(14 votes, average: 4.79 out of 5)
Loading...As most readers of the blog know, I do a good number of public debates, almost always (I’m trying to think if there is an exception!) with conservative evangelical Christians or fundamentalists who think that my views are dangerous to the good Christians of their communities and to all those non-Christians they very much want to convert. My view all along has been that my historical views are not a threat to Christian faith, but only to a particular (and particularly narrow) understanding of that faith. But most of my debate partners can’t see things that way. For them, their views are Christianity, and any other kind of Christianity is not actually Christianity.
I usually look forward to these debates in advance, but I have to say that almost every time I’m actually having one, I start jotting notes to myself, asking “Why Am I Doing This?” or “Why Do I Do This To Myself?” I often find the debates very frustrating.
I imagine my debate partners do as well. They just can’t understand why I don’t see the truth. Or rather, they think that because I’m a fallen creature who does not have faith (or am willful; or wicked; or rebellious) that I simply can’t see the truth that is staring me right in the eyes.
For my part I certainly don’t understand why…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, LOOK! It doesn’t cost much to join, you get a big bang for your buck, and every one of those bucks goes to help the needy. So JOIN ALREADY!!!
Your earlier point was made. Over half the class had already made up their minds that Acts was history.
Bart: I seem to recall you describing your UNC students as coming from the “belt buckle of the Bible belt.” If that’s the case, I am, frankly, pleasantly surprised that nearly half the class voted for the the negative side. Maybe you’re a better debater than you know.
This is certainly going to be a fascinating thread to follow! I have to say, it was an acquaintance online that introduced me to your work. He tried for several weeks to get me to read one of your books. I refused because I didn’t want to read anything by an atheist. So then he tried to get me to watch a debate. Nope, wasn’t doing that either. He then asked me to watch a short video clip of you on The Colbert Report. I figured that you would be (sorry) a total jerk. I had discussions with several atheists in an online group, and I found them to be very extreme in their views.
Anyway, I watched the video clip which made me uncomfortable! I thought Stephen was the aggressive one which surprised me. You made a silly joke, so I thought, okay, you’re not too *mean* I guess. After watching that, I agreed to watch a debate. I was very intrigued by the debate, so I then agreed to read Misquoting Jesus because my acquaintance swore it wouldn’t be a book about slamming Christians. He was right, and after more research on my own and watching a few more debates, I thought you could be right about *some* things. For a while, I thought you were still a bit extreme, so I wouldn’t join the blog. It didn’t work though because it sucked me right in! lol
Overall, I think your debates are valuable. Otherwise, where would I be right now? Probably still trying to figure out a doctrine.
“He who debates himself argues with folly” – Hezekiah 20:19
Insightful post as always, Bart. Thanks.
It must have occurred to you after all these years that no matter how well reasoned researched or delivered your arguments are you will not be able to overcome blind faith in a debate. I have watched your lectures on Youtube and I get so angry at the way your opponent will take issue with you; yet fail quite spectacularly to address your point. I am always willing to read the work of an academic who disagrees with you; ( but competent ones are few and far between). However debating with Evangelicals is doomed from the start as any concession on their part would be construed as a denial of faith. Don’t let the *******s grind you down. Pip pip.
Bart, blog about my loving father Zeus. The father in heaven I love so much !
Why in your debates do you always take the negative side? Dr. Wallace for one has to debate you on substantiating the critically aclaimed conservative Christian aspect–the belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and even though there are slight discrepancies none of them are so relevant that you have to tear apart what the majority of Christians believe.
Ha! Good question. I guess it’s because I simply accept the debate offers that come to me, and they’re always by people who want me to argue against the view they hold! But I suppose in the “suffering” debates I take the affirmative side.
There is no such thing as “truth,’ just “point of view grounded in bias.” For example, when Republicans and Democrats debate in politics, one side is not “right” while the other is “wrong,” one side just has a “Republican bias,” while the other side has a “Democratic bias.” One side will win because they get the most votes, but that doesn’t make their position the “true one.” Or, take the example of the Supreme court: Late judge Antonin Scalia didn’t rule as he did because his positions were true, he ruled as he did because his rulings agreed with his “Conservative, originalist bias.” There can’t be one “truth” when there are “conservative” and “liberal” Supreme court justices. Recalcitrant evidence can disconfirm a point of view, but agreeing evidence can only support, never “prove,” a bias driven point of view. Every point of view is biased because they always carry along with them uncritically accepted assumptions.
