Triablogue, History and methodological naturalism

This is my reply to an article by Steve Hays at Triablogue entitled

"I never claimed to be doing history"

Friday, November 01, 2019

In addition, "history" is ambiguous. It can mean different things:
i) What actually happened in the past

If that's what the speaker means, then they lack epistemological sophistication unless they claim to be direct eyewitnesses, since it's obviously true that whether some event "actually" happened can only be gauged in terms of probability.  If the common person fails to make such critical distinction and equates probability with actuality, that doesn't change anything I just said.  There is no such thing as "actually happened" for the investigator looking at third-party sources, there's only "degree of probability".

However, I don't find it necessarily fallacious for the person who thinks there's a high degree of probability, to regard this as "actually happened".

ii) What demonstrably happened. What historians think happened. What historians think probably happened or probably didn't happen, what definitely happened and what definitely never happened.

I think that's far closer to the truth.

iii) So "history" in the sense of (ii) comes down to the personal judgement of individual historians.

And since the rules of historiography cannot be employed in mechanical fashion, so that making a probability assessment for a historical event is as easy as figuring out whether baking soda and vineger fizz when mixed, it will prove impossible to get people to agree on many events for which we have only ancient and disputable evidence. 

In other words, when your case is limited to ancient disputed evidence (and inerrantists, evangelicals and "reformed" Christians disagree about the degree to which the gospels are historically reliable), you'd have to be high on crack to pretend that this case can be so good that only "fools" would deny it.  Hell, juries today that deliberate about evidence that was created as late as two years before, often cannot come to agreement after the american judicial system has done its best to get through the dross and provide them with established facts.  Any Christain who come bobbing along and insists 2,000 year old documents of questionable authenticity/authorship and text are "reliable" is more interested in yelling for Jesus than in common sense.

iv) Ehrman appeals to historical criteria, but criteria are value-laden and mirror the worldview of a given historian.

That's a good thing, since there is no such thing as presuppositionless analysis.  Presuming the reliability of one's 5 senses is far more objective than one's suspicion that maybe they are just brains in vats wired up by space aliens to think they are people on earth doing investigation.

For Ehrman, "history" is what's left over after you filter the historical evidence through the pasta strainer of methodological naturalism.

That's a good thing too, otherwise, the cops, to be fair, would have to spend equal amounts of time pursuing leads generated by purely naturalistic methods, and leads generated by purely psychic or "prayer" methods.  If your own kid was kidnapped, you would put no faith whatsoever in having the cops focus all of their energies in leads generated solely by the prayers of other Christians, you would instead ask that  they presume the infallibility of their 5 physical senses and pursue any leads generated by purely non-supernaturalist investigation methods, like empiricism.  When you child is kidnapped, you suddenly (and conveniently) lack the motive to highlight the alleged "fallacies" of empiricism.   The more the cops fail to follow leads generated by purely naturalistic investigation methods, the less likely you'll ever see your kid again.

But there's no presumption that we should operate with methodological naturalism unless metaphysical naturalism is true.

We atheists don't have to prove something "true" to regard it as a safe assumption, we only have to show that it is a reasonable position to take.  Metaphysical naturalism is what's behind all scientific progress, while attempts to grow in knowledge by purely supernatural means have provided precisely nothing, except the very type of word-wrangling that your apostle Paul specifically forbade (2nd Timothy 2:14).

You will exclaim that the OT prophets accurately predicted events hundreds of years ahead of them.  I am quite aware of the apologetic of "predictive prophecy" and after having examined all the OT texts Christians constantly put forward (Isaiah 7:14, Daniel 9, Micah 5:2), I still find faulty exegesis, naturalistic guessing and late authorship to account for any such cases more reasonably than the "god told them" explanation, which, by being grounded in an infinite complexity, obviously violates Occam's Razor far more than any naturalistic explanation would.

In other words, when I say supernaturalism does not have as good of a track record of helping us discover "truth" as non-supernatural methods have, I know what I'm talking about and I defy any "apologist" to prove different.  We've discovered a lot of truth since the Enlightenment...which of those truths were uncovered by God revealing something supernaturally to any human being?  NONE.

Or maybe the deep thinkers at Triablogue will attack my "scientific progress" model and claim that their bible-god doesn't care about mankind's scientific progress and shouldn't be presumed to desire to give any such knowledge by supernatural means?  Ok, how many Triablogue members live a daily life that is enhanced by that modern technology and discovery that this bible-god allegedly doesn't care to reveal supernaturally?  Do you use a computer, cell phone or debit card?

