Loading...For the past several weeks we have seen more than ever why we need experts. It is absolutely fine to have uninformed opinions. We all have thousands of them. But we should no mistake our uninformed opinions for knowledge. And real knowledge takes expertise, and expertise takes years and years of training and hard work. It doesn’t come from watching the news or reading a few articles and then making up your mind. Since we ourselves cannot be expert in everything, we have to decide whether to trust those who are experts or to persist in our contrary views. And as we are seeing now, in some areas expertise is a matter of life and death. In other pressing areas (climate), it may mean the survival of the human race and the planet.
Most areas of expertise are not that significant in terms of history or human life. But the same principles apply. My view is that pPeople really shouldn’t work desperately hard to convince others about something that they really don’t know anything about. I’m not saying that we should be somehow *forced* to accept our contrary view, and mindlessly accept whatever the experts are telling us. You can think pretty much whatever you like, as far as I’m concerned, about most things. I continue to think the 1984 Tarheels were the best college basketball team of all time, experts be damned. But for more important matters, if you try to convince others of your uninformed views, that almost never leads to something good.
Most of us are experts in one thing or another – maybe not world-class experts, but extremely knowledgeable. That’s one reason I don’t think affirming expertise is at all elitist – the charge that is often made against it, though not so much right now, at least in one rather serious area of our lives over the past few weeks. An expert doesn’t need to claim to be a superior human being because of their expertise. They aren’t a superior human being. They simply know more than most people, or in some cases than virtually everyone, about one thing or another.
I’m an expert on all sorts of things that most people know almost nothing about, nearly all these things connected in one way or another with ancient Christianity (the Greek scribal tradition of the Gospel of John; the history of early Christian persecution; the interpretation of the Acts of Pilate; lots and lots of things). So what? I have no idea how my toaster works or how to repair a timing belt or how to determine the distance in light years of the nearest sun or almost anything about Genghis Khan or the history of the interpretation of Beowulf or …. The list reaches to infinity.
And for that reason I don’t give people advice about how they ought to do these things or what they ought to think about them.
Why is it, though, that when it comes to matters of history and religion so many people think that anyone’s opinion is as good as anyone else’s? Even when these matters cross over into the realms of science? You wonder if that’s true? If there really are lots of people who know nothing about a topic and try to convince others to share their ignorance, thinking that they actually do know the truth?
OK, then, think about the beginnings of the universe and the origins of life.
As happens with frustrating regularity, I received an email recently from someone wanting me to read their book. Sent me the book electronically, as well. In the email the person wanted to spark my interest and so included the opening line of the book:
The idea that existence, with all its complex order, unity, inherent creativity and intelligence, arose from an unintelligent, random and mechanical process like the Big Bang and evolution and that humans magically evolved from an organic soup of amino acids is just nonsense, crap, BS, not true.
My first thought was, “Good god….” My second thought was: why do people who know nothing about a topic pronounce on it? I mean it’s fine to think that everything the experts have shown in, say, astrophysics or geoscience, is completely wrong. But do you really want to try to go toe to toe with them?
I responded to this person by asking what his expertise is. He doesn’t have any advanced training, but he did do an undergraduate degree with a double major in biology and computer science. OK, fair enough. I suppose an outside might think, “Hey, he took a bunch of biology courses in college, so he surely knows what he’s talking about, right?”
Yeah, not right. My field is nowhere NEAR as complicated and technical as the “hard” sciences. But there’s not a double religious studies / computer science major in the universe who would be able to understand just my dissertation, let alone any of the hard-core research I’ve done since then. It would take lots and lots of explaining even to give them an idea what it’s *about*. But they wouldn’t be able to understand it from the inside – only on the outside based on the best explanation I could come up with to simplify it for them. And that would mean that there is NO WAY on God’s green earth that they’d be able to *assess*, *analyze*, or *critique* it.
So why do people do that with matters of science? Again, it’s *FINE* not to believe in the Big Bang if you don’t want to, or to think that there is simply no way to explain the beginnings of life without believing in a Creator. Sure – believe what you want. But why would you write a *book*trying to convince people that science is wrong when in fact you haven’t been trained in the field and cannot understand it from the inside, but only know what others have told you who have had to to overly simplify it just for you to get a sense of it (for example, on the most basic level, the math)?
In any event, I normally try to be very polite to people when I respond to them. But I have to admit, this kind of exchange really gets to me. And so I decided to tell him what I really thought.
Just a response to the first statement. Anyone who has no credentials or expertise who says that the most intelligent human beings on the planet– who have spent their entire lives devoted to the difficult work of mastering a subject of such major complexity as cosmology or astro-physics — are in fact spouting “nonsense, crap, BS,” in my opinion, should actually learn the field before attacking it.