Well, it’s a complicated issue. But I’d say that it is true that Obama is the President, even if it can’t be established as true or false if he’s a *good* president.
Exactly. The problem is that people want to establish that he is a good or bad president.
You said: “But I’d say that it is true that Obama is the President, even if it can’t be established as true or false if he’s a *good* president.” This is a good illustration of what I was talking about. If you ask the Republican presidential candidates (Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich), Obama was a terrible president. If you ask the Democratic presidential candidates (Clinton, Sanders), Obama was a wonderful president. These are all judgements grounded in bias. It is not objectively “true” Obama was a “good” president, but rather it is “true” from a “liberal point of view.”
Right. But it doesn’t mean that some things (other things) can or cannot be “true”.
I know. I’m just saying, following Nietzsche, that “Value Judgements” are not grounded in objective truth, but rather biased point of view.
But there are fact-checkers. Many things that you say are grounded in bias on either side can be shown by more objective, not just bias-based evidence, to be true or not true.
LOL!
Yet even Obama’s opponents (am kind of siding with the expressed view that there is really only human biased opinion – vs. such thing as unimpeachable truth) might argue (some do) that Obama is not a constitutionally valid president due to the controversy of whether he was born in Kenya instead of Hawaii.
When this controversy was raging and then finally the Obama administration put a pdf of a birth certificate, that was supposed to clear up the matter (because it was signed by the deliverying doctor, mother, etc.), on a website, out of curosity I had my company’s graphic artist download it and we looked at it in Adobe Illustrator where the pdf layers (if any present) could be viewed. Sure enough it was made up of multiple layers. There was a scanned birth certificate document layer – the scanning was obvious due to the manner of residual grey scaled pixilation when viewed in higher magnification. The signatures fields were erased (all pixelation removed) from the signature fields on that scanned layer. Then other layers, having just signatures on them (they took original signatures from different sources), overlaid the scanned layer. Looking at these layers it was obvious that the signatures were carefully hand edited (no grey scale background pixelation due to scanning) by a graphic artist in something like Photoshop. When looked at normal magnification via a pdf viewer, the document looked convincing enough. When examined in Illustrator the document was an obvious fabrication.
I only dive in on that matter to make the point that really about any assumption, evidence, so-called fact, etc., can be brought into disupte – even what should be very straight forward to establish basic facts (such as is Obama the president).
In the end we talk about probabilities of likelihood – especially in matters of history. Or at least that is what I have learned from reading various Bart Ehrman writings. 🙂
BTW, your writings and your debates (many thankfully put on YouTube) do the world at large much good. Tugging people away (even if very gradually) from the negative consequences of fundamentalist psychology is the work of the angels.
Was there ever such a person as Antonin Scalia? Was he a justice on the United States Supreme Court?
Is there a United State?. Is there a person who uses the codename john76–or is he (it, she, they) just a figment of my imagination? Your message is one of relativism that has poisoned human discourse and scholarship and religion. This is a philosophical position that corrupts all discourse, scholarship and human interaction. If you believe this nonsense you can discount everything and everybody. It is worse than worthless, it is dangerous and destructive. You don’t believe it yourself, John76 or you wouldn’t bother to post a message that by your own standards is false.
IIamensdor I totally agree with you.
“but it will sound convincing to people because it is what they want to hear, and when they hear it, they are convinced, because they were convinced before they heard it.”
Perfect example of the Confirmation Bias, of which we are all guilty. I was part of the “in-group” of fundamentalism for most of my life, looking out at the out-group(almost everybody else) with disdain and judgment. Then I moved out and into a new in-group that felt that same disdain for my former in-group. It will be one of my lifelong chases to find the middle way.
Bart, I think that at the end of the day, until you are willing to debate theology it doesn’t matter how you debate historical accuracy.
A simple example would be; Did the Apostle Paul really have visions of Jesus or an overactive imagination with a huge ego behind it? A sales team leader pitching the idea that the world was soon going to end as they knew it. As well as his theology on just how that all worked. Who can say really?
Either consciously or unconsciously people have a ton of fear in whatever form it may take for even questioning the above. The loss of people they hold dear, their community and their identity most of all. The compartments in the brain get sealed and people will die for those beliefs. It matters little what truth is. We are only human after all.
Bart, it is very difficult being a warrior for *truth. I bet that in some way I don’t understand truth thanks you for your efforts.
Dr. Ehrman, debates are probably one of the worst methods of arriving at the truth of a proposition. Invariably, debates end up devolving into a battle of style over substance. That is to say, debaters are more concerned with using winning tactics than with actually arriving at some kind of accurate description of the universe. That’s why it’s no coincidence that debating teams are often made up of future lawyers, because lawyers usually care more about winning than with the truth. (Indeed, lawyers treat the “truth” as an inconvenient nuisance most of the time.) That being said, probably the most effective way of arriving at the truth was already discovered 2,300 years ago by the Greeks — that being the dialectical (i.e. Socratic) method — because in that method each and every propostion is picked apart, weighed and measured. Moreover, in the dialectical method the participants aren’t supposed to come in with any pre-conceived believes or objections. By agreement, each participant is there to arrive at some kind of objective truth, so there’s no “sides” or “teams”. The only side is the side of truth. That’s why I believe debates should be done away with and replaced with open dialogue. In such an open dialogue it becomes much more difficult to rely on sneaky tactics and fallacious reasoning, because all statements are analyzed dialectically. No one would be allowed to get away with a questionable or pandering utterance.
As for who you choose to debate, I wish you would debate more Mythicists, because they have really become a plague in the secular community. In fact, many Mythicists will even quote mine your own writings to support their Mythicist positions, and I have run into more than a few Mythicists on the Interwebs who claim you to be a Mythicist! And when I correct them, they will actually use your own words against me to defend their believe that you’re a Mythicist. I know, strange, huh? But the only reason they can get away with claiming you as a Mythicist is that you simply don’t debate Mythicists enough, so they get the impression that you must be one of them. I know that debating Mythicists isn’t as sexy as debating hard-core evangelicals, and I’m sure the honorarium you get from the religious organizations is far more attractive than that of secular ones, but I would think that when it comes to your professional reputation, well, you can’t put a price on that.
Yeah, the problem is that I’m simply not interested in debating mythicists! They are so much *work*! Like a girlfriend I had once….
I feel ya
Whatever!
I heard you were debating Robert M. Price in November? Is this still happening?
Yup, still the plan.
You used to date a Christ Mythicist? That’s a whole other blog post right there 😉
You normally charge 5k for a debate yes? Charge a non jc believer 10k. That way its worth yr time and you’ll be motivated.
Maybe 100K? 🙂
Bart wrote a book claiming in no uncertain terms that he believes Jesus existed. Carrier and his mob have written a counter book to that. Bart is also debating Price this year. If anyone thinks Bart is a mythicist they’re an idiot.
I think everybody on this blog would be veeery happy to see Acts argued, for and against.
One question-like how many people do you think followed Jesus? Like 50-100 or even something in the thousands? I think we know it expanded pretty quickly when even converts like Paul were STARTING churches!!!(and filling those churches)
But initially, after the crucifixion event how many followers did he have?
My sense is that the NT is right: after his death there were possibly 11 men and a handful of women who “believed in him” — possibly 20 people at the start, or fewer.
“I think one of the most frustrating things for me is that in many instances (very many instances, from what I can tell), it will be clear as day that a debater is using an argument that will be way over the heads of almost everyone in the audience – the kind of argument that takes years of training to follow and understand. The argument may be completely bogus, but the audience would have no way of knowing that, and demonstrating its fallacy would take a couple of hours.”
Ah, I believe you are speaking of Dr. Craig…
Ah, right. But not just him!
Debates are for the audiences, not just the debaters. So, do you ever call an opponent on using an argument that’s way over the heads of the audience and challenge him or her to make the point some simpler way so that the majority, at least, of the listeners could understand?
