Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Dialogue: Atheist Skepticism Re the Gospels

Dialogue: Atheist Skepticism Re the Gospels

Last updated on: February 15, 2022 at 7:15 pm by Dave Armstrong

Dialogue: Atheist Skepticism Re the Gospels 2022-02-15T19:15:16-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

. . . and Christian Epistemology

This exchange took place on atheist anti-theist Bob Seidensticker’s blog, under his article entitled, “Christians weaponizing scholars’ quotes: Sherwin-White, Russell, and Vilenkin” (2-14-22). Words of atheist “ericc” will be in blue.

Seidensticker wrote in the article above: “Christians quoting atheists can be legitimately done. They just need to follow the basic rules of research that one might learn in eight grade: a quote can be used only if it’s accurately quoted, correctly understood, excerpted in its context, and cited accurately. You’re welcome to hold me to these standards, because you know I will be doing that to the Christian apologists.”

One example of an “atheist” historian being supposedly misquoted by Christians that he gave was historian A. N. Sherwin-White.

*****

I cited Sherwin-White accurately in a recent article:

[T]he confirmation of historicity [in Acts] is overwhelming . . . any attempt to reject its historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Oxford University Press, 1963, 173)

See the quotation in context at Google Books.

He also analyzed Luke’s references to 32 countries, 54 cities and nine islands, and couldn’t find a single error. Assuming, then, that he was an agnostic or atheist, that’s an extraordinary support for not only the accuracy of Luke, but a minute, compelling historical trustworthiness characteristic of the very best ancient historians.

If I write something that accurately references 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands, in which I flap my arms and fly between them, would you believe based on the accuracy of my place references that I flapped my arms and flew between them?

It’s possible to separate the two things, just as atheists accept historical accounts written by Herodotus and Josephus: both of whom included many supernatural elements. They only get “conveniently skeptical” when it comes to the Bible. The archaeological evidences and the accuracy are what they are.

I am not understanding how we non-believers are ‘only conveniently skeptical’ (implied by your message: of the bible. As in, we are treating it more skeptically than we would other texts.)

We treat Herodotus’ Greek divine actions, and the Koran’s divine actions, and miraculous acts described in the Gandhāran Buddhist texts the same way. As do you.

So it seems to me you’ve got the situation completely reversed here. First, we non-believers aren’t treating the bible any differently than we are any other texts: in all cases, we act consistently in ‘separating the two things’ i.e. the mundane details from the extraordinary claims. Second, you theists also separate the two things. But where we are consistent in doing so, you are not. You separate the two things when it comes to everyone else’s beliefs. It is only in the case of the NT where you would accept the logic that accurate place names is reason to believe in the recorded miracles. In no other case, for no other book, would you accept such logic.

I’m talking about how atheists routinely assume that the Gospel writers are inaccurate, and (beyond that) deliberate liars. The text and the external evidences provide no compelling reason to believe those things. It’s only atheist pre-existing bias that causes such skepticism. That is my point. I basically agree with the point you make above, but it doesn’t address my central point.

Sherwin-Wine is a true, objective scholar. He can acknowledge if a source is historically accurate regardless of whether it contains supernatural elements or not, or whether he himself is a Christian or not. He bows to the actual objective evidence. May his tribe greatly multiply!

My point regarding miracles is a bit different from how you characterize it. I would say that demonstrated historical accuracy gives us no reason to believe that Luke is deliberately making up miracle-stories for the sake of a nefarious agenda. In other words, the two things together strongly suggest that he sincerely believes that such miracles occurred.

That’s epistemologically distinct from the basis of believing in the miracles. In a nutshell, the Christian reasoning there would run as follows:

Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh. We have sufficient reason to know that He made the claims because historically trustworthy amateur historians like Luke and John said so.

Among His acts performed were miracles, including His own Resurrection. We believe that those things happened based on the accuracy of the writers and in faith (not with absolute proof) because He claimed to be God and this is what we would expect of God, since God (if He exists) would and indeed does perform miracles, as He sees fit. In other words, it’s plausible from within a dualist, theist, Judaeo-Christian worldview. Jesus talked like we imagine God would talk, based on what we know, and acted likewise.

I argue as an apologist for the archaeologically verified accuracy of biblical accounts because that knocks out a relentless objection from atheists: that the text is inaccurate; therefore can’t possibly be inspired revelation.

If the apologist like myself takes out that objection by showing again and again that the documents are accurate and trustworthy, then we show that the nature of the biblical books are consistent with the notion of being inspired (thus that it is not impossible that they are). That’s not the same as proving inspiration. Repeat: That’s not the same as proving inspiration. But it is well worth doing, to counter atheist misrepresentation of the nature of the biblical texts; to “defeat the defeater”.

Likewise, when Jonathan MS Pearce invents a fairy tale out of his head, that Matthew completely made up the guards at the tomb story, it does not become the case that there is any historical evidence for same, simply because he asserts it. [see also my reply to his “reply” on this issue).

But I could convince no atheist (from the looks of it) of this when I made that unarguable point of critique a little while ago. He thinks that simply because it is possible for something to happen, therefore it did, and should be stated with a straight face as a [choke] “fact.”

This is not just John Smith, atheist. He’s one of the most influential online atheists, and an author, etc.

The reason you can’t convince people is because it’s an utterly inapt comparison. One is an account of the past. the other is a hypothesis explaining why the account says what it says.

But we can use the JP example as a reductio analysis of your logic. JP could easily add tons of accurate references to places and people of 1st century AD to his explanation of what the (author of) Matthew did. Would the accuracy of his other details have any weight in your evaluation of his argument? No it wouldn’t, right?

You’re still not getting it. I have explained my outlook at length. Jonathan has no historical E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E whatsoever for his story about Matthew making up a story. Thus, it’s epistemologically no better than a fairy-tale. But when I said that, he irrationally took it as a personal attack. Nope. It is an argument about epistemology and how he “knows” what he claims to know.

No one will touch this critique. All they do is say I was attacking him personally (absolutely untrue), or change the subject.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Image by “Mary1826” (January 2017) [Pixabay / CC0 Creative Commons license]

***

Summary: Atheist “skepticism re the Gospels” is an intransigent thing that can’t be overcome, no matter how many “external” arguments from archaeology we provide.

Atheism & Agnosticism

ancient Hebrews

ancient Israelites

ancient Jews

archaeology & the Bible

Atheist Skepticism Re the Gospels

Book of Acts & archaeology

evangelist Luke

Gospel of Luke

historical accuracy of the Bible

Luke's historical accuracy

New testament archaeology

NT accuracy

Previous Post

February 15, 2022

Seidensticker Folly #80: Non-"Conversations" with BS

Next Post

February 16, 2022 Are the Gospels & Acts "Propaganda"?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz