Bob Price Vs Phil Fernandez Show Is up.

Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:11 pm

The store is on the fritz and the old forum block screwed up on me.. so, I'm waiting for those things to get repaired. In the meantime, please enjoy the debate via Youtube.. please subscribe as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSAWEePJQdU

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 515

I'm watching it right now.

So the forum block thingy is down? I thought that you just decided to go over to that weird scrolling forum list in the upper left hand corner!

Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:50 am

heh.. nah... Hopefully it will be repaired soon.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 515

I watched most of the show and it wasn't really what I'd thought it would be. There wasn't any real point by point from what I saw. It was just a bunch of assertions without any real explanations or refutations and there was a good amount of time spent on NT scholarly credibility and consensus. I noticed how you kind of moved it along, but no one got any closer to the answer of the question than before the debate started.

Just Arrived Joined: May 02, 2008 Posts: 1

I enjoyed the debate and I have to say, IG handled it very well.

Fernandes seemed to merely cling to the coattails of the "scholarly consensus" and made the extremely dodgy comparison to scientific consensus , neatly sidestepping the reality that there is little new "evidence" ever cropping up, and that scholars dissecting a limited number of early texts is hardly rigorous in the same way science can be. Its all talk about words.

I thought Price did well overall but must have been frustrated since he hardly ever got any decent rebuttals except for "the jesus seminar have a different opinion". I came away more impressed with price. He did better than when he debated Habermas, where actually i thought Habermas won, got the better of Price and took him on directly in a refreshingly clear way.

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:19 pm

Even though it was almost a 2 hour show, i felt like it was not nearly enough to get to core of the issue...
But it was definitely a highly informative debate, even though a bit chaotic.
For the most part it felt like another Bible Geek episode, though.
Fernandez did almost provide no arguments or counter-arguments for his case.
It was unbelievable how he managed to waste so much time by sticking to one point, namely trying to get Dr. Price to admit that because the majority of schoolars agree with his own standpoints, he automatically must be right.
Its the tactic he seems to prefer, but I honestly find it a bit disappointing, considering that he certainly knows quite a bit in this field. He oughta listen to Dr. Price's advice to concentrate more on the arguments themself.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 515

Guess Bob won that one, then. I would just like to see the "Jesus is the risen lord" myth debunked. I want to know the details and precise reasons why he isn't the risen lord. I can name some for why He is probably not, but that's not good enough for the apologists we have to debate.

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:54 am

Go Phil! The argument from numbers works every time!

Newbie First Class Joined: Aug 01, 2005 Posts: 45

Phil did a good job on that.

Just Arrived Joined: Aug 07, 2008 Posts: 1

I listened to the podcast of the Bob vs Phil conversation last night.
Interesting yet frustrating.
It was interesting because of the variety of biblical and critical topics touched,
and the bits of reasoning Bob would show us.
It was frustrating because Bob's reasoning went unaddressed by Phil,
and there would then be no opportunity for elaborating on that reasoning.

Phil seemed to have a grasp of a lot of current scholars' conclusions,
but did not have enough understanding to engage Bob's points.
The pattern was
Phil: X is a reason to believe the Gospel about Y, and most scholars
agree.
Bob: I'm familiar with that scholarship, and here's what's wrong with it.
Phil: Well, I can't address that, except to say that most scholars don't
agree with your conclusions.
Repeat for 2 hours.

This was no debate at all because there was no intellectual engagement.
These guys cannot have a debate together, much less an intelligent
argument about Bob's field of expertise (I think this is why Bob said
his words were like rain not reaching the ground, or some similar trope).

A better way to use these guys would be just to have Phil introduce an issue
interesting to him as a well-informed non-expert, then let Bob give a little
lecture about the state of current and past scholarship, and his critical
reasoning based upon it. Have Phil make observations about Bob's explanations when they further the conversation without redirecting it.
Don't end discussion of a topic until Bob or the IG says it's time move to a
new one -- THEN ask Phil to introduce the next topic.

Let Phil's claims serve as a useful entry point into Bob's profound understanding,
anchoring discussion in issues that stand out to the well-informed
non-expert (Phil).

--Stuart

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 515

It would appear that Phil uses the ad populum fallacy in excess instead of refutations. Phil didn't seem to understand that even if you can think of a lot of scholars who disagree with your opponent, it still does you no good in refuting his claims. Bob made the claim, he backed it up with explanations, and Phil was unable to explain why he was wrong.

Newbie Joined: Sep 20, 2003 Posts: 19

I thought Bob Prices comments on Global warming and Nuclear winter were a bit curious.

Global warming is bogus science and just a politically correct idea for scientists to promote?

Nuclear winter was a hoax?

Any comments?

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 515

All I know about global warming is that there are two sides that defend their positions very heatedly. Just about everyone accepts global warming. But just as Price said, you have to listen to the argument of those who challenge the mainstream.

http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/warm-3/

http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:01 am

Hi all, I am new here so please forgive me if a I go over stuff that has already been covered.

I listened to the Price/Fernandes show and have some problems that I dont seem to be able to address and was hoping someone here may be able to help clear them up.

Firstly I was a little alarmed to hear Dr Fernades refer to the number of fellow ( I presume NT scholars?) who were in agreement with the hsitorical Jesus position. I think he stated from 95 to 97 % of the 1500 had responded that way in a survey or something like that. He then went on frequently pushing this as a reason to put Bobs arguements aside to the point of making the point that in effect Bob stood alone on this.

Now some cusory maths on that seems to indicate that at least 45 other theologians responded in like way to Bob or at least that they were on the fence.

For me that is a significant number of people who disagree to warrant at least concerns with Fernandes (and Bart Ehrmans) arguement from authority.

In relation to this could anyone say if this surveyed group of 1500 theologians included believing Christians and if so how many of them? and does anyone else think this line of arguement is suspect especially as we are dealing with ancient historical evidence not direct observation.

Okay thats it for now many thanks

Squidge, Cheshire UK

Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:45 am

squidge wrote:

In relation to this could anyone say if this surveyed group of 1500 theologians included believing Christians and if so how many of them?

Are you speaking of the theologians involved in the Jesus seminar? If not, there may be no way to vet their religious belief. I did a quick search on the Jesus seminar and found there are only 200 members, one of which is Bob Price.

Quote:

and does anyone else think this line of arguement is suspect especially as we are dealing with ancient historical evidence not direct observation.

I view all lines of argumentation involving emotionally-driven, religious belief with much suspicion. Cool


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore