The Bible: Embarrassing and True (Part 1)
What are your most embarrassing moments? You don’t want to admit them. And if you do admit them, you certainly won’t add to your shame by inventing embarrassing moments about yourself to make you look even worse. Who’s going to lie to make himself look bad? People will lie to make themselves look good (especially politicians), but no one will lie to make himself look bad.
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. There are far too many embarrassing details about the supposed heroes of the faith to be invented.
Just take a look at the Old Testament storyline. There’s little chance the Jews would have invented it. A story invented by Hebrews would more likely depict the Israelites as a noble and upright people. But the Old Testament writers don’t say this. Instead they depict their own people as sinful and fickle slaves who, time after time, are miraculously rescued by God, but who abandon him every chance they get. For example, after witnessing miracle after miracle that frees them from slavery in Egypt, they can’t resist worshiping the Golden Calf when Moses spends a few extra nights on the mountain. Talk about ungrateful folks with short memories! (We seem to suffer from this in America too).
The Old Testament writers record a Hebrew history filled with bone-headed disobedience, distrust, and selfishness. Their leaders are all world-class sinners, including Moses (a murderer), Saul (a paranoid egomaniac), David (an adulterer, liar, and murderer), and Solomon (a serial polygamist). These are supposed to be the “chosen people”—the ones through which God brings the Savior of the world? Yes, and the Old Testament writers admit that the ancestors of this Messiah include deeply sinful characters such as David and Solomon and even a non-Hebrew prostitute named Rahab. This is clearly not an invented storyline!
While the Old Testament tells of one embarrassing gaffe after another, most other ancient historians avoid even mentioning unflattering historical events. For example, there’s been nothing found in the records of Egypt about the Exodus, leading some critics to suggest the event never occurred. But what do the critics expect? Peter Fineman imagines what a press release from Pharaoh might say:
“A spokesman for Rameses the great, Pharaoh of Pharaohs, supreme ruler of Egypt, son of Ra, before whom all tremble in awe blinded by his brilliance, today announced that the man Moses had kicked his royal butt for all the world to see, thus proving that God is Yahweh and the 2,000-year-old-culture of Egypt is a lie. Film at 11:00.”
Of course no press secretary for Pharaoh would admit such an event if he wanted to keep his head! The Egyptian silence on the Exodus is understandable.
By contrast, when the Egyptians scored a military victory, they went to press and exaggerated greatly. This is apparent from the oldest known reference to Israel outside the Bible. It comes from a granite monument found in the funerary temple of Pharaoh Merneptah in Thebes. The monument boasts about the military victory of the Pharaoh in the highlands of Canaan, claiming that “Israel is laid waste, his seed is not.” Historians date the battle to 1207 B.C., which confirms that Israel was in the land by that time. We know this account is exaggerated because, as history attests, Israel was not laid waste. Its seed lived on and sprouted into a great empire under David 200 years later. And its seed lives on to this day more than 3,200 years later.
How does the New Testament measure up to the principle of embarrassment? While embarrassing testimony is alone not enough to ensure historical reliability—early, eyewitness testimony is also necessary (which the New Testament has)—the principle of embarrassment is even more pronounced in the New Testament. The people who wrote down much of the New Testament are characters (or friends of characters) in the story, and they often depict themselves an extremely unflattering light. Their claims are not likely to be invented.
Let’s put it this way: If you and your manly friends were concocting a story that you wanted to pass off as the truth, would you make yourselves look like dim-witted, uncaring, rebuked, doubting cowards who ran away at the first sign of trouble while the women were the brave ones who remained faithful? No way! But that’s exactly what we find in the New Testament. That’s one reason why I don’t have enough faith to believe that the New Testament tells an invented story.
I’ll highlight some of the New Testament’s more embarrassing details in the next column—even a few details that some could interpret as embarrassing to Jesus. In the meantime, you can find a cumulative case for God and Christianity in the book from which this column is adapted: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.
(This column originally appeared at Townhall.com)
May 30th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
The people who wrote down much of the New Testament are characters (or friends of characters) in the story,
You are repeating unbiblical mythology. Please cite the gospel verses in which Mt, Mk, Lk say they were there for any of the events they recount, or were friends of the people who were.
and they often depict themselves an extremely unflattering light. Their claims are not likely to be invented.
Please cite the verses in the gospels that say I was dim-witted, I was uncaring, I was a rebuked, doubting coward, I was ran away at the first sign of trouble while the women were the brave ones who remained faithful.
Please cite any bible verse that says any Christian at any time was ever embarrassed by the women part of the myth? Or shall we just agree you are making this whole embarrassed by women thing up? You seem to be projecting you own prejudices back on the gospel writers.
Bernardo O’Higgins
May 30th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
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. There are far too many embarrassing details about the supposed heroes of the faith to be invented.
That is a logical fallacy, though. I agree that this can be used to argue for or against the validity of some points, but in and of itself this proves nothing.
For one, it doesn’t consider all of the possible options, but rather only the favorable ones — it’s not that any historical or religious account must either be “true” or “a lie.” There are other possibilities, such as simple mistakes, misinterpretations, or interpretations that are/were based on things which were once believed to be true but that we can now explain differently (and thus alternative interpretations can now be accepted as possibly valid). It’s also possible that, if the account *was* a “lie” for whatever reason, the person did deliberately fabricate “embarrassing” events with your argument here in mind — that people would believe it because “who makes up something shameful just to make it seem more credible?”
The answer is simple: people who want to make an argument seem appealing to people who think like you.
This reminds me of a case I saw on Dateline a few years back, about a man who had embezzled lots of money from some company or other, then had gone into hiding. They later found him several years later, living a separate life in another community hundreds of miles away from his home and his family. He claimed that he had lost his memory and somehow wound up there, and he had started living in the community and had developed a separate identity and a new name and everything. When investigators pressed him about that story, he said, “Why would I make up something like this and then willingly go on TV and risk being recognized, if I remembered that I was a criminal?”
The answer, to me, was very simple: so that you could use that very argument to make yourself seem credible.
There’s a shorthand term for this strategy: Refuge in audacity. It refers to the principle of doing something unbelievable deliberately so that other people will think, “that’s crazy, nobody would do that!”
Now keep in mind, I’m not saying that’s the case with the Bible here. But I am saying that you are making a bit of a hasty (dare I say “dishonest?”) assertion that it is “probably true” just because it contains what you call “embarrassing” accounts. There are other possibilities to consider.
May 30th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Adding on to Tim’s refuge in audacity . . . also consider that these books are often defended as “eye witness accounts” and not as being written by those who were actually involved in the stories. This removes the principle of embarassment. Even if an eye witness (who happened to be literate) worshiped these guys as heroes, he’d have no reason to clean up the stories of “embarrassing” material because, 1). they are not being depicted in the story themselves, and 2). they revere these events as interactions with god and to leave a part out would be akin to lying or being prideful or some form of blasphemy.
I’d like to know Frank’s thoughts on why there are multiple copies of the gospel story in the first place. Why does there need to be multiple stories (that often disagree with each other) when only one will suffice?
Also, why—if we assume these are false writings meant to prop up the fledgling religion and gain support—would we assume that they wouldn’t contