Johnny wrote:

The Microsoft Encarta 2002 encyclopedia is not just “someone.” Do you have any idea what is takes to put together an encyclopedia? Encyclopedias are the result of a consensus of scholarly research taken from a wide variety of sources. The prestigious and scholarly Encyclopedia Britannica fully concurs with the Microsoft encyclopedia. It says “He (Nero) became infamous for his personal debaucheries and extravagances and, on doubtful evidence, for his burning of Rome and persecutions of Christians.” 

This is what is known in logic as the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, a fallacious appeal to authority. Here is the definition of this fallacy taken from the Agnosticism/Atheism Forum at about.com:

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact.

Now, such testimony might be strong or it might be weak - the better the authority, the stronger the testimony will be and the worse the "authority," the weaker the testimony will be. Thus, the way to differentiate between a legitimate and a fallacious appeal to authority is by evaluating the nature and strength of who is giving the testimony.

Obviously, the best way to avoid making the fallacy is to avoid relying upon testimony as much as possible, and instead to rely upon original facts and data. But the truth of the matter is, this isn't always possible: we can't verify every single thing ourselves, and thus will always have to make use of the testimony of experts. Nevertheless, we must do so carefully and judiciously.

There are four ways to commit this fallacy:

(i)                  The person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,

(ii)                Experts in the field disagree on this issue.

(iii)               The authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious

(iv)              The appeal to the authority is hearsay (the source cannot be checked or are from second or third hand sources.)

Since we don’t know who wrote those encyclopedia articles, we don’t know if they are experts in the field (option i). We do know that experts do disagree on this subject (option ii). Until the sources for the articles can be checked, it is merely hearsay (option iv). So, you see you have hit three out of four ways to commit this fallacy in one assertion.

Johnny wrote:

The majority of Americans, even some conservative Christians, will take Microsoft’s and Britannica’s word over yours.

The point of my last post was that I am not asking anyone to take my word for anything. I presented primary sources and an argument. You have not shown that my argument is not cogent, nor have you impugned my sources. In other words, my argument stands. All you have done is assert that the encyclopedia says something; you believe it and that settles it. Not much of a counter-argument is it? Especially in the face of primary sources.

Johnny wrote:

There is no way that you and other conservative Christians can effectively take on not only the Microsoft Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, but the vast majority of historical and sociological scholars as well.

Well, actually, with a cogent argument and supporting facts, you can take on the whole world. It’s the argument that counts not the numbers on one side or the other. But just out of curiosity, just how many scholars would be in that majority you talked about? And who are they? Surely you must know; you wouldn’t be making this up would you? Since you know that they are the majority, how many scholars are there in total and what is the percentage that are on your side?

Johnny wrote:

I love conducting detailed research. It would be a great pleasure for me to contact researchers at the Microsoft Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. Would you like me to contact them? If so, after I get details of their research methods, we’ll see who people believe, you or the encyclopedias

Yes, that is what you need to do, examine the arguments and the evidence. That is all I am asking for. I have been presenting arguments and evidence this whole debate. Now it is your turn. I will be waiting for your response.

In my last post I wrote:

The only thing I sited Tacitus, Pliny and Clement was to prove was that Stark’s hypothesis was wrong. The book of Acts, the Gospels and the letters of Paul show that there were thousands of Christians during the first couple of decades and that Christians believed that Jesus physically rose from the dead.

You responded:

Johnny: You must be kidding. Like many other Christians, you are calling upon the Bible to be its own witness.

Actually, I am not calling on the Bible to be its own witness. Moreland has already shown that its sources are early eyewitnesses. I am calling on those eyewitnesses to testify to what they know. I hope you see the logical distinction there.

Johnny wrote:

Now that I know what you meant, I believe that whatever the criteria are that the vast majority of historical and sociological scholars use, which as I said I can find out if necessary, are the criteria that I would accept.

Great! I will be waiting for you to present those criteria.

Regards,

[Johnny declined to reply and suggested we begin a new debate.]