If God doesn't wish to supernaturally reveal "scientific" discoveries, might that argue that God is against the unbelieving world trying to advance in technology?  What did God fear might happen when unbelieving mankind tried that before?  Read Genesis 11:6.

So that's a dishonest shortcut. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, methodological naturalism has all the advantages of theft over honest toil.

The atheist who depends upon his naturalistic presuppositions to interpret new evidence, is no more "dishonest" than the Christian who depends on her supernaturalistic presuppositions to interpret new evidence.   The question is which person is more reasonable.

What you need to do is show that the naturalistic presuppositions are false or fallacious.

I've read Triablogue's entries alleging that empiricism is "fallacious".  You've never shown any such thing, and the fact that even sincere committed bible-centered Trinitarian evangelical Christians think presuppositionalism is total bullshit, is quite sufficient to justify the atheist outsider, if they choose, to regard that debate as utterly futile, and to therefore avoid it entirely and then go forth in the world interpreting new evidence in the way that everybody else does...by the use of their 5 physical senses.

Cold Case Christianity: Correct: there are no good reasons to believe in miracles

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

 

Cold Case Christianity: Quick Shot: 

“There are no good reasons to believe in miracles” 

Posted: 28 Oct 2019 01:44 AM PDT

Response #1:
“How do you define ‘miracles’?

That's not our problem.   Just like the little girl who says "how do you define fairies?"  If she believes in them, and wants us to believe also, it's her burden to provide coherent definition.  But have fun defining "miracle" in a way that an atheist cannot correctly criticize as question-begging.  Act of God?  Phenomena for which no possible naturalistic explanation will work?  Phenomena for which no known naturalistic explanation will work? 

A miracle is commonly described as an event ‘that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws.’

But since science is an on-going enterprise, what we thought naturally inexplicable today could very well be naturally explicable tomorrow.  Now, you can be "reasonable" to believe a miracle-report, but that doesn't render the skeptic unreasonable.  Reasonableness takes far more into account than simply whether a belief is "accurate".

Given that definition, most cosmologists (even atheist cosmologists) already believe in at least one miracle. The ‘Standard Cosmological Model’ for the origin of the universe (the theory accepted by most astrophysicists) is ‘Big Bang Cosmology.’

Then count me out.  The Big Bang is garbage scientifically, as admitted by several creationist organizations (ICR, AiG, etc) who also say the BB is unbliblical to boot.

This model describes a universe that came into existence from nothing.

No, the BB says the universe exploded from a singularity.  Your additional theory that the singularity popped into existence from nothing, cannot be defended.  All you can do is talk like an advocate of the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics, and then pray your readers don't discover that some schools of QM are deterministic.

If all space, time and matter began at a point in the distant past and came into existence from nothing, the cause of the universe must itself be non-spatial, non-temporal and non-material.

Logically, that's correct.  But there is no such thing as "non-spatial".  Yup, I'm a physicalist.

That means the cause of the universe ‘is not explicable by natural or scientific laws.’ Since the cause and the origin of the universe already falls into the definition of ‘miraculous,’ why would anyone doubt the veracity of other miracles?” Since the cause and the origin of the universe already falls into the definition of ‘miraculous,’ why would anyone doubt the veracity of other miracles?

Easy, because the people who reported those miracles are either too unknown to enable a credibility assessment, or what they say wasn't corroborated by others, or their reports are given an unknown number of years after the alleged event, or they have credibility problems justifying skepticism toward their testimony.

Response #2:
“Some people reject the existence of miracles based on their belief that the only forces governing the universe are ‘natural,’ ‘physical,’ or ‘material.’

That's because words like "supernatural" and "non-physical" and "immaterial", when used the way Christian apologists intend, constitute incoherent concepts.

As far as natural law, we might be wrong, but the point is we are not "unreasonable" to judge reports of phenomena based on our prior experience.  Only fools would pretend to be totally objective in evaluating a report no matter how far it departed from their experience of reality.  In that case, I'd be so busy investigating non-Christian miracle claims, I'd never have any time to look into Christian miracle claims.  You wouldn't want that, would you?  Well then gee, exactly how comprehensive must one's investigation into "miracles" be?  Not longer than it takes to respond to your internet posts?  Not longer than it takes to read "God's Crime Scene"? 

