Here’s another recent comment on the old wordpress.com version of Evangelical Realism. Commenting on Apologetics vs Bible-based faith, “Greg” writes:
I don’t expect you to change your opinion, but I just would like to voice mine. I am a “skeptical” Christian, and following your advice, I would like to know what exactly is the “specialized knowledge and training” and “exposure” you have had?
“he’d just point out that the Bible (if we even needed to have one) could be confirmed by simply asking God.” Before Adam sinned, he spoke to God daily, the very thing you are requiring of Holding to produce. This is now infact impossible, because God doesn’t talk to people that way since sin separates us, as you already know from your specialized training and exposure.
As a skeptic, you stink. Your basic logic is not even logic, it is completely skewed.
“In fact, Holding is quite plainly wrong in asserting that critics of the Bible need to acquire some impossibly difficult list of academic credentials in order to falsify Scripture’s claims to divine infallibility.”
This is exactly what you skeptics expect of Christians. Nice double standard, how “hypocritical” something you skeptics often accuse Christians of. BTW, I have never claimed to be perfect, just forgiven.
More of your supremely flawed logic: “You do not need a post-PhD mastery of the mathematics of quantum physics to know that the equation “2+2=17? does not add up.”
This is a classic straw man. You have achieved nothing here other than exhibiting your own ignorance of basic logic. I don’t mean to say this in a harsh or demeaning way, I truly don’t, but you could seriously use some more training and exposure to basic logic before you tackle the monster of Biblical Inerrancy.
Hi, Greg, thanks for writing. Taking your last point first, I think if you look it up, you’ll find that a straw man argument involves misrepresenting your opponent’s argument in some way. When I say that you don’t need to know calculus to recognize arithmetic errors, I’m presenting my own argument, not describing someone else’s. Clearly, then, this isn’t a straw man fallacy.
Read the rest of this entry »