“I disagree. Objective reasoning is a posteriori; subjective is a priori. The former is phenomenological, and the latter ontological. Thye are antonyms of eahc other, and cnanot be conflated.”
You misunderstand, entirely. Let’s make it simple: a priori knowledge is not the same as knowledge from faith. A priori reasoning is strictly academic, and it means that the truth of something is self-evident, requiring no empirical verification. Faith is a spiritual matter, resulting from a form of communication with God.
“If a vast majority of historians—according to a very partial Evangelical professor in Lynchburg, Va—accept the historicity of Jesus and his resurrection, it is more likely because of the sheer weight (and sensitivity) of the Christian tradition in the western civilization than any standard, verifiable, historical evidence.”
You’re saying that you have no problem believing that a vast majority of historians will form their professional opinions because of pressure from Christian doctrine, rather than rely on conventional methods of determining historicity. Think about that. It’s a perfect illustration of relativism at work, because at any other time you would accept what everyone else accepts—that the majority of historians are fairly objective and reliable.
Relativism is what makes people (usually, though not always, leftists) keep moving the bar. For example, you first claim to doubt my argument because I haven’t been specific enough with the supporting evidence. Here, you say that even if my supporting evidence is specific enough, it isn’t valid because the vast majority of historians aren’t credible.
It’s like trying to argue with a liberal that Obama is a Marxist. The liberal says “that’s crazy, he’s not a Marxist.” And as the evidence increasingly shows he is very likely at least a Marxist sympathizer, the liberal then changes his argument to “Well, Marxism really isn’t so bad anyway.”
Ideological relativism is not the same as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. It’s somewhat amusing (though tragic) the way liberals confuse themselves into believing that because 1) Einstein was a genius, that somehow 2) liberals are also geniuses because they can mouth the word “relativity,” and that they can go on to claim that 3) all truth is relative.
Number 4, of course, is the conclusion that since truth is relative, it has no permanence and what is said to be true today can be false tomorrow. This is the origin of blatant liberal hypocrisy and the liberal practice of moving the bar around. They take a particular position against an opponent’s argument, and later this same position is contradicted, denied, reversed or considered meaningless. Relativism is nothing more than an excuse to lie. Truly, the nature of relativism renders all of leftist ideology meaningless.
I’m not specifically calling you a leftist. I’m saying you use a tactic that is the foundation of the way leftists perpetrate their ideology.
In his investigation of the events surrounding the Resurrection, Gary Habermas (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus) uses a “minimal facts” approach. This means he does not assume Biblical inspiration or even reliability of the New Testament, but views the New Testament as a work of literature, and accepts only data which are well evidenced and accepted by nearly every scholar, even the most skeptical ones.
Consider this question: In the process of forming your opinion, do you think it’s better to seek more depth and more detail—such as looking at what multiple scholars have said, and examining the nature and methods of determining historicity—or do you prefer to save time and to base your conclusions merely on what seems at first glance to be correct, before knowing the facts?
Doesn't faith start with the a priori assumption that there is God?
Faith is a spiritual matter, resulting from a form of communication with God.
That is a meaningless sentence as far as I am concerned because I don't know what "spiritual matter" is. If anything, it sounds like an oxymoron, i.e. spiritual (immaterial) + matter (material), and I don't know what God is. Now, before you jump to ANY conclusions, I am not saying this because I am a "leftist" but because I am an agnostic, i.e. I don't know if there is a God or what or who God might be or how to recongize him.
It's a perfect illustration of relativism at work, because at any other time you would accept what everyone else accepts—that the majority of historians are fairly objective and reliable.
First, I don't know that for a fact , and, knowing human nature, I would never given anyone that much credit without supporting evidence. I think the majority of historians (a) have their own prejudices, (b) political convictions, (c) career decisions to make, (d) some may experience change-of-life events, etc.
For example, you first claim to doubt my argument because I haven’t been specific enough with the supporting evidence.
I am neither gullible nor under any obligation to believe a perfect stranger who makes rather sweeping generalizations without much evidence.
Here, you say that even if my supporting evidence is specific enough, it isn’t valid because the vast majority of historians aren’t credible.
What evidence did you present me with? A name of an Evangelical professor who earns his bread on an Evangelical university? Do you really expect me to accept his word on his word, convinced that it is unbiased? This is like saying that Rahm Emmanuel will write fair an balanced memoirs without favoring his party's progressivist agenda!
In addition to that, you give me one reference. A name. Did you expect me to read his entire work to convince myself that you are right? You must be joking. Let's see his data, his references, etc. And let's see other, independent studies, on the same subject and see how well their results corroborate with his.
It’s somewhat amusing (though tragic) the way liberals confuse themselves into believing that because 1) Einstein was a genius, that somehow 2) liberals are also geniuses because they can mouth the word “relativity,” and that they can go on to claim that 3) all truth is relative
The word "relativity" pre existed Einstein. The world we live in is a complex relationship, where everything relates one way or another to everything else. What is good for some is not good for others; what is uncomfortable to me may be perfectly comfortable to someone else; what seems true to some doesn't seem true to others, etc. There is nothing "leftist" in any of that.
I’m not specifically calling you a leftist. I’m saying you use a tactic that is the foundation of the way leftists perpetrate their ideology.
My tactic is to trust no one on his word, especially when they hide behind the anonymity of the Internet.
This means he does not assume Biblical inspiration or even reliability of the New Testament, but views the New Testament as a work of literature, and accepts only data which are well evidenced and accepted by nearly every scholar, even the most skeptical ones.
That's fine. Now, let's see his arguments and his data.
Consider this question: In the process of forming your opinion, do you think it’s better to seek more depth and more detail—such as looking at what multiple scholars have said, and examining the nature and methods of determining historicity—or do you prefer to save time and to base your conclusions merely on what seems at first glance to be correct, before knowing the facts?
You have to ask me that? I'd think it's obvious that by asking for evidence and data I don't accept anything superficially or lightly, or on someone's nice words.