This is still dancing circles around the heart of the matter. It isn't whether or not it convinces or fails to convince. It's about the method or reason it convinces or fails to convince. We both recognize the profound bias we each have. How do we overcome that to establish the truth of our convictions? Yes, you believe. I'm asking how you justify that belief.It doesn't convince you. It convinces me.
Most common appeals that we think justify our beliefs in fact don't. It is harder to justify belief than most people realize - thus people believe in all sorts of weird stuff. The spectrum of cultish, esoteric, satanist, alienish, transpermic, hollow earth weirdness in our world is all believed with utter certainty by large groups of people. They all make appeals to this or that or the other thing. The vast majority of those appeals are fallacious, which is obvious due to the things most people believe. How do you know your beliefs are truthful? How do you justify them? Are you sure the unconscious appeals(support) you have for your beliefs are not fallacious?
What is your hermeneutical approach? Do you seek to combine the passages with modern understanding to harmonize them? Or do you attempt to understand the intent of the original biblical authors? Did they believe that the passage they wrote is a true accounting of Death and Hades? It's very possible they did believe it. In this case, that is what your interpretation should be, if you're to stand by your belief that the bible was divinely inspired. How could the authors have been divinely inspired, have written something they believed to be true, but also be wrong about it? This is contradictory."Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire" You tell me if I should interpret this literally or not.
There is nothing you can appeal to in order to show that the original authors did not believe this passage was literal(and vice versa, to be fair). This is the issue with hermeneutics. It's all ad hoc harmonizing of the bible with no justification.
I fully understand it's not a game. I'm sure the fear of losing your job may motivate some people to toe the line. Still, it's a molehill compared to the motivational mountain of an eternity burning in hellfire. Imagine the impact such a belief would have on historical scholars who had even the slightest belief in the bible.There is a scientific establishment too, and dissenters from neo Darwinism have lost jobs for not toeing the party line.I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, but certainly I hear of such cases.Well ,Tacitus must have been in on the conspiracy.
It's not a game, Interbane.
For those that have been fired for not toeing the line, were they fired because of ulterior motive? Were they fired because they failed to adhere to proper method? Were they being objective in their pursuit of knowledge? They could always find work at thinktanks more amenable to their beliefs. The Templeton foundation gives out grants and funds such people.
There is no conspiracy. Scientists search for the truth no matter where it hides. The truth comes out in time if we use proper method to attenuate and dampen our biases, and shows a universe that is naturalistic. Scientists who enter the establishment with ulterior motive - prior belief that the entire system is rigged - will ultimately fail to follow proper method. Their bias will contaminate their findings. This is also true of scientists trying to disprove Christianity. Peer review is neutral, a review of method but not ulterior motive. Ulterior motive is discovered through examination of adherence to method.
If you follow proper method, you come to the same conclusion as the vast majority of scientists. It is only by deviating from proper method that you come to supernatural conclusions.
Are we then to criticize proper method? Which part of the scientific method is faulty? Or logical method? We shouldn't generalize here. Provide a link to an example of someone who was fired for not "toeing the line". I'll do some research and try to suss out the cause.
Or read through Carrier's section regarding method, and point to where you think it fails to provide the best bet we have to pursue knowledge.