And how would you feel if you found out that, after i accepted your challenge to check out miracle claims, I went to the local bookstore to get your latest book and I died in a car crash along the way and went to hell?  Wouldn't you feel guilty for necessarily implying (by telling me to "check it out" something that takes time),  that I could safely delay the day of my repentance?  Maybe you need to revise your apologetics invitations in accordance with Ezekiel 3:18.

For example, if you reject the existence of anything ‘extra’ or ‘supra’ natural, you’re not likely to believe in miracles that violate natural laws.

Correct.  The notion that there's an "outside the universe" is incoherent and that's enough to justify rejection of the concept.

But, we have a shared knowledge of non-physical and non-material realities: we have a daily, common experience of consciousness and mind,

False, consciousness and mind are physical, this is more reasonable than a theory saying they come into the head from another dimension.  My theory violates Occam's Razor less, so its going to remain reasonable even if not infallible.

and we also experience free agency.

Your Calvinist brothers will now accuse you of heresy.  But either way, freewill doesn't make sense.  Free from what? The laws of physics?  No, the chemicals in our brain determine our moods and feelings, which obviously affect our choices.  The fact is that we automatically assume, from the lack of scientific evidence otherwise, that we are "free to chose".  But the sense of freedom is illusory.  The dog probably feels free to do what he wants too, but you'd probably say dogs don't have freewill because they don't have the "image of God".

Strict atheists (like neuroscientist and philosopher, Sam Harris) reject the existence of mind and free agency because they know they cannot be explained physically or materially.

No, he doesn't reject "mind", he rejects the mind/body dualism as understood by Christians.  He simply thinks the mind is nothing more but the brain in action.

If our common experience reveals the existence of non-material and non-physical realities that cannot be governed by ‘natural,’ physical law, why would anyone reject the reasonable existence of other realities that aren’t governed by ‘natural,’ physical law?”

We wouldn't, but whether the alleged existence of those other realities is "reasonable" is precisely where we will continue to disagree.  But either way, you haven't shown that anything real can possibly be "non-physical", so your analogy places no intellectual constraint on me.

Response #3:
“A famous skeptic named David Hume argued against the existence of miracles because he believed that evidence for what occurs repeatedly (or regularly) ought to outweigh evidence for what occurs rarely.

He was correct. If belief in actual 'truth' is the goal, then we should not believe reports of what occurs rarely unless the evidence for any such event passes more strict tests of authentication than the evidence we have for common events.  Extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.  So I don't believe my buddy when he says he got a hole in one on the golf course unless I'm satisfied this claim passes more strict tests of authentication than we normally require for common claims.

Since miracles occur so infrequently and are rare in our uniform experience, Hume argued that we shouldn’t believe in them.

...unless the evidence for them outweighed the evidence we have for normal events.

But miracles are – by definition – rare events that violate natural laws and common experience.

No, a miracle by definition is an act of God, so unless you wish to piss off your Calvinist brothers and assert that god hardly ever acts...

If we are willing to accept the evidence for rare events (like the evidence offered by ‘Big Bang’ Cosmologists), and our most common, uniform experience is non-material and non-physical (our experience of consciousness and free agency), why would anyone reject the existence of a miracle on the basis of its rarity?”

This reasoning doesn't place an intellectual obligation on me, as I deny the BB, I deny that humans have free agency,  and deny that any real thing that is "real" can be "non-physical", which linguistically seems to have a lot in common with "non-cheesecake".

My Trinity-rebuttal to AnnoyedPinoy

"Annoyed Pinoy" regularly posts at Triablogue.  See here.  He defends the Trinity doctrine at one of his own blogs.

I posted the following challenge to him at that blog (see here).

I now crosspost that here in case it happens to disappear:

Trinitarians get around Mark 13:32 by limiting Jesus' confession of ignorance solely to his "human nature".  But since one's "nature" is their inherent feature and thus something the person cannot avoid implicating, then if Jesus had two natures, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that BOTH of them were implicated in his confession of ignorance (i.e., the divine side of Jesus admitted being ignorant of something). 

The reasonableness of implicating both of his alleged "natures" is not going to disappear merely because you feel forced under biblical inerrancy to automatically favor any view about Jesus that will make sense of the premise that he could both know and not know one single factoid at the same time. 