The problem with raising that in a debate is that members of the audience might think it would be condescending to them.
I can see that. Call for a show of hands? “How many here followed Dr. So-and-So’s argument?”
::cough::Kalam Cosmological Argument::cough::
Your debates make a HUGE difference. Every time I watch (or more often, listen) to one of your debates, I reflect on the points presented and, if so moved, do some of my own amateur research. I’ve watched your debate with James White several times. It’s painful to watch with so many uncomfortable moments, but I learn a lot and “borrow” many of the more salient arguments. I didn’t enjoy White’s rhetorical style, but his constant questioning of whether you “are familiar with (insert your own Biblical scholar)’s research” seemed to be his most effective tactic. If you answer “no”, it implies that you may be limited in the sources you rely on for your argument, but if you answer “yes”, you run the risk of being asked to make your opponents point for them. I thought you dominated the debate, but I’ve employed White’s tactic a couple of times and found it to be very effective. Of course, your debate opponent will want to stick his thumb in your eye, which I was hoping you would do to White, so I only use the tactic with those I want to antagonize!
I can imagine that debates are frustrating as everyone has already made their mind up before the debate. But at least you are sowing the seeds of critical thinking, and in years to come some of those present at the debate may start thinking about their beliefs and remember how much you actually taught them.
Also I preordered your new book ages ago on Amazon UK and on the release date it became “out of stock” (even though I preordered). Obviously this is beyond your control, but the wait is killing me!
Hi Bart,
I watched all of your debates on youtube and other resources. I can understand your frustration debating fundamentalist Christians. They continue using the same arguments over and over and over. I am looking forward to your debate with Robert Price later in the year. He is a very well read and nice guy. This debate will be a refreshing change from did Jesus rise from the dead debates. Are you looking forward to this debate ?
No, not at all, actually. But Bob’s a good guy, so it should be fun. But I’m just not that interested in arguing about mythicism….
I think the good members of the blog are going to need to see a video of that!
I look forward to your discussion on debates. I’m a big fan of debate as a learning activity for young people in high school and college, especially with a topic that involves religion where it may come up against firmly held beliefs. One of the toughest sells is to convince someone with firmly held beliefs about something that their beliefs lead them in the opposite direction on. Rather than be disappointed that more than half of the class ended up favoring the affirmative side of this question, I wonder how many who were predisposed to vote affirmative before the debate changed their minds and voted negative after the debate? Or visa versa? Have you asked your class how many voted differently after the debate than they would have voted before hearing the debate? Also was there a particular argument that persuaded them to think differently about the subject?
When it comes to religious belief, what types of arguments tend to do better in persuading a person to reconsider something their belief system tells them the opposite about? I tend to think storytelling type arguments are best (e.g., the parables of Jesus), but also the rhetorical question with a pause, then an answer, can be effective. In both cases you’re letting the mind connect the dots for itself. In watching some of your debates I think you are especially effective with both of these techniques.
In studying debate and speech arguments academically, or in my case, studying arguments in negotiations, it is useful if you can pinpoint a key “turning point” argument or pivot point. Why was that particular argument effective? What can I do to replicate that type of reaction in future negotiations or future debates?
Speaking of which: what’s the latest on the allegedly-first-century Mark fragment that one of your debate opponents was on the verge of putting out there? Seems like it’s been a couple of years, and the silence is deafening.
It is yet to see the light of published day!
I think it’s unethical to keep that fragment’s contents from the public.
My guess is that no one is trying to hide things; there are just complications involved with publication. But there must be a lot of them!
I wish they would at least say what the problem is with it. At this point, I’m thinking they lost the daggone thing.
Guy Stroumsa saw it in the light of a regular day though, no?
No, I’m not aware that Stroumsa saw it.
Tom, you want an update? Here you go–
http://pattycake1974.blogspot.com/2016/03/update-on-first-century-mark-fragment.html
The debates are important as is everything you are doing. IMHO, you are pioneering a revolution for those of us fundamentalist Christians with the tiniest little crack in our belief systems. Once that process begins, there’s no going back in spite of how painful it is to be so very different from everyone else we love and care about. It has to be difficult for you, leading the charge. Hopefully, we can be supportive.