He responded to me by pleading with me to read the book. I read the beginning, got the thesis, and, well – if I want to know about the Big Bang, I think I’ll talk to a cosmologist instead. When it comes to stars, climate, or viruses, I really want to know what experts think.
Hear! Hear!
So true. In my work, I deal with this all the time. Generally, I ‘get the guff’ from folks who stand to lose money if my expertise is accepted. I understand the tension. As for the Bible, people might be forgiven for deeming themselves worthy of vying with more educated persons. First, it is almost certain that ignorant peasants who knew nothing of physics, biology, cosmology, geography, history, et al wrote the entirety of its content. Second, it is such an integral part of western culture that people cannot see the fishes for the aquarium. Seems clear enough to me, that’s the common attitude………right?
Hi Bart, great post.
Two comments:
The Big Bang doesn’t describe the origin of the universe. It describes the “expansion” (I’m avoiding using my preferred word, evolution, as I use it differently below) of the universe after the origin. I would say we don’t have the foggiest idea on the origin of the universe. I have a PhD in physics but it’s not in cosmology, so it is in the realm of possibility that someone with even more expertise could further refine my statement.
Evolution and the origin of life are not the same thing. There is no doubt about evolution. The evidence and theory are solid. We haven’t yet shown how life began but we have some pretty good ideas.
On reflection, I think that my use of the words ‘not the foggiest idea’ requires me to affirm that I agree with you. Your emailer has no chance in explaining the origin of the universe unless he goes on to study heavy-duty math and physics at the PhD level and beyond.
You’d be amazed at how much doubt there is about evolution here in teh South, among educated people. *Origin* of life? Forget it….
Sounds like my in-laws … “well the Bible says”
There are those who know, but then, aren’t ready to give up their social status.
I was actually referring to advanced university students who were just regurgitating what they grew up on, even though they were relatively well educated.
It’s amazing the mental gymnastics we as humans can go through to believe what we want to believe.
I have a friend that doesn’t believe in macroevolution for religious reasons. However, she is convinced that microevolution happens.
He sounds like yet another example of faith based reasoning and evidence gathering.
I’ve gotten to a point in life where I have come to realize that the more I learn the more I realize how much I do not know. reading your blog(and comments), watching your lectures and videos have been very enlightening. thank you for all you do
I have long noticed a tendency throughout American history toward extreme individualism. You might connect it to the colonial days when – according to myth – the lone frontiersman had to do everything himself. Including, I suppose, making his own rifle from scratch. This later morphed into the lone cowboy, the lone entrepreneur, and so on. The myth of self-reliance is easily extended to the myth of self-expertise, especially when backed by the democratic fallacy that “my opinion is just as good as yours.” Layer that over with a suspicion of higher education which has been encouraged by those who stand to lose power and influence if their followers start to apply logic, facts, and reason to their pronouncements, and you have a perfect recipe for disasters like your correspondent.
I would recommend reading Kurt Andersen’s “Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire–A 500-Year History”, Random House, 2017. Part II–Chapters 9-16 cover the 1800s and resonates with your ideas.
Ah, but his formal expertise in two STEM areas — science (biology) and technology (computer science) are superior to Bart’s. Not diminishing anything that Bart produces. Just saying the objective academic credentials of the would-be author are appropriate to his anti-science screed.
As for relying on experts and authorities, that works only in limited ways. For example, soldiers in Vietnam were once ordered to execute civilian villagers in Mi Lai, commonly known as the Mi Lai Massacre. Reliance on authorities in that scenario was morally wrong.
Likewise, if you want to grant a tax credit to me for driving an electric car because there’s too much carbon in the air, okay. But demanding that I agree with hateful attacks on others who are sceptical is something I won’t tolerate.
One of my major points is that getting a BA in a field or two does *not* provide a person with expertise. I can say that with some authority, as someone who has taught many thousands of BA students for over 35 years. I would also say there is a massive difference between social, political, and moral authority (which themselves cannot actually be grouped together) and academic expertise.
A post-secondary school academic credential does connote a level of expertise. I didn’t major in biology or computer science but my degree did require coursework in both. STEM degree holders are not slouches and do possess expertise, even on the undergraduate level. Their credentials are often called Bachelors of Science, not Bachelors of Arts, incidentally. As an expert in your area, your assessment of your students’ levels of expertise beyond your area has limited validity. Could you expound on the talents and contributions of Newton versus Einstein? Me neither. And yet with your expert credential, you attempt to assess the abilities of students in areas that may be quite far from your own. Why not be flattered that the potential author would want your input?
I’m afraid we’re going to disagree on this one Yes, an undergraduate has undergraduaet expertise — a biology major knows more than a history major about biology. But she or he does NOT have anywhere near the expertise they would have if they spent twenty more years studying nothing else. n undergraduate who has taken, say, seven courses on various aspects of biology (as my emailer apparenlty did) is definitely not qualified to evaluate the claims of experts who have devoted their entire lives to the subject, let alone to cosmologists and astro-physicists. For starters, they simply aren’t able to understand the math, let alone do it, and most of all let alone critique it. You will not find a biology / cosmologist / physicist at any college/university in the world who disagrees with this. The only ones who can critique experts are fellow experts. It’s just the way it is.
Academics in science tend to be universally opposed to any form of religious belief and their ranks can include folks that hate religion and religious believers of any type. Hence, it’s not unusual to find a person with more talent than education who is strangely anti-establishment for reasons even they don’t understand.
That’s actually not been my experience with scientists. I’ve known a number who were believers.
I would say that the students with TWO majors are at a disadvantage. They have probably managed two degrees by meeting the MINIMUM requirements for each degree while those with a SINGLE degree have used some of their 120 semester hours to dive deeper into one or more aspects of the subject they are pursuing.
Besides I have two STEM degrees (bachelors in Engineering and and masters in Computer Science) and find the STEM people to be full of hubris. I have spoken!! 🙂
Another thing that often muddies the waters in “discussions” like these is the myth of The Lone Genius Who Overturned a Whole Science.
Usually phrased as something along the lines of “Well, they laughed at X, and he was right!” Or “The so-called experts just don’t want to admit that this new theory is correct they’re more interested in protecting their jobs.”
Having been involved in my share of these discussions over the years, you’re right that at first you should at least try to be polite. But when all else fails I usually turn to the following response:
“In short, you’ve given us a very stark choice.
Either
1] In this entire field of inquiry there is not a single qualified expert who, after a career of studying the topic, does not have the simple intelligence to noticed this trivial point that you’ve raised; or, if they have, does not have the intellectual integrity to admit that it is a problem.
Or
2] You are wrong.
I trust you will forgive us if we go with the odds here.”
Amen!
There’s the old saying:
“People don’t want to _be_ informed, they want to _feel_ informed.”
[Please note how carefully I avoided adding any political comments. 😉 ]
“My field is nowhere NEAR as complicated and technical as the “hard” sciences.”
You should talk to Sean Carroll. He says he chose to study physics rather than the biology or the social sciences because physics is so much easier. I suppose it’s a matter of where your natural aptitude lies.
(In fact, Sean has a podcast called the Mindscape podcast, and I have suggested that you be invited as a guest – especially now that there’s a book coming out).
You’re right about Sean. I have a MS in Engineering Physics and had to take several mandatory chemistry courses as an undergraduate. Chemistry, like biology and the social sciences, are far too difficult and messy for someone like myself who needs to do the math. And engineering and physics are math-centered (sit down and calculate). But I’m more of an engineer (32-years as an aerospace engineer) than a physicist.
“Scientists discover the world that exists; Engineers create the world that never was.” Theodore von Karman
HI Bart,
It is Jane Roberts, the Seth Material, a series of metaphysical books I often mention here, where Seth says: You can prove anything is true by simply ignoring the contrary evidence.
Science imposes such restrictions, ignoring other ideas, even very ancient ones, about the nature of reality. the Seth Material is such material, as are the Eastern religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, and the very modern Robert Lanza, and expert in biology and a science called “biocentrism”. These combined sources turn science on its head. Lanza is recognized as saying science will never come to a right answer until they recognize consciousness as the foundation of everything, and he makes good sound supporting arguments. Science cannot answer, they cannot go there, it is forbidden. Thus they remain the “experts”, just as the Catholic Church was one time the undisputed expert on the earth’s formation.
Your expertise is in biblical discrepancies, but you knock down a contributor who makes general statements about science, your authority being what some of those experts say. Are you not falling into the same trap as is the contributor, making general statements regarding a discipline you are not expert in?
Lanza is very familiar with the conventional science, and he rejects it, giving good sound reasons. I’ve posted YouTube links to his speeches previously. Your contributor’s complaint is consistent with my above mentioned sources that are taboo to science.
Lastly, I’ve often said the Bible is a metaphysical book, which it clearly is. Can theologians really understand it while ignoring the wealth of existing metaphysical sources, on the idea that these other sources are of the devil? And similarly can science, equally, reject the Bible yet also having no such metaphysical background or knowledge?