You probably believe that a person's mind is their "spirit", and if so, this would be the case with Jesus who became a "real" human being (i.e., became a higher-order mammal whose mind was capable of operating separately from its body).  Ok, was Jesus speaking with his "mind" when he confessed this ignorance?  Is Jesus' "mind" the same as his "spirit"?  Was Jesus' speaking from his "spirit" by divulging the ignorant state of his "mind" in Mark 13:32?  What exactly would be "unreasonable" in saying Jesus' was speaking from his "spirit" in Mark 13:32?   

Was Jesus' spirit separate from the Holy Spirit?  Mark 3 would seem to disallow this with its warning that accusing Jesus of demon-possession constitutes blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as it falsely equates the Holy Spirit with demons...which implies that Jesus' "spirit" is the Holy Spirit, there is no lesser "human spirit" in addition to his "Holy Spirit".  Jesus also breathes on the disciples in John 20 and says "receive ye the Holy Spirit" powerfully supporting the notion that his spirit is the Holy Spirit, and there is no fourth identity called "human spirit" in existence here.  

Therefore, if Jesus was speaking his "mind" in Mark 13:32, he was also speaking from his "spirit" in Mark 13:32, and thus his confession of ignorance constitutes the Holy Spirit's ignorance, which then saddles god himself with this ignorance. 

Was the day of Christ's return missing from Jesus' "mind"?  Was it missing from his "spirit"?
If you try to get away from this by positing that Jesus had a "human mind" that was separate from "Holy Spirit", you'll end up with 4 people in the Trinity...at least during his earthly life, even if there were only 3 people in it before the incarnation. 

Remember, there are only 3 persons you are allowed here, no extras!

Seems to me that reading Trinitarian theology back into Mark 13:32 comes at great intellectual sacrifice, and doesn't even conform to normative hermeneutical convention, since what the originally intended audience likely understood Mark 13:32 represents a normative rule of interpretation, and common sense would insist that Mark's orignally intended audience, back there in 60 a.d., likely had views of Jesus far less theologically sophisticated than the views espoused by the "orthodox" at Nicaea.

So Mark's originally intended audience would more than likely have denied Jesus' alleged omniscience, and if other parts of Mark indicate Jesus knew all things, this is either typical Semitic exaggeration, or Jesus inconsistently held an unrealistically high view of himself, or Mark's gospel is merely inconsistent about the matter.

I personally prefer  the second.  Mark's obvious apathy toward Jesus' childhood is more consistent with the theory that he was something of an adoptionist, even if, like most people, his entire story is not consistent with everything adoptionist.

Regardless, bible inerrancy is a false doctrine, so I'm quite  reasonable to feel comfortable with the possibility that the interpretation of Mark 13:32 that causes Mark to contradict himself, is the correct one. 

This is despite the fact that Mark nowhere claims that Jesus is equal with God. 

James Patrick Holding violates his own advice

Mr. Holding introduces Galileo's "insulting" demeanor with "unfortunately".  From "Blowing the Doors Off", p. 375



This is sort of like Hitler telling a friend "Unfortunately, that Nazi guard doesn't know how to treat Jews politely."

But if the reader takes Holding's point to heart, they will conclude that Galileo would have been smarter to learn how to make his case politely. 

Which means they would eventually conclude that James Patrick Holding could similarly have avoided his own legal troubles (multiple lawsuits against him for libel) if he had learned to make his case more politely.

It would thus appear that Holding is willing to give to others the false appearance that he doesn't think it is ever morally justified to use insulting language, including situations where biblical truth is being suppressed or misrepresented.

James Patrick Holding and his followers violate 1st Corinthians 5:11

James Patrick Holding's alleged magnum opus is his absurd defense of insulting his critics (i.e., nothing in the bible or the early church fathers condemns his constantly insulting the non-Christians who disagree with his opinions, see here. (he has configured his website to make sure I cannot access it, probably because he doesn't have anything to fear from my criticisms.)

