Why has God allowed religion to be so tribal?

[Jason118]

There is so much solid teachings in religious dogma and so many warm and kind people who practice. Why has it all come to this, or was it ever thus?

there are many, many atheist scholars who don't dispute the existence of Jesus though I'm well aware of the debate. One of the most vocal, Bart Ehrman, is an unbeliever yet says there is no doubt from the evidence available

Bart Ehrman claims to not be a Christian, fine. He claims to not be a theist, that I find harder to believe. But regardless of whether or not he is and regardless of whether or not he thinks that Jesus existed and regardless of whether or not you think he's a historian, it is still not evidence for Jesus being the son of God, etc, etc.

I could grant that Jesus was a real person who actually lived, was born in Bethlehem and died on a cross. Still doesn't make him divine though.

The problem is that I could just as easily find names of historians who don't think that Jesus existed, so who should we believe? This is where the argument from authority fallacy comes into play. The opinion of experts, whilst clearly useful, is not in itself evidence for the claim.

To me personally, it doesn't matter whether he existed or not as a historical figure. The Christian argument faces issues when challenged with the idea that he may not have existed, but the atheist position is not affected in any way.

"Prior scientific work does not rely on authority, it has been demonstrated in its own right."

Actually, in effect it does, because in practice scientists take the word of other scientists that it has been demonstrated in place of seeing that demonstration for themselves. The peer review system illustrates this perfectly. The peer reviewer has not witnessed the demonstration at all, he or she merely has to decide whether the demonstration has been constructed well and in line with current knowledge, and therefore can have yielded the results reported. And the authority of the peer reviewer is the guarantee that the reported results really were demonstrated. The idea that all scientific knowledge results from replicable experiment is a myth. Much does not at all.

"The problem is that I could just as easily find names of historians who don't think that Jesus existed, so who should we believe?" This is where the argument from authority is actually most useful. We can apply the same method that you would use to assess the significance of a piece of scientific research (that is, you would look at whether it had been peer reviewed, whether it had taken place in a reputable institution, whether it had followed the correct procedures for interpreting evidence, whether it had been funded by a grant-making process that was itself peer-reviewed, whether it was published by a reputable journal, whether it was informed by a thorough review of current literature on the subject). Using this method we find that Ehrman, and the vast majority of scholars who believe that Jesus existed meet the criteria listed, and the vast majority of those who think he was a myth do not. The last time I discussed this in depth on MN I found that all the 'authorities' listed in the latter category were in fact self-published.

The weight of evidence, as assessed by historians who know how to interpret the sources, is that Jesus existed. For Christians, that Jesus is the Son of God is the only explanation that makes sense of the facts of his life, death and resurrection. It's the simplest possible explanation, the one that requires least in the way of post-hoc reasoning and suppositious accounts of un-recorded actions and dispositions.

Of course, no atheist need believe in God. But their non-belief does not make Christian belief in Jesus Christ unreasonable or ill-founded.

Actually, in effect it does, because in practice scientists take the word of other scientists that it has been demonstrated in place of seeing that demonstration for themselves. The peer review system illustrates this perfectly. The peer reviewer has not witnessed the demonstration at all, he or she merely has to decide whether the demonstration has been constructed well and in line with current knowledge, and therefore can have yielded the results reported. And the authority of the peer reviewer is the guarantee that the reported results really were demonstrated.

No, sorry, you've fundamentally misunderstood the argument from authority, and seemingly the peer review process to. Scientific consensus is not an argument from authority, it's not based on an individual's credibility. The scientific evidence itself is presented in a paper which, yes, is peer reviewed, but not just by one person. And the peer review is only the gateway through which the paper needs to go to get published. Once published, anyone is free to read, challenge, recreate, debunk, etc. the study. You are not relying on one person's authority on a matter, you are demonstrating the evidence of the research. The argument from authority is simply where one is using the word of a person of authority on a matter as evidence for a claim. That is not anything like the scientific review process.

The idea that all scientific knowledge results from replicable experiment is a myth. Much does not at all.

I don't think I ever suggested that was the case anyway.

The weight of evidence, as assessed by historians who know how to interpret the sources, is that Jesus existed.

All I've stated is that there is still some debate. It hasn't been proven. But like I said, I don't much care whether he did or not, there's still a long way to go to demonstrate divinity of any kind.

For Christians, that Jesus is the Son of God is the only explanation that makes sense of the facts of his life, death and resurrection.

His life: still up for debate. His death: dependent very much on his life. His resurrection: Absolutely no evidence that this happened whatsoever aside from a story in a book. The only explanation that makes sense: A common sense fallacy. And honestly, how is that the best explanation, let alone the only one. An argument from ignorance to boot.

It's the simplest possible explanation, the one that requires least in the way of post-hoc reasoning and suppositious accounts of un-recorded actions and dispositions.

So the simplest possible explanation is that a man came back from the dead? Are you kidding? There has not been one single, credible, demonstrated example in the entirety of human history of someone coming back from the dead, yet you think this is the best and simplest explanation? Wow! That's amazing, it really is!

Of course, no atheist need believe in God. But their non-belief does not make Christian belief in Jesus Christ unreasonable or ill-founded.

No it doesn't. The Christian belief does that all by itself. It is, by definition, illogical and unreasonable to believe in the resurrection because there is insufficient evidence to back up the belief. That's why it's called faith; belief without sufficient evidence.

This is where the argument from authority is actually most useful.

You understand that the argument from authority is a logical fallacy, right? It's not something which can be useful.

Have you actually read Bart Ehrman? He goes in to great detail about how there is no evidence for Jesus having existed, and then concludes that he did! His conclusions fly completely in the face of his reasoning!