I think a big part of it is how we think about what “smart” is. To many people it’s an innate quality that means they can’t be wrong about anything, and if they read something written by an expert that is contrary to their opinion they assume that person must have an agenda. I’ve known scientists with advanced degrees who form their opinions about matters of history by using the same arguments climate deniers use (what about this one guy with a PhD, all those experts have an agenda, they’re really just guessing…). And don’t get me started on people who think they know everything because they passed the Mensa test.
People are assured from childhood that they have this quality when their parents marvel at how smart they are for getting an A on their book report instead of congratulating them for their hard work. A false idea of what it is to be smart becomes so ingrained that people can’t admit that they need to trust someone more knowledgeable and adjust their beliefs.
Of course, I’m not a developmental psychologist, so someone correct me if I’m wrong. 🙂
This post should go viral … that’s just my opinion, of course.
It would do a lot more good than what really is going viral just now….
I had a similar exchange recently on the internet with someone decrying “the experts” and how they’ve gotten everything wrong from global warming, to the housing bubble, to which is better margarine or butter. The implication being that experts in virus transmission are in no better position to critique public health policy than anyone else. Yikes! So, we just trust our own gut opinions I guess. Some of this anti-intellectualism seems to be fueled by ideological rigidity, where no amount of evidence can shake a certain belief. I’m sure you see it daily with evangelicals. We certainly see it with those most politically invested (on either side). The problem is, how does democracy survive if we can’t agree about basic facts or at least acknowledge the need to learn basic facts? Religion is certainly tougher because there are no experiments to run or equations to balance….it’s probability….an assessment of what is likely to have happened centuries ago from writings that are at best biased. I like that you frequently freely admit, “I don’t know”. I think most serious experts are not absolutists…that most complex situations suffer from some degree of uncertainty and doubt. I wish your budding author had expressed some basic intellectual humility. I think your response was more than fair….
With people composing their social circles around their opinions and beliefs, taking the word of an expert can mean you have to get a whole new circle of friends. It can be scary and isolating, especially now that politicians have become idols and anything they have an opinion on can become political.
Bart, This reminds me of a comedic character from a generation ago who appeared on Johnny Carson among other shows. Professor Irwin Corey, billed as “the world’s greatest authority”.
Bart,
Very interesting. Tom Nichols’,
*The Death of Expertise*, deals in detail with this issue. Sort of like someone with no military experience knows more about war than the generals.
I think part of the problem is that people don’t know what they don’t know. They learn a lit bit, have no idea how much more there is to it, so think they are better informed than they are. Unless someone has pursued advanced education and training, I think it unlikely they would have a clue what becoming an expert entails.
I don’t think rejecting the mainstream is limited to non experts. I’ve seen people with advanced level degrees (assuming they weren’t lying about their credentials) reject evolution and advocate for creationism. Their thought process was that despite what the evidence says, they have absolute faith in the Bible, so assume a mistake must have been made in the scientific process.
There are experts and then there are experts. Consider the field of music. The music departments at our universities are filled with PhD’s none of whom are composing any music worth hearing and most of whom couldn’t perform a concert that would draw more than a handful of people. The professional schools like Curtis, Julliard and Eastman are exceptions. Could Mozart have gotten a job at Harvard? Probably not. He was too busy writing and performing music to spend the time to jump through the academic hoops to earn a PhD. All of which prompts me to ask: Are there any equivalents of Mozart in the field of Religious Studies?
I’d say there is a very big difference between someone who is an expert composer and someone who is a performer and someone who is a historian of music. Also, being an expert composer isn’t the same as being aesthetically pleasing to most people’s taste….
Expert composer. Never heard that expression before. Musicians talk of great composers – composers whose music is so interesting that it is (likely to be) performed and heard for centuries. Has little to do with academic degrees. I think of Sir Edward Elgar. He was a self-taught composer.
My question still stands: Has anyone ever been so intellectually gifted – like a Mozart – that they made a significant contribution to the field of Religious Studies without first being credentialed by the academics guarding the entrance to the realm of Religious Studies?
I’m afraid the way you phrase your question shows your strong opinion about the matter. (!) Do you think that academics are guarding the entrance to the realm of Geography so that people who believe in a world wide flood about 5000 years ago are not being allowed to publish their views in academic journals or teach in universities? But in answer to your question, I would say the Dalai Lama has made a impact on religious studies. And Ghandi. And Martin Luther King Jr. And lots of others. But do you mean do I know of people without PhDs who have made a major impact on the academic study of religion? No one comes to mind — but maybe someone can point out an exception or two? do you know of others in other fields, such as biology, cosmology, Greek classics? Maybe philosophy?
Some notable individuals without advanced degrees:
Computer Science – Edward Fredkin: At 34 began working at MIT as Full Professor of Electrical Engineering, then Professor of Physics at Boston University and now Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon. One of the pioneers of AI. Highest Degree: High School Diploma.