When apostle Paul required Christians to disassociate themselves from the so-called Christian "brother" who sins, he gave a list of such sins.  One sin listed was "reviler":

 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.
 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:9-13 NAU)

What does "reviler" mean?  According to standard grammatical authorities:

BDAG and GINGRICH say it is an "abusive person"

TDNT says:

ἀντιλοιδορέω antiloidoreÃoÒ [to revile in return]
 This common word group has the secular sense of reproach, insult, calumny, and even blasphemy. In the LXX it carries the nuance of wrangling, angry remonstrance, or chiding as well as the more usual calumny. Philo has it for mockery or invective. In the NT the verb occurs four times and the noun and adjective twice each.
 1. loiÃdoros occurs in lists of vices in 1 Cor. 5:11 and 6:10. In Acts 23:4 Paul is asked why he reviles the high priest, and in his reply he recognizes a religious duty not to do so. In Mart. Pol. 9.3 the aged Polycarp cannot revile Christ; to do so would be blasphemy.
 2. Christians should try to avoid calumny (1 Tim. 5:14), but when exposed to it (cf. Mt. 5:11) they should follow Christ's example (1 Pet. 2:23; cf. Mt. 26:63; Jn. 18:23), repaying railing with blessing (1 Pet. 3:9). This is the apostolic way of 1 Cor. 4:12: “When reviled, we bless” (cf. Diog. 5.15). By this answer to calumny the reality of the new creation is manifested. [H. HANSE, IV, 293-94]

DANKER says

λοίδορος,ου,ὁ [fr. a source shared by Lat. ludus ‘game’] insolent person 1 Cor 5:11; 6:10.  

"insolent" means:

Showing a rude and arrogant lack of respect (English Oxford);
(of a person or a person’s behavior) intentionally and rudely showing no respect (Cambridge);
insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct (Merriam-Webster)

So it's pretty safe to say that the standard grammatical authorities tell us that the "reviler" brother that Paul tells Christians to stay away from is the "brother" who is constantly abusive in speech, or insulting, constantly engaging in angry wrangling/mockery, and doing this in a rude disrespectful way, or otherwise engaging in insultingly contemptuous speech. 

What we can reasonably thus conclude that the smartest Christian apologist in the world is completely blind to the basic NT ethics taught in this passage.

Or perhaps, being so smart, yes he knew about it, but chose to ignore its obvious meaning, likely because he has a genetic defect that causes him to suppress and excuse away anything that might reveal a character flaw and pretend his own opinion is infallible.

His babies will scream "there's an exception for skeptics who publicly criticize our faith!"

The trouble is that I've already gotten statements from legitimately credentialed scholars, some of whom previously publicly endorsed Holding, who said they see no biblical justification, whatsoever, for today's Christian to be insulting toward anybody, including critics and skeptics. See here.

For example, see my blog piece showing that Dr. Michael Licona and Dr. Gary Habermas likely think James Patrick Holding is a piece of shit scumbag, since even back in 2004 they were jointly insisting that it is biblically unacceptable for a Christian to insult "skeptics".  See here.

Gary Habermas once publicly endorsed Holding.  Licona's daughter is the wife of Holding's ministry partner Nick Peters.  One might reasonably speculate that this family has often had friendly conversations about Holding's infamously foul mouth (I have emails showing Habermas rebuking Holding for it), and not even the world's smartest Christian apologists (Licona and Habermas) can see any biblical justification for, and see only biblical condemnation against, Holding's genetically defective tendency to insult anything he hates.

Holding's babies will scream "we are employing riposte the way Jesus and Paul did", but the clear prohihbition against reviling in 1st Corinthians 5:11 makes it clear that God doesn't want you to do something merely because Jesus and Paul did it.  Whatever first-century "riposte" was, its limits are clearly specified in that verse.  No, the name-calling nature of ancient agrarian cultures doesn't automatically mean you are justified to imitate it. 

For the Holding-babies who continue to support him regardless, you might want to read about God's instituting America's libel-laws in Romans 13, then ask yourself why Holding is unable to escape the current libel lawsuit I've filed against him.

If it is so easy for Holding to prove this current lawsuit to be frivolous or unfounded, why hasn't he prevailed with a motion to dismiss yet?   Might it actually be a bit harder to disprove my allegations, than it would be to state the first letter of the English Alphabet?

Could it actually be that the world's biggest scumbag apologist actually did cross the line into legitimately actionable slander?  Gee, you've never heard of honest-appearing Christians being exposed as scandalous wolves, have you?

If that is a possibility, then why haven't you given serious consideration to apostle Paul's demand that you dissociate yourself from "brothers" who are "revilers"? 

James Patrick Holding violates Proverbs 26

 17 Like one who takes a dog by the ears Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him.
 18 Like a madman who throws Firebrands, arrows and death,
 19 So is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, "Was I not joking?"
 20 For lack of wood the fire goes out, And where there is no whisperer, contention quiets down.
 21 Like charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, So is a contentious man to kindle strife.
 22 The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels, And they go down into the innermost parts of the body.   (Prov. 26:17-22 NAU)

V. 17, Mr. Holding has an obvious history of "exposing" strifes in the lives of his critics.  That's at issue in the current libel lawsuit against him.

v. 18, you cannot escape the condemnation in this verse by pretending that your hurling of arrows was for the cause of "truth".  the person you give that defense to would have to decide whether you are being honest or are instead trying to mask your sinful love of gossip and meddling.

v. 20, the ending of "contention" is presumed a good think to the author.  You cannot escape the condemnation in that verse by saying you started a contention and strife "in the name of truth".  The person yo make that excuse to will have to decide whether you are being honest or dishonest about your alleged concern for "truth", and there is a possibility they will conclude that you couldn't care less about truth, you just love gossip.
v. 21, a general love of starting contentions and strifes is condemned by this author, and given Holding's history of it, no, his excuse that he only does it for the sake of the truth, is bullshit.  Holding has a genetic defect that causes him to love strife more than the average person.

Inerrantist Christian scholar D.A. Garrett:

Type: Thematic (26:17–22). These proverbs discuss anyone who involves himself or herself in the affairs of others, who spreads gossip, or is a general source of mischief. Metaphors of violence and destruction dominate this text since these qualities characterize the aftereffects of the busybody.
26:17 Verse 17 could be translated, “Like one who seizes the ears of a passing dog is the one who meddles.”Busybodies cannot resist the temptation to inject themselves into private disputes, and they have no excuse for being surprised at the violent outbursts that are sure to follow.
26:18–19 Verses 18–19 could be taken to condemn any kind of antics (such as modern practical jokes played on a groom on his wedding day). While practical jokes can be destructive and hurtful, the larger context here implies that such may not be precisely the nature of the deceit implied here. Rather, this is a person who enjoys gossiping about or tampering with the affairs of other people. Such a person will purposefully confuse others and engage in a kind of social disinformation. When called to account, he or she will treat the whole thing as a game and be oblivious to all the hurt such actions created.
26:20–22 Verses 20–21 describe the slanderer as the fuel that maintains quarrels. In the absence of such a person, old hurts can be set aside, and discord can die a natural death. Even so, we often find a juicy tidbit of defamation irresistible. Verse 22 is a direct warning to the reader. Gossip makes its way to the innermost being of the hearer; that is, it corrupts the soul.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 214).

 

James Patrick Holding and his followers violate Proverbs 20:19

 19 He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets, Therefore do not associate with a gossip.
(Prov. 20:19 NAU).

How could you possibly argue that you associate with James Patrick Holding, but you don't associate with a gossip?

Maybe you think the "gossip" condemned here is something different than James Patrick Holding's obsessive need to dig up personal strifes and evils in the lives of his critics?  Break out the chocolate, you are about to have a bad day.  Evangelical Christian scholar R.E. Murphy:

19 The first line is very similar to 11:3a. The slanderer is one who goes about talking, although the etymology of the word רכיל is difficult. Naturally, such a person is to be avoided. The parallel with the “open mouthed” (see Note 19.a.*) would seem to indicate a character that we would term “loose-lipped.”
* 19.a. This verb seems to have two meanings: “open” and “simple/foolish.” In either case, irresponsible speech is meant.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Proverbs.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 152)

The dictionary defines "loose-lipped" as "fond of gossip".  If you think Mr. Holding only yaks about issues of biblical scholarship, you might ask him

a) why he is being sued for defamation for the third time, and
b) why his lawyer has told him he won't be escaping this third one with a Phariseeic technicality, like he did the last two times, but must answer to a jury on the merits

Or maybe you are a clever person, you caught the gag, and you won't be asking Holding any such thing, because to do so is to perhaps reveal that you love hearing gossip, which makes you just as bad as the person who spreads gossip, see Proverbs 17:4.

James Patrick Holding AND his followers violate proverbs 18:5-8

 5 To show partiality to the wicked is not good, Nor to thrust aside the righteous in judgment.
 6 A fool's lips bring strife, And his mouth calls for blows.
 7 A fool's mouth is his ruin, And his lips are the snare of his soul.
 8 The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels, And they go down into the innermost parts of the body. (Prov. 18:5-8 NAU)

Once again, the fact that some strife is logically required in our search for justice, does not mean gossip is holy.  The fact that you can say you were searching for "truth" by inquiring into the strifes others have endured, doesn't mean you are free from the charge of loving gossip for the sake of gossip.  The person you speak with will have to decide whether you pay attention to strife so much because of your excuse that you are a truth-robot, or if that's just a bullshit excuse to cover up your sinful love of strife.  They might be reasonable to say you are full of shit, you only care about the thrill of gossip, you care nothing for actual truth.
This is more especially so with Holding's idiot followers who have been manifesting their spiritual depravity/immaturity for years. 

