In my opinion, Bart Ehrman convincingly won the debate against Justin Bass in the YouTube video titled “Bart Ehrman & Justin Bass – Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead?” Bass heavily relied on the fallacious Argumentum ad populum, which bases truth or goodness on majority belief. I decided to share my reflections on this blog. Drawing from my readings of several of Bart Ehrman’s books and my exposure to various YouTube debates involving him, the discussion with Justin Bass resonated with me. It brought to mind my academic pursuits in math, philosophy (logic), and economics (over 4 decades ago), specifically regarding Argumentum ad populum and the distinction between correlation and causation. The meanings of knowledge, belief, and faith have often posed challenges for me, leading me to write a précis several months ago in an attempt to clarify my understanding. I would appreciate the insights and perspectives of others. Here is the précis for your reference.
FAITH ALONE
Preamble – Define your Terms
“If you wish to converse with me,” said Voltaire, “define your terms.” How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to the strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. (Source: The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant, Chapter 2, Aristotle and Greek Science, Part 3, The Foundation of Logic).
Knowing, Believing & having Faith
How should we define the words; to know, to believe, and to have faith? What is the difference between knowing something, believing something, and having faith in something. Often these words used interchangeably as synonyms.
To know: I define Knowledge as being derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions, the a priori. In other words, we are not born with blank slates. We experience and know the observable three-dimensional world, we know time moves forward, we know one plus one equals two. “Kant argued that we can only have knowledge of things we can experience. Accordingly, in answer to the question, ‘What can I know?’ Kant replies that we can know the natural, observable world, but we cannot, however, have answers to many of the deepest questions of metaphysics [or faith]” (Source: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). “Kant asserts that space (and time) are not objective, self-subsisting realities, but subjective requirements of our human sensory-cognitive faculties to which all things must conform. Space and time serve as indispensable tools that arrange and systemize the images of the objects imported by our sensory organs. The raw data supplied by our eyes and ears would be useless if our minds didn’t have space and time to make sense of it all” (Source: Philosophy Now).
To Believe: I define Belief as empirical, experience-based knowledge, whereas a priori knowledge is non-empirical knowledge. To believe something is to accept it as true; to feel sure of its truth. The key action words here are to accept and to feel. It is to hold something as an opinion; to think or suppose it to be true. We hold “known facts including statistical knowledge to assign degrees of belief to assertions [we are] uncertain about” (Source: From Statistics to Beliefs). The best example I can think of to illustrate belief is, “when the light turns green, we cross the street” sometimes without looking both ways.
To have Faith: I define Faith as the “…. confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” (Source: Hebrews 11:1). Faith does not depend on the 5 senses. It does not depend on space, time, logic, certainty, or statistical significance. It depends on what we hope for. So, what do we hope for?
I know that my Redeemer Lives
I once made the statement to someone that the phrase “I know that my redeemer lives” is negating our faith. If we know something, there is no need, or room, for faith. The response I received was not positive. Applying the definitions above, we do not know that our redeemer lives with any level of certainty, rather we have faith that our redeemer lives. “Many passages of the Bible teach that salvation is through faith alone. In the words of Immanuel Kant: “I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith” (Source: Preface to the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, Bxxx). It seems that some believers are afraid of faith alone. They need to believe in miracles, why is this?
Conclusion
So, what do I believe? Beyond believing that crossing the street on a green light is a safe bet, I still don’t know. However, I think I can say “Knowledge and belief exist in the mind. Faith dwells in the heart.” But then, Voltaire would insist we define the terms “mind” and “heart.” Given that I do not want to get entangled in that exercise, I would say simply say that “Opinion is circumstantial, attitude is everything, and faith stands alone.”

“There are know(n)Christian theologians who can honestly prove Professor Ehrman wrong.
I disagree.
I’ve been here almost since the very beginning of the blog, watched every debate, read his books and as a believer, given up all hope that anyone can prove him
wrong. My belief in God and Jesus has not changed but the way I understand Christianity and the Bible has changed tremendously.
Well I respect Prof Ehrman a great deal and have learned a lot from him but there a few points I disagree with him on. The ironic part is that to a large degree he was the one who taught me enough to where I feel comfortable disagreeing with him.
The problem with theology is very little of it is subject to confirmation or disconfirmation. It is ideology and/or interpretation. Bass is committed to a prior faith position which he holds onto no matter what.
Would you share those with us?
I’ve mentioned some. His minimization of the importance of Psalm 22 in Mark’s depiction of the crucifixion (and his characterization of Jesus therein). I’m still not completely sold on the idea that the author of the letter of James intends to be seen as the historical brother of Jesus. Most importantly I suppose I’ve begun to question Ehrman’s idea of orality in the development of the gospels. (The idea that generations of Christians passed on stories which were then collected by the gospels writers.)
Needless to say I am not claiming to have originated any of these arguments. I’ve just been persuaded by other views than Ehrman’s on these particular issues.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)

