Critiquing: Is Genesis 1–11 Historical or Mytho-History?

May 18, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Genesis Debate — Jesus’ References — Establishing Agreements — Mytho-History — Belief and Evidence

---

Introduction

The content discusses whether Genesis 1-11 should be considered historical or mytho-history, addressing the implications of this classification on theological beliefs and the reliability of Biblical accounts. The podcast hosts, Amy Hall and Greg Kockel, reference various viewpoints, notably those of William Lane Craig, on interpreting these chapters of Genesis.

Logical Coherence and Fallacies

Ambiguity in Terminology

The hosts repeatedly refer to the term mytho-history without clearly defining it, leading to ambiguity. For instance, they mention, “mytho-history… it’s expressed in a mythological, using mythological motifs.” This vague explanation does not sufficiently distinguish mytho-history from purely mythological or historical accounts, leaving the listener uncertain about the exact nature of this term.

Equivocation Fallacy

There is a potential equivocation fallacy in the discussion on the term myth. The hosts assert, “when we use the word myth, nowadays it’s like, oh, that’s a lie.” They then shift to a different usage of myth in the context of mytho-history, implying it conveys truths through metaphorical language. This shift in meaning without clarifying the distinction can mislead the audience.

Cognitive Biases

Confirmation Bias

The hosts display confirmation bias by favoring interpretations that align with their existing beliefs. For instance, Kockel dismisses Craig’s view on the talking snake in Genesis by stating, “I don’t see any good reason not to believe it was a talking snake.” This rejection is not based on evidence but rather on the desire to maintain traditional beliefs, reflecting a resistance to reconsidering established views.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims made in the content are both unsubstantiated and dubious:

1. Literal Adam and Eve: The assertion that “there’s a big implication if there’s no literal Adam and Eve” is presented without evidence. The hosts do not provide archaeological or genetic data to support the existence of these figures.
2. Supernatural Events: Claims such as “God walking in the garden” and “God can’t burn in a bush either” are made without substantiating the possibility of such events in a naturalistic framework. These assertions rely on pre-existing beliefs rather than empirical evidence.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

There is a significant obligation to substantiate claims, especially when making bold assertions about historical and supernatural events. The hosts often rely on theological reasoning rather than providing empirical support for their statements. This approach weakens the logical coherence of their arguments, as it fails to meet the standard of evidence-based reasoning.

Testing Alleged Promises

The content lacks a discussion on potential methods to test any alleged promises of God. For instance, if one claims that divine intervention has tangible effects, it would be reasonable to suggest empirical tests or observations to verify such effects. Without proposing ways to test these claims, the arguments remain speculative.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

A crucial aspect of rational discourse is mapping one’s degree of belief to the degree of available evidence. The hosts often display a high degree of certainty in their beliefs without corresponding empirical support. For instance, they assert, “if Jesus believed they existed, it’s probably because they did,” without providing historical or archaeological evidence to support this claim.

Analysis from a Non-Theistic and Non-Realist Perspective

From a non-theistic and non-realist perspective, the arguments presented in the content exhibit several logical inconsistencies:

Lack of Empirical Support

The hosts frequently rely on theological and scriptural references rather than empirical evidence. For instance, they argue, “if Jesus rose from the dead, then he is the Son of God,” without addressing the lack of contemporary, corroborative historical evidence for the resurrection.

Circular Reasoning

There is a tendency towards circular reasoning, where the truth of scriptural accounts is assumed based on the authority of the scripture itself. For example, the argument that Jesus referenced Adam and Eve because “they did the things that he said they did” presupposes the truth of the scriptural accounts without independent verification.

Misuse of Retrodictive Reasoning

The hosts employ retrodictive reasoning inappropriately. They suggest starting with Jesus’ resurrection to validate Old Testament events, which reverses the logical order of verification. This approach assumes the conclusion (Jesus’ divine authority) to validate the premises (historicity of Old Testament figures), which is methodologically flawed.

Recommendations for Logical Consistency

1. Define Terms Clearly: Ensure that terms like mytho-history are clearly defined and consistently used to avoid ambiguity.
2. Avoid Equivocation: Maintain consistent usage of key terms to prevent misleading the audience.
3. Substantiate Claims: Provide empirical evidence to support historical and supernatural claims.
4. Propose Testable Hypotheses: Suggest methods to empirically test the alleged promises or effects of divine intervention.
5. Align Beliefs with Evidence: Ensure that the degree of belief corresponds to the available evidence, promoting a more rational and coherent discourse.

---

I invite further discussion on these arguments in the comments section. Your thoughts and critiques are welcome!