From: Jeffrey D Koperski <jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: FAQ critique
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:34:12 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Ohio State University

Quoting from the FAq:
"What about all the famous scientists and philosophers who have
concluded that God exists?" 

For every scientist or philosopher who believes in a god, there is one who
does not.  Besides, as has already been pointed out, the truth of a belief is
not determined by how many people believe it.  Also, it is important to
realise that atheists do not view famous scientists or philosophers in the
same way that theists view their religious leaders.

A famous scientist is only human; she may be an expert in some fields, but
when she talks about other matters her words carry no special weight.  Many
respected scientists have made themselves look foolish by speaking on
subjects which lie outside their fields of expertise.

Reply:
        The point of appealing to theistic philosophers is that 
        philosophers are the "experts in the field" when it comes
        to arguments and evidence for the existence of God.
        Certainly the truth of a belief does not
        depend on numbers, but the justification one has
        for a given belief does when those appealed to
        are experts (persons well acquainted with the issues who
        have had their ability and knowledge tested.  In
        philosophy, this is usually done by completing a doctoral
        program).  Well-respected theistic philosophers show that 
        belief in the existence of God is a rational one.  Now, 
        many rational beliefs are false (consider the bulk of 
        beliefs held by all physicists in the last century), but 
        they are nonetheless rational until shown to be false or 
        until the putative justification is removed.  This is not 
        to say atheists are irrational.  Both sides have cogent
        arguments.  That's why the debate goes on. 

        When theists point to famous theistic scientists, they 
        might be doing one of two things.  First, they might be 
        making a fallacious appeal to authority, since, as you 
        have pointed out, scientists are not the experts in the 
        field when it comes to God.  Second, they might 
        rightfully be showing that science has no intrinsic 
        conflict with religion.  That science does somehow 
        disconfirm or contradict theism is an argument I have 
        seen many times offered up by atheists.  If this were so, 
        then theistic scientists (i.e., experts in the field of 
        science) should be able to detect such conflicts and 
        therefore must recant on one side or the other.  But
        since there are rational theistic scientists, it does not
        appear there is such a conflict.  This does not imply, of
        course, that theists and atheists alike cannot look to
        parts of science in support of their position.  Both
        sides do this, although to rest one's views wholly on
        contemporary science is a risky business given its
        history.

        I'm not sure how "theists view their religious leaders"
        or in what way this differs from atheistic scientists and
        philosophers.  Which leaders are we talking about?
        Jesus, Augustine, Luther,...?  And who do atheists "use"?
        Even those involved in experimental science rely on other
        experts; we all appeal to some authority.  If you're not
        drawing from philosophy or science, perhaps you're just
        talking to one another, which of course is one of the
        main problems that theists have (although I can only say
        this from experience about Christians).
------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Independent evidence that the Bible is true 
Distribution: world

Typical posting: 

The events of the New Testament are confirmed by independent 
        documentary 
evidence.  For example... 

Response:

Much information appears in the Ecclesiastical History of 
Eusebius (about 320 C.E.).  It is worthless as historical 
material because of the deliberate falsification of the wily 
Eusebius who is generally acknowledged as 'the first thoroughly 
dishonest historian of antiquity.' It is Eusebius who is 
generally given the title of authorship for this material. 

        As a philosopher, I am not competent to judge Eusebius's 
        work, but it clear this is far too harsh.  As I scan the 
        few history books I have at hand that cover the first and 
        second century, all cite Eusebius.  The fact of the 
        matter (if not the FAQ on the matter) is that, far from 
        considering this work "worthless," historians use
        Eusebius as a key source. 
        
        Consider Cross and Livingstone's _The Oxford Dictionary 
        of the Christian Church_: "As with all Eusebius's 
        writings, its literary style is poor.  But it contains an 
        immense range of material on the E. Church, largely in 
        the form of long extracts taken over bodily from earlier 
        writers.  If Eusebius's interpretation of these documents 
        was sometimes in error, this is to be explained by his 
        want of critical judgement and not by conscious 
        perversion of the facts."[481] 
        
        Even if we might (rightfully) do away with Eusebius's own 
        faulty interpretations, his ready use of earlier author's
        material is quite valuable.  Writing him off as 
        "worthless" is typical of this debate, however.  Theists 
        and atheists alike are much too quick to jump on the 
        obvious weaknesses on the other side and very seldom 
        concede when a good point has been made.  Every 
        philosophical position has problems and (almost) every 
        one has some good points.    

Jeff Koperski
Dept. of Philosophy
Ohio State