Holding's libelous words about me qualify as little more than the gossip and strife which this proverb condemns.  Inerrantist Christian scholar D.A. Garrett says:

18:5–8 The chiasmus in vv. 6–7 is obvious (lips, mouth, mouth, lips). Somewhat less conspicuously, v. 5 refers to heeding evil talk at the gate, and v. 8 describes the pleasures that malicious slander can give. This section appears to be further commentary on 17:27–18:4. In official proceedings, whether they be court cases or community decisions, one obviously should not take the side of an evil person (v. 5). The odds of such happening are reduced by the fact that caustic and selfish people347 expose themselves by their words (vv. 6–7). On the other hand, many have a perverse attraction to malicious gossip (v. 8). This points to the need to be a judicious and thoughtful listener.
347 One needs to bear in mind that the “fool” of Proverbs is not a buffoon or simpleton. He or she is rather an obstinate, selfish, and obnoxious individual.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 164)

The word "caustic" means : "marked by incisive sarcasm" or "sarcastic in a scathing and bitter way".

Gee, Holding has never been guilty of being "caustic" has he?  Of course he has, Gary Habermas rebuked him for it according to email communications between the which I forced Holding to disclose, but which Habermas asked me not to divulge the contents of.  

Evangelical Christian scholar R. E. Murphy says:

6–7 Both of these verses deal with the organs of speech (lips/mouth used chiastically), as employed by a fool, and hence they point out the bad effects of his talk. 6 It is not clear if the “blows” in line b are to be understood as a punishment that the fool receives (therefore, in a judicial case), or merely as a violent dispute that is brought about by his heedless speech. 7 This verse is a drastic and dramatic description of the price the fool will have to pay for his unbridled speech: it is a deadly trap; see also vv 20–21.

8 This verse appears also in 26:22, where it is perhaps more suitable to the context. ...“Dainty morsels” is a common, if uncertain, translation. Experience bears out the attraction that gossip exerts over human beings; it enters deeply into a person; the second line suggests this penetration and perhaps the hearer’s relishing, if the translation of v 8a is correct. For harmful effects of gossip, cf. 16:28.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Word Biblical Commentary : Proverbs. 

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 135). Dallas: Word, Incorporated

Since Holding is obviously guilty of being obstinate and obnoxious gossip, and since he has never manifested the slightest desire to repent of these moral defects, you will have a difficult time trying to reconcile your belief that "scholarship is all that matters for a Christian teacher" with the bible, which requires teachers to be morally qualified too.

James Patrick Holding AND his followers violate Proverbs 17:4

 4 An evildoer listens to wicked lips; A liar pays attention to a destructive tongue. (Prov. 17:4 NAU)

Inerrantist Christian scholar D.A. Garrett says:

17:4 Taking gossip seriously is itself a form of malice practiced by those who have no respect for the truth.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 158).

 To the best of my knowledge, with exception for a few idiots who replied with a few trifles on some of my blog posts indicating they are more interested in defending Holding, no follower of James Patrick Holding has ever asked for my side of any story.  The one that came close, chose to slink back into the shadows after I convinced him he was libeling me.

This proverb is interesting because it shows he thinks those who take slanderous gossip seriously without doing any checking, are themselves equally as corrupt as the gossiper himself.

If Holding babies read this and feel themselves exonerated since they might have asked a few cursory questions before they believed Holding's gossip, they are reminded that there is a third libel lawsuit currently pending against Holding.  He was forced to hire a lawyer, he filed a motio to dismiss, and the Court chose to delay ruling on it, forcing Holding to pay the expense of answering discovery.

The point is that it sure is funny how your faith-hero cannot escape this third lawsuit as easily as you think he should.  Perhaps you might consider that there are truths he isn't telling you about, and THAT's why his slam-dunk defenses aren't working.  Suggest you give him a call.  Then again, your profession of Christ is total bullshit in the first place, probably best if you didn't call him.

