Atheist are in the minority in the world. Does that make the message that there are no reasons to believe in God weak?

No, since my view of the weakness of arguments for God advanced by theists has to do with the contents of the arguments and not the numbers of people who may agree with me.

You would probably be the first to claim argumentum ad populum then.

Only if the argument I rejected was based on an appeal to the masses - if it isn't, and whatever other fallacies may be involved, the ad pop wouldn't apply.

If not then he is still committing a fallacy.

Which one, since it isn't the ad pop, and why?
 

You can use the doubt over what it should be called to turdpolish the prof's statements if you wish.

I'm not addressing what Prof D said at all: the issue here is you erroneously citing the argumentum ad populum fallacy. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not addressing what Prof D said at all: the issue here is you erroneously citing the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

No, Gordon that's your issue.
All i'm concerned with is to show that to state a person's argument is weak because it does not garner sufficient followers is a fallacy.

Now you either agree with that or you don't.

If you don't then. I have to say your message about there being no reason to believe in God or gods is weak because atheists are in the minority and you obviously agree with me.

[Gordon]

No, Gordon that's your issue.
All i'm concerned with is to show that to state a person's argument is weak because it does not garner sufficient followers is a fallacy.

Well show it then: but take care to cite the appropriate fallacy and explain why the fallacy applies.

That a weak argument doesn't attract much support seems possible: after all, in electoral politics, the Monster Raving Loony Party are an example of a weak argument attracting little popular support, so I suspect credibility is a factor you should consider before reaching for the fallacies. 

Now you either agree with that or you don't.

I don't, because I don't think you've thought things through very well and I suspect you don't understand fallacies.

If you don't then. I have to say your message about there being no reason to believe in God or gods is weak because atheists are in the minority and you obviously agree with me.

I don't agree with you since, as I said, I don't think you really understand what it is you are actually saying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Less people support Jesus therefore his message is weak.

Judaism was supported by more people so that message was strong.

Less people are atheists than therefore the message that there are no reasonsto believe in god is weak.

More people support the idea that there are reasons to believe God therefore the message is strong.

Which statements are fallacious and which are argumentum ad populum?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That a weak argument doesn't attract much support seems possible: after all, in electoral politics, the Monster Raving Loony Party are an example of a weak argument attracting little popular support, so I suspect credibility is a factor you should consider before reaching for the fallacies. 

As maybe as all that is, an argument isn't weak or strong because of the numbers which support it. That is the basis of argumentum ad populum.

[Gordon]

Less people support Jesus therefore his message is weak.

Judaism was supported by more people so that message was strong.

Less people are atheists than therefore the message that there are no reasonsto believe in god is weak.

More people support the idea that there are reasons to believe God therefore the message is strong.

Which statements are fallacious and which are argumentum ad populum?

Vlad

The argumentum ad populum is a fallacy: I suggest you perhaps read up on the more common ones rather than thrashing around like this.

[jeremyp]

Argumentum ad populum. Davey is arguing that because Jesus message didn't get the numbers of converts in his own nation his message was weak.

No. You need to go back and read what was actually said.

[Gordon]

As maybe as all that is, an argument isn't weak or strong because of the numbers which support it. That is the basis of argumentum ad populum.

Consider the ad populum bit, Vlad, and you'll see why it doesn't apply to your 'few supporters therefore weak message' scenario.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't, because I don't think you've thought things through very well and I suspect you don't understand fallacies.

I don't understand them like you seem to Gordon.

[Gordon]

I don't understand them like you seem to Gordon.

Never mind: the are lots of sources you can access to improve your knowledge.

This one is not bad.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Never mind: the are lots of sources you can access to improve your knowledge.

This one is not bad.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

It cannot be much good given your understanding of fallacies.

[jeremyp]

I don't understand them like you seem to Gordon.

The argument ad populum is the fallacy of claiming something is true because lots of people believe it to be true. A simple example: until the 17th century most people believe ed the Earth was fixed in space and the Sun went round it. Arguing that because most people believed that, it was true is argument ad populum.

Some arguments involving numbers are not argument ad populum. For example you might claim that Christianity has a strong message and you might cite as evidence the fact that there are a lot of Christians in the World. This is not ad populum because I think we can agree that a religion having a strong message does imply it would have a lot of followers. The argument is still fallacious but it is fallacious because "A implies B" and "B implies A" are not logically equivalent. i.e.that there are a lot of Christians does not imply that the Christian message is strong. There could be a lot of Christians because of some other reason.

However, if the consequence is false, then that does show that the hypothesis is false. If X has a strong message implies X has a lot of followers, but X does not have a lot of followers, then we know "X has a strong message" must be false. Professor Davy's argument that set you off on your downward spiral of doomed logic was exactly of this type.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The argument ad populum is the fallacy of claiming something is true because lots of people believe it to be true. A simple example: until the 17th century most people believe ed the Earth was fixed in space and the Sun went round it. Arguing that because most people believed that, it was true is argument ad populum.

Some arguments involving numbers are not argument ad populum. For example you might claim that Christianity has a strong message and you might cite as evidence the fact that there are a lot of Christians in the World. This is not ad populum because I think we can agree that a religion having a strong message does imply it would have a lot of followers. The argument is still fallacious but it is fallacious because "A implies B" and "B implies A" are not logically equivalent. i.e.that there are a lot of Christians does not imply that the Christian message is strong. There could be a lot of Christians because of some other reason.