Next time, take a vote of hands on the students’ position before you presented the debate. Then take another vote after the debate. What is more informative is the change in votes, not the absolute %.
The next time you do a debate with yourself like this, why don’t you record it and put it on Youtube? I’m sure most of us would love to see it.
Interesting idea!
I look forward to these upcoming debate posts! I’m sure it is frustrating to feel like people watching the debates are on the side that they will stay on, but watching one of your debates, then reading and listening to almost everything I could find by you was what completely deconstructed what was remaining of my fundamentalist Christianity, and I couldn’t be more thankful! I couldn’t believe how much I didn’t know and how big the discrepancys were! I had only ever heard apologists and believers talk about how the differences were small and insignificant. The story of the adulterous woman in John not being in the original manuscripts really really bothered me. Every christian I talked to had no problem and just said it didn’t change the resurrection, but for me it changed all reliability of the bible and the idea of inerrancy! Anyway, long way to say, your work is helpful and getting through to people 🙂
//An argument one side makes can be as fallible and specious as a person can humanly conceive, but it will sound convincing to people because it is what they want to hear, and when they hear it, they are convinced, because they were convinced before they heard it.//
Very true!
Human evolutionary selection for ability to draw correct conclusions from detailed abstract argument was in my view probably non-existent or very weak. But human (and probably pre-human) evolutionary selection for willingness to accept and respond to leadership is I would guess very strong. When you debate (even with yourself) your are involved in both a debate and an act of leadership. As I write this I am watching the same thing on CNN. So you have to ask both: “did my argument persuade” AND “did I lead effectively”. You could test this by inserting leadership messages (I am wise and strong and people who follow me prosper) into one side of your self-debate and not the other. I bet that side would win. Sorry if this is a depressing idea, especially given what the American people are suffering at the moment ?
We live in a world of experts where we have learned to distrust them (I don’t think this healthy). All of us are subject matter experts within our own spheres and most of the time I am in near despair with the content and arguments raised in the media on my profession. I can’t say that I am astonished to learn that your undergraduates have not yet learned how to assess evidence – it is hard to do and very often one must somehow sort out which version of the truth is correct. This is particularly difficult in those arenas in which you know relatively little. Even more difficult if you have not assessed your own biases that you bring to the table.
That said, your exercise will presumably bring it home to your students how thorough and careful they have to be in assessing evidence and arguments arising therefrom. A useful follow up exercise might be to have the students refute each side of the issue towards the end of the course after they have learned more. Maybe an exam question! 🙂
How accurate would acts have to be to called accurate? Does it have to be 100%? Could the affirmative concede there were just a few details wrong and still argue that it’s accurate? What about a few inaccurate sections? What if the gist is basically what happened but all the details and speeches were made up?
Ah, that’s one of the issues in my self-debate, as you’ll see.
The Mind Castle is EXTREMELY difficult to attack and conquer. The ideas we first hear (especially if we have been indoctrinated from birth) become walled into our minds and resist the assault of new, contradictory ideas at every turn.
I sincerely hope that you are successful in getting some (hopefully most) of your students to engage in a reasoned consideration of their acceptance of weak (evangelical apologist) arguments and allow their mind castles to be challenged.
I’ve always thought you’ve won the debates I’ve see. That’s why I subscribe to your blog. You’ve cleared up many troubling claims orthodox religion has made
Scaffolding your students’ learning through debate is an excellent teaching method. If most of your students are very young, then maybe they’re just not developmentally capable of seeing the weaker argument. Many young people are very idealistic (fantasy vs. reality) with most areas of their lives: love, money, career, and certainly God. Understanding the difference between a weaker and stronger argument takes a certain amount of maturity. They’re just not *there* yet.
In the past, I’ve had students write essays countering their own viewpoints. I tell them, “How can you argue your point if you don’t know what the other side is going to say? Research the countering argument and write an essay about it.” They literally have to present a case that’s against their own ideas. Some of them have changed their own minds! Don’t know if that would work with your class.