James Patrick Holding violates Proverbs 16:27-28

 27 A worthless man digs up evil, While his words are like scorching fire.
 28 A perverse man spreads strife, And a slanderer separates intimate friends. (Prov. 16:27-28 NAU)

As documented in the Complaints that started my last three defamation lawsuits against James Patrick Holding, the exact way that Mr. Holding goes about slandering me is to "dig up evil" (i.e., he goes through my legal history to look for things he can misrepresent, or to gain quotes from third-parties who lied about me, then he gives more publicity to that information than the files ever would have enjoyed in their original state).

Furthermore, it wouldn't even matter if all of Holding's opinions about me were true.

Truth is not an absolute defense. Under this Proverb, digging up evil makes you worthless.  Nobody is asking whether the "evil" you dig up had some truth-content to it.  I'm sure there was truth-content in the court files generated by the couple down the street who got divorced.  Gee, does the fact that there can be truth in the back and forth name-calling automatically mean the person who gives further unnecessary publicity to that dispute is therefore exempt from the condemnation in this verse?  LOL.

I'm sure there was truth-content in the arrest report generated after some guy raped a woman.  But to "dig up" such "evil" makes a person worthless. 

An obvious exception must be made for courts of law; the biblical author wasn't stupid enough to think that all cases of evil need to be left alone and forgotten.  But the proverbs author is talking about the average person on the street, he isn't talking about judicially appointed fact finders. 

Unfortunately, my criticisms of the Holding's apologetics have nothing to do with putting anybody at risk of criminal harm, and Holding cannot seriously argue there is any logical connection between my legal history and the force of my counterapologetics arguments.

What dumbass thinks "Jesus' family thought him insane so they probably didn't think his miracles were real, see Mark 3:231" is fairly rebutted with "that skeptic filed a frivolous lawsuit against another person!"

James Patrick Holding, that's who.

Notice v. 28 which in Hebrew parallelism is just a new phrase the author thinks synonymous with v. 27:  a perverse man stirs up strife.  Once again, wouldn't matter if Holding's comments about me were all true, the Proverb author neither expresses nor implies that stirring up strife can be morally good if truth is at stake.  Holding didn't qualify as a judicially appointed fact-finder back when he started slandering me on the internet, so he really does qualify as the average man on the street who really IS condemned by this bible passage.

If there are situations where stirring up strife is morally good, then we have to ask:  Why did Holding think my counterapologetics arguments justified his digging up evil in my past and using it to help stir up strife?

Perhaps he thought that if I 'frivolously' sued somebody in the past for breach of contract, that might successfully defend him from the accusation that his own favorite scholars, the Context Group, have disowned him 3 times and have accused him of "perverting" their scholarship?  See here.

Yeah right. 

Inerrantist Christian scholar D.A. Garrett says:

16:27–30 Verses 27–30 describe the man who has evil schemes and are another thematic unity. Verses 27–29 concern the evil machinations of the scoundrel, the perverse man, and the violent man, and v. 30 is a conclusion or commentary on those three descriptions. The winking eye and pursed lips of v. 30 may be taken either as signals among conspirators or as a general statement of shiftiness in the facial mannerisms of scheming people. The point may be that the reader should learn to read the faces of others in order to spot the three kinds of evil men described in vv. 27–29.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 157)

Garret obviously believes Christians should learn how to spot the kind of men this Proverb describes, so the only reason a Christian could have for overlooking Holding's horrific moral failures and pretending his "scholarship" is all that matters, are the Christians who obviously lack just as much joy, peace, patience, gentleness, meekness, kindness, that Holding does.  There is a very good reason why the vast majority of Holding's YouTube followers are safely anonymous nobodies whose individual YouTube channels dedicate more attention to worldly cartoons than to Jesus.  No, it isn't bad luck.  Try again.

You should not pay attention to disqualified "Christian" teachers like James Patrick Holding, since his love of stirring up strife will likely do nothing  more than entice you into committing the same sins:  The bible says people who dig up evil are "worthless" and people who spread strife are "perverse".  Gee, Holding has never "spread strife", has he?  If the biblical author disapproved of strife-spreading methods in ancient Israel, how much more do you suppose he would condemn the same type of person today who can use the internet to spread strife far more widely by use of the internet?

What does it mean when an allegeldy 'Christian' teacher has mistaken sin for holy conduct for the last 20 years?  No, it doesn't mean "we're all imperfect".  It means this is one of those "Christians" who would have done far better to heed the advice in James 3:1, and do something in life other than being a Christian "teacher".