Mathematics – George Boole: No academic degrees. Became Professor of Mathematics at Queen’s College, Cork in Ireland. Created Boolean algebra which is foundational to the development of the digital computer.
Philosophy – Bertrand Russell: Only degree was B.A. from Trinity College, Cambridge. Became a lecturer at Trinity College. Wrote Principia Mathematica with Alfred North Whitehead. Ludwig Wittgenstein was Russell’s PhD student.
Astronomy/Physics – Galileo Galilei: College dropout. Has been called the father of observational astronomy and the father of modern physics.
Thanks. I’ll note that none of these was opposed to the principles of science.
Michael Jordan and Sam Perkins were on that team and coached by dean smith . I think they lost that year to Bobby knight and Indiana. I may have misremembered but I think it correct. North Carolina supplied a lot of good players through the years to the nba.
Dr. Ehrman,
I would totally understand why someone writing a book on early Christianity would want you to read it, even if they were not trained. Take myself, I have a bachelor’s degree in Biblical Studies. This makes me informed but not an expert nor a schloar (I do think I could get an 8 on your Intro to NT pop quiz and get a free dinner though). I would understand if someone like me wrote a book and wanted a real expert to read it and give feedback, but why does someone want a Bible scholar to read their book critiquing science? I fail to see why they would care about your opinion unless they were a friend or family.
Thanks, Jay
I supose it’s cognitive dissonance. They want affirmation for a view so as to be reassured they are right. And it ain’t gonna come from an actual scientist!
It’s about respect. Specifically, respect for any bona fide expert who has done the thousands of hours of work needed to reach an advanced level of expertise.
This is prevalent in discussions of climate change. Non-experts can be exceedingly disrespectful to those who have done the work in the university and in the field to qualify as true experts in this important endeavor. These non-experts would not tolerate the disrespect that they show to climate change experts if someone, who knew nothing about their line of work, would look over their shoulders and tell them that they don’t know what the hell they are doing.
And it’s about humility. Specifically, realizing that your views on matters outside your circle of expertise are only more or less informed opinions of an amateur and are essentially worthless compared to those of the true expert. In other words, the expert is the teacher. The non-expert is the student.
In this era of the Internet where anonymity reigns supreme, respect and humility are in very short supply. There are too many jerks on blogs and YouTube videos pretending to expertise that they obviously don’t possess.
“Specifically, realizing that your views on matters outside your circle of expertise are only more or less informed opinions of an amateur and are essentially worthless compared to those of the true expert.“
This is very interesting. One difficulty is recognizing if you are the one with the expertise (see Dunning-Kruger effect). It my understanding that there have been several papers by so-called amateurs of climate science that have contributed and corrected the literature. I believe many of the cases are because some climate scientists are not strong in statistics, and those with greater mathematical skill who, in these cases, are actually closer to being experts have contributed to this field.
Prof. Ehrman, does this surprise you? You of all people very well know that in a public blog this is expected. Some will oppose you and your research, work, findings and most important ideology of your beliefs/conclusions. I am not an educated/scholarly person, so I relish in learning from people like you giving me a chance to stretch and learn something I am interested in,religion, through your years of dedication and commitment to the subject. I think the 1980 USA Olympic Gold hockey win is the greatest upset in sports history, a miracle , but I will not argue against someone who opposes my belief. Because religion is very * faith* based at its core, everyone becomes experts in voicing their views without any real evidence or research. The Bible is the most purchased book and the least read.
Why? People already have convictions from what they’ve heard from whoever. Some Churches do a fine work of demeaning scholars who don’t believe in the Bible. The very people you study alongside,scholars, read and research the same existing evidence and yet differ in interpretations of its meaning. Don’t let hubris take over your fine scholarship. Humility and your example of the time you dedicate to your work is evident and meritorious. That’s what speaks for you. I think Michelangelo or Leonardo Da Vinci said, ” I have an ego like everyone else, I just don’t like to stroke mine.”
No, doesn’t surprise me. I always draw a sharp line between aggravation and surprise! 🙂
So true… those of us who believe the *experts* in critical thinking such as yourself place a lot of trust in what you say simply because we are not experts and cannot even understand the research you do.
I’m not sure why someone would write a book about cosmology who has not formally studied it. I wouldn’t be inclined to read his book because I need foundational knowledge for cosmology and that would come from an expert first. I do wonder though—are you irritated because he’s not an expert or because you recognized right away that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
I know many laypeople who write essays and books for Biblical studies. They can publish their work in lay-journals. Sounds strange, but it’s actually a thing. Sometimes they’re overseen by a scholar, too. I think it’s a great outlet for someone who has a passion for Biblical studies. Trying to win an argument is normally done from layperson to layperson.
I am kind of curious to know what this person has to say about cosmology, but he’d have to be willing to come under the microscope of public opinion. I’m interested in lay work as well, but again, they’d have to be willing to be criticized. I think they would make some great posts and be really fun. I know you normally keep the blog to experts only, but you could always create a new category! And think of all the volunteers…..
Excellent. I am grateful for the writers (such as Bart) who make the technical knowledge accessible to the “layperson,” whether in the fields of early Christianity, evolutionary biology, or cosmology.
Tom
Dr Ehrman,
The question of universe creation is as old as human history. It wasn’t till recent history where it was intellectually discussed among scientists. This was explained pretty clearly in a book over 1400 years ago when modern technology was absent.
https://www.islamreligion.com/articles/212/quran-on-origin-of-universe/
Your thoughts.
I’m not quite sure what you mean. Yes indeed lots and lots of ancient societies agreed the universe was created. Modern science has shown that all these ancient myths are *myths*, not descriptions of what actually happened.
The link only quotes verse 41:11 but leaves out the verses before and after—
41:9 Say, “Do you indeed disbelieve in He who created the earth in two days and attribute to Him equals? That is the Lord of the worlds.”
41:10 And He placed on the earth firmly set mountains over its surface, and He blessed it and determined therein its [creatures’] sustenance in four days without distinction – for [the information] of those who ask.
41:12 And He completed them as seven heavens within two days and inspired in each heaven its command. And We adorned the nearest heaven with lamps and as protection. That is the determination of the Exalted in Might, the Knowing.
These verses go against everything we know about the formation of the earth scientifically.
Hi Dr. Ehrman. About a year ago I asked a question about the dating of the Gospels. I know Jesus’ prediction of the temple destruction has been used as a data point but I asked what other indicators there were for dating these texts. You provided me with an excellent response and now with the passage of time I don’t recall what post I commented on to go back and find your reply. I’m wondering if you would be gracious enough to comment again on this issue of dating? Thank you so much!
You’ll probably find it by searching the blog for dates of the gospels or dating the gospels. I also talk about it in a number of my books.
Setting Dates for the Gospels
https://ehrmanblog.org/setting-dates-for-the-gospels/
Ah, thanks!
Reminds me of the “Dunning-Kruger Effect”: Those who know the least about a field are the ones who have the most certainty about it.
Excellent Post! My own mission in life is to truly master my field and this post speaks truth.
I have to be careful sometimes because I think I understand perfectly what you are saying.
For me your writing was the scratch for that impossible itch.
I knew what I believed and it reminds me of what I think I read in Sartres “ Being and Nothingness” as a reply to Descartes “ cogito ergo sum” … a line written that said “ I am aware that I doubt, therefore I am”
Come to think about it, I’m not sure where that quote came from…
But that was me….
Cogito ergo sum was in Descartes 2nd Meditation, though I believe he expressed it in French a few years earlier.
¨Je pense, donc je suis¨ ( I majored in philosophy, along with physics). You are right to be skeptical of the contributor´s claims. Not enough would-be/outsider scholars understand the value of peer reviewing – and they seem to ignore a useful rule of thumb; in the process of constructing your arguments, anticipate all the possible, and strongest objections, write as if you´re addressing those and make your rebuttals stronger, if possible. Many a self-proclaimed expert overlooks the importance of this, no matter how intelligent they may be, probably because they haven´t had the exposure to all the extensive literature that has dealt with the topics they propose to have the final word on. Even my last couple of years of devouring biblical scholarship, delving deeply into your field (and the blog I must say has been very helpful) has cast enough light on the intellectual landscape that spans biblical sholarship, that I now regard my level of understanding three or four years ago, and pet theories as being over-simplistic, unaware of the many problems mainstream views overlook.
Why would you want to talk about the ‘big bang’ with your beautician?
To brighten up her day!
Professor Ehrman,
I encounter this a lot among my friends, some of whom are very smart, but not highly trained in any particular field. My own training is in Creative Writing, English Literature, and Theatre. I don’t recommend people come to me for advice about biology or advanced mathematics. I have a laymen’s ”armchair expertise” in what many fine scholars think about certain fields, as I am a voracious reader, but I never attempt to pass a Professional Scholar, Scientist, or Academic’s views off as my own original thoughts. I often find myself having to explain to people that they need to read my sources. Don’t quote me, or take MY word for it.