However, if the consequence is false, then that does show that the hypothesis is false. If X has a strong message implies X has a lot of followers, but X does not have a lot of followers, then we know "X has a strong message" must be false. Professor Davy's argument that set you off on your downward spiral of doomed logic was exactly of this type.

The professor is only correct if he defines a weak message as one which does not garner much support.
That would however make the person who claims that christianity is a strong message correct.

However if he was saying loads of supporters so must be strong in truth terms that is incorrect or conversely if few supporters then the message is weak in truth terms then that is also incorrect.

Philosophicalsociety.com gives this as an example. It is close to what the professor is arguing imho

''argumentum ad populum -- This fallacy occurs when an argument panders to popular passion or sentiment. When, for instance, a politician exclaims in a debate that his opponent "is out of step with the beliefs of everyone in the audience," he/she is committing the fallacy. The legitimacy of a statement depends not on its popularity, but on its truth credentials.''

My Italics.

[ProfessorDavey]

Argumentum ad populum. Davey is arguing that because Jesus message didn't get the numbers of converts in his own nation his message was weak.

Not correct.

Argumentum ad populum implies that if a proposition is popular then it is true. We are talking here about subjective argument, rather than objective truth. A subjective argument or message, by its nature, cannot be proved true or otherwise so argumentum ad populum simply doesn't apply. However it is correct to claim that a strong message is one that convinces, while a weak message is one that fails to convince. In Jesus case the message he delivered himself largely failed to convince, evidenced by the fact that very few people who met him and heard him preach became followers and therefore Christianity failed to gain a foothold in the place where it arose.

This I think it pretty well unique amongst major religions - all the others became established in the places where they arose and grew from their. Clearly the earliest messages of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism were more convincing to the local people who heard them than was the message of Jesus.

[ProfessorDavey]

The professor is only correct if he defines a weak message as one which does not garner much support.

A weak message is one that fails to convince - there is a subtle difference between that and what you suggest.

So the message of later evangelists (most of whom would never have met Jesus, including Paul) was strong in that it convinced many. However the actual teaching of Jesus was weak in that despite the fact that thousands heard him message directly from him (if we accept the bible claims of preaching to thousands) he failed to convince many - indeed a tiny number ended up as adherents.

[Spud]

On the other hand, the detail that Jesus - an executed criminal - was buried in a tomb rings false, because executed criminals were buried in unmarked graves.

You can't cherry pick the bits that ring true and ignore the bits that don't.

To the Jews, he was a criminal, yes. That's why Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate to ask for the body - because Pilate believed Jesus was innocent and would let him bury the body as he wanted. So it doesn't ring false.

PS, just read #513. Sorry, am a bit behind.

[floo]

To the Jews, he was a criminal, yes. That's why Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate to ask for the body - because Pilate believed Jesus was innocent and would let him bury the body as he wanted. So it doesn't ring false.

In your opinion.

[Spud]

But regardless of all the views of actual historians that Luke's account appears at best to be scribbling up a whole range of non-aligned events, what about Matthew.

In Matthew's version there was no need for a census or a track on a donkey (not that that animal is ever mentioned) to allow Jesus to be born in Bethlehem - why - because he they were already there, only relocated to Nazareth much later, after Jesus' birth. So the two gospel account, on this issue are terminally inconsistent.

Or simply that Matthew didn't know that they were just in Bethlehem for the census. The "two witnesses seeing an event from different angles" thing.

[Spud]

Where is your evidence that Augustus issued a decree that the whole world should be registered?

Why would this registration apply to client kingdoms?

Why would anybody let you register in a town with which you have no real connection?

Why mention a census that occurred ten years later if you are narrating events that happened during the original registration?

Why are you not listening to anything anybody else here is telling you?

For the record, my #497 is wrong - Luke uses the same word for "register" in verses 1 and 2.

Although there might not be historical evidence to confirm it, Harold Hoehner pointed out that in verse 1 the word is in the present tense: "a decree went out from Caesar Augustus to register all the world". This shows that the decree was not for a census of the whole empire at the same time, but for an ongoing process to be started. So it could be that the census eventually completed by Quirinius took a decade to plan and execute. Similar to the building of a new bypass for example.

[Spud]

You seem to be confused.

I'm pretty sure I'm arguing that the details about Jesus' grave are not believable. Neither are the details given about Pilate's encounter with him.
Yes, it's Spud.

I think Dave is saying that you argue the details about Jesus' grave are not believable because it suits you to argue that.

[ProfessorDavey]

Or simply that Matthew didn't know that they were just in Bethlehem for the census. The "two witnesses seeing an event from different angles" thing.

That misinterprets what is in Matthew.

The implication of Matthew was that at the time of Jesus' birth Mary and Joseph were permanent residents in Bethlehem, negating the need for a census and and/or a journey from Nazareth to place them in Bethlehem at the time of the birth. Matthew suggests that they only moved to Nazareth well after Jesus' birth.

So we have a major discrepancy between the two with Luke claiming they were residents of Nazareth during Mary's pregnancy, while Matthew suggests they weren't.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think Dave is saying that you argue the details about Jesus' grave are not believable because it suits you to argue that.

On the contrary - I think believers argue that the details of Jesus' grave are believable because it suit them, as believers.

The key test is one of consistency. Were there to be a similar story with similar paucity of evidence would you believe it. For Jeremy and myself I guess we'd take exactly the same sceptical line as we do with the story of Jesus - we are consistent. Christians tend to cherry pick and engage in special pleading, accepting as true claims in the bible without hesitation that they would accept in a million years in another context.