Frank Turek IS An Embarrassment

"The principle of embarrassment: if there is something embarrassing in the text, it's probably true... and Frank Turek may well be the exception that proves the rule."

Another prominent Christian apologist who is tone-deaf to reality: Frank Turek. I have posted on the Argument from Embarrassment in the past. It is such a bad argument than many apologists do not use it anymore, but, here we go - - -. Click on the link below.

Frank Turek Demonstrates the Principle of Embarrassment

Argument From Embarrassment

One of the weakest apologetics that Christian apologists use is The Argument from Embarrassment:

"Apologists argue that embarrassing testimony demonstrates the truth of their holy book because if it was fictional, the author would not have recorded the event. Since a holy book does contain embarrassing testimony, apologists argue it is true.

'In the Gospel narratives we find detail after detail that is embarrassing. The question we have to ask ourselves is this; What did the author have to gain by telling this detail? Obviously if it is embarrassing he has more to lose than gain. So why would he make it up? This sort of reasoning lends the investigator to infer they are telling the truth. ^[1]''That’s why when historical accounts contain events embarrassing to the authors (or heroes of the authors) those events are probably true. Historians call this the principle of embarrassment, and it’s one reason why I think the writers of the Bible are telling the truth.^[2]'

"The problem with the argument is it is factually incorrect: myth and legends often include embarrassing testimony and that does not support their reliability."

Click on link below:

Embarrassing testimony