A friend of mine once asked me if I considered myself an expert on the bible. (Back in my evangelical days, I led many, many bible studies) I told him that I am reasonably well-versed on what English translations of the Bible say. I’ve read all 66 books numerous times in various versions. I’ve learned an awful lot from reading commentaries, as well as from scholars (such as yourself), but I can’t read the Greek, and have no formal education in anything related to the bible, so no, I can’t call myself an expert, unless what he means by expert is ”somebody that knows an awful lot about what smarter people have researched and is quite good at learning their arguments and passing that information along”, in other words, I can teach bible studies fairly well and offer insightful commentary because I know what some of the actual experts think.
I tell this long winded story to get to the major ”face-palm” moment that occurred sometime later when my friend started introducing me to people as an ”expert” on various biblical topics. *Sigh* I tried. I still try. And I, as a non-expert, sympathize with your plea for expertise.
I’m a Duke basketball fan, but I agree that the 1984 Tar Heels with Jordan and Perkins were the best team ever. This is a matter of fact not opinion.
Really? The 1984 Tarheels? Now that’s faith, not history *or* science…WINK AND A SMILE, BART!
Ha!
Prof Ehrman,
Please permit an off-the-topic question. In what contest do we put the concept of ‘heaven’ in 2 Kings 2:11. How do we contrast this with the concept of heaven in the NT. Wont this expression of heaven connote the idea that people in the OT may have held an idea of heaven where people go (whether in the now or afterlife or seat of Yahuah). This is in relation to your book Heaven and Hell.
Great question. You’ll need to repeat the question by quoting the passage itself, so people can see what you are referring to before I answer it.
A few observations:
1) My dictum, especially on things that interest me but on which I have very little expertise: ‘Read widely, think deeply.’
2) Definite conclusions are the enemy of truth (if even such a thing exists). Answers are always provisional.
3) Consensus is not a scientific term and should be a dirty word in any area of study.
4) The minority view often turns out to be correct (or nearer correct than the majority).
5) Money talks, including the allocation of research budgets.
6) Fashion is a serious impediment to alternative lines of research and, therefore, discovery.
7) Temperament rather than factual evidence often (rather more often than not) governs viewpoints and then confirmation bias, group think and virtue-signalling take over to support one’s position and trash the opposition.
8) Tribalism does not accept nuance -‘You’re either with us or agin’ us.’
9) Pessimism has been a more successful evolutionary strategy than optimism and this tendency is still with us.
10) Genuine free speech is necessary for progress and is less prevalent than we like to believe.
11) We have almost no control over anything but we think we have.
12) I have no idea whether there is anything ‘Out there’ that we might call God or not (and neither does anybody else). If we need a creator to explain how the world happened, then who or what made the creator – it just pushes the problem back one place?
Of course, I could be wrong about all those things – they are mere opinions – but it summarises where I am at the moment on my journey of discovery. It could, however, all change tomorrow.
Prof Ehrman, thanks for the audience.
2 Kings 2:11 quotes 11 `As they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven. `
Doesn’t this passage connote an idea of ‘heaven’ as a dwelling beyond this realm as similarly expressed in the N.T? Are both OT and NT writers expressing an idea of a heaven in similar contest?
I actually hold a view that Traditional Judaism is devoid of the concept of ‘heaven’ as used in the N.T
What is ‘heaven’ as used in 2 Kings 2:11
Thank you
Heaven in the Hebrew Bible is the place where God and his angelic attendants live. So yes, it is a dwelling beyond our realm. BUT, it is not a place *humans* dwell. That’s why the Elijah story is so amazing: he actually goes up to live with God. No one does that! (Well, almost no one)
Prof Ehrman,
So to be very clear, Traditional Judaism equally believed in the realm of heaven but only as the seat of God and His Angels ;but did not hold the belief of heaven as the eternal dwelling place of man in the afterlife as a reward for a ‘good’ life as the Christians believe.
That’s right.
“Why is it, though, that when it comes to matters of history and religion so many people think that anyone’s opinion is as good as anyone else’s?”
I broadly agree with your post, with a few caveats. While one needs research level expertise in order to speak authoritatively on matters of how ancient people thought about and practised their religions, one does not need specialised expertise to make sound judgments about central contemporary religious claims, such as “does God exist”, “there is evidence for miracles today”, “will we survive our deaths”. Some Christian apologists with PhDs in philosophy of religion would like people to think otherwise!
Fair enough. I would say those are theological questions, not historical questions — and so no way to produce any actual evidence (despite what apologists say) one way or the other.
These are undoubtedly theological – more accurately, philosophical – questions. (They are philosophical because they can be tackled without any religious commitment). As a comeback, those Christian apologists would argue that these philosophical questions require philosophical expertise to answer, just as scientific and historical questions require the corresponding expertise. My response is that highly esoteric and technical philosophical questions do require expertise to tackle competently, but most central religious claims such as existence of God and of afterlife and evidence for miracles, do not belong this category. They simply need general intelligence and careful thinking, being well-read, openness to evidence without attachment to dogma and everyday experiences of life. I would however disagree that answers to these religious questions cannot in principle be evidence based one way or another. Lots of secular philosophers think they can be answered with rigour, evidence and sound argumentation. I think in authoring “God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question–why We Suffer”, you have implicitly settled on one side of fence, with good reasons and evidence. Many philosophers would agree with you: evidential facts about suffering undermine theism.
You might want to check out Lawrence Shapiro’s “The Miracle Myth: Why Belief in the Resurrection and the Supernatural is Unjustified (2016)”:
https://philpapers.org/rec/SHATMM-3
Shapiro is an accomplished philosopher specialising in philosophy of science and philosophy of mind. This is probably his only publication by an academic press dealing with philosophy of religion. It is highly readable, witty and compelling. He cites you approvingly a number of times, including your exchanges with Michael Licona on the possibility of evaluating actuality of miracles by the historical method.
The only thing I’m an expert in is listening to experts.
Dr. Ehrman I agree with your discussion of expertise. But it seems a lot harder and frankly more confusing to arrive at a notion of expertise in religious studies than it does in the hard sciences? Allow me to use some of your debates to contextualize my point. it would seem that you sharply differ with some of the “experts” you debate. You believe contradictions are in the bible and they do not. You believe some documents of the New Testament were forged and they do not. You say the New Testament is not a reliable historical guide to the life, work and teachings of Jesus, and they do not. I am simplifying things a bit but there seems to be a lot of major disagreements among the “experts” and I’m not so sure it can be explained by “scholarly disagreement.” If it’s not too much to ask, I’d love to get your take.
Yes indeed — in science there are, of coruse, huge debates. HUGE debates. And lots and lots of them. But some things are not particularly debatable among experts who do the science. (e.g., despite the debates in parts of wider society: a universe billions of years old; evolution; climate change; how viruses actually work). The arts and humanities are not like that and cannot be, because they aer not subject to experimental demonstration. That’s true in history, philosophy, literature, art, music, and … religious studies!
Thanks for responding Dr. Ehrman. Your comments are helpful but are there any books, articles etc that you would recommend which discuss the many disagreements and debates in science. This would really be helpful. Further, if expertise in the religious studies is not subject to experimentation how then do we decide among the “experts?” How do we know who’s right and who’s wrong?
I don’t know which books are best about debates (lots of them!) just now — I imagine there are hundreds, and many others can suggest them? The classic for the general issue is Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
It is important to realize that all disciplines rely on both evidence and argument. But each discipline has its own criteria of validity: you work to decide if Lincoln really delivered the Gettysburg address from notes scribbled on an envelope differently from if you decide that Hamlet is not really a revenge tragedy but a play about grief; and both are different from how you decide about the strengths of Plato’s understanding of justice or the relative merits between a Rembrandt and that thing my neighbor drew on his sidewalk last week. All fields have their criteria of evaluation and engaging in teh pursuit of knowledge requires one to know what those are — and to evaluate *them* as well well as using them to evaluate claims.
Thanks Dr. Ehrman! This was very helpful and I’ll continue my search! Be safe!
It’s important to remember though that being an expert in *some field(s)* does not make one an expert in another. You can be a top biblical scholar, historian or scientist, and have no idea how to understand any of the major questions in the philosophy of religion. Too many people naively assume that people like Dawkins, Harris, Hawking, Hitches, and even Ehrman have collectively shown God not to exist, when in fact, none of them have ever refuted the various first-cause arguments for God’s existence. The reason they have not done so is because they don’t understand the necessary metaphysics to even get started. The experts in this area would be people like Ed Feser (theist) and Graham Oppy (atheist), but they get far less attention to many non-philosophically trained people who nonetheless chime in on this topic.
Let me just say that Ehrman has *DEFINITELY* not shown that God does not exist. Or even tried. Or even wanted to try! None of the others, btw, way claim to be philosophically trained, and I certainly don’t. Three of them, though not I, are scientists and cite scientific grounds. I personally don’t find most of those arguments convincing, for what it’s worth.
Appreciate your response, Bart, and I agree that those guys’ scientific arguments aren’t especially convincing since they presuppose a metaphysical world view that they aren’t able to defend through scientific means (hence the need for philosophical training).
Also, I didn’t mean to suggest that you have made any philosophical claims–indeed, you have been very clear and consistent on what the historian’s role is and is not. I just wanted to point out that some people mistakenly think that being an expert in one field renders that person an expert in many.