It’s a shame that someone would argue their point by manipulating the audience. That’s dishonest and they know it. I think your opponents could do a better job at making a case for their side. And I can’t believe your students won’t volunteer to debate you. I would! I’m sure you’d completely destroy my argument, but I wouldn’t care. It would be fun!
I was asked by the forensics coach at the high school where I taught to act as a judge at some local competitions – although I knew almost nothing about debate. (He was desperate for judges.)
The Lincoln-Douglas debate was always the most difficult event for me – especially when the topics were those on which I had strong opinions. Although I attempted to remain neutral, I knew I had heard great (and/or poor) debaters when I awarded a win to the side opposing my view.
I guess there are many good reasons to “judge not”.
Yes, I find it difficult at times to take seriously the sincerity and open-mindedness of evangelical debaters. I’m keen to hear your debate with Richard Bauckham though. Looking forward to that one!
I’m curious. I’ve only just started reading your new book, so maybe you address this in there. But here goes: Has your view of the historical Jesus changed at all after your studies into memory? Obviously I take it you still think he was an apocalyptic prophet with imminent apocalyptic expectations, but were there any minor details that you changed your mind about regarding what is or isn’t historical, or at the very least, anything you’ve reconsidered your level of confidence over? It seems to me that memory studies can’t add anything to our understanding of the the historical Jesus, but only expose further to us our inability to be confident about just about anything claimed about him. Can we ever really say we “know” anything about Jesus? I don’t think we can. We can only say what we suspect.
I’ve changed some views on details. Maybe I’ll answer this in a mailbag post.
Non-professionals need professionals with good communicating skills. If you hadn’t developed your debating skills from early age, you might not have produced all those best-selling trade books. After all – having read one of them years back, it made me continue buying most of your other books. Also, your videotaped debates published here are great for getting through a particular topic during a lone evening meal. So please continue! The problem to the non-professional is that we may misjudge the technical validity of topical arguments, because we lack the expertise, and let the communicating skills decide what we think is most convincing. Style seduces.
I really wish someone had filmed this!!
1. What a terrific idea for some upcoming blogs.
2. What a terrific idea to debate both sides of an issue in front of a class and how interesting what the students thought to be the better argument.
3. I thought an exception to your having debated only fundamentalists might be your having debated a mythicist or two about the existence of Jesus, but I could not find such a debate. My “memory” thing again.
4. The reactions that you have experienced in debates is exactly the same thing that I have experienced in church class discussions. It’s frustrating.
I would be interested in reading a summary of the pro and con arguments you used in your debate with yourself about whether or not Acts is historical.
Bart, as a Python fan you might appreciate this 😉
https://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y
Ha! Yup, it’s a classic, one of the best. EVERYONE on the blog should watch this!!
Fantastic!!!! We’ve all heard certain people taking each of the positions on this Python post–well, maybe not all the head pounding, but pretty close.
No they shouldn’t!
I can only speak for myself, but I can say with certainty that your work and debates are almost solely responsible for the fact that I am no longer a Christian. And I consider that to be a very…very good thing. I first read Jesus Interrupted…but I was still a Christian. I then purchased your Bible course on tape…but was still a Christian. I watched you debate…but was still a Christian. It wasn’t…not ever is it…an instantaneous change. But trust me…the holes were poked and the thoughts were stimulated, and after a lot of careful consideration, I switched from your opponent to your supporter and never looked back. Thanks for all of it! I would still be a slave to ignorance without your work. It’s priceless in my book.
Debates do not work in changing people’s world views, however they serve to further one’s personal convictions. To prove this one just needs to go to the 2000 presidential debates. No matter how poorly Bush did the far right always claimed him the victor. Perhaps I too would have claimed him to be the winner had I supported him. However, I imagine a lot of people who are not set in their ways come to your debates with a wanting to see both sides.
Hav you ever considered doing a debate with a muslim? You could do the historical
Jesus/historicity of the cruxifiction
I just do what I’m asked!
Debates can be productive sometimes. I gave up young earth creationism while watching the Nye-Hamm debate.
Even if you only change one person’s mind, or even just plant a seed of thought into someone’s mind, I think your debates would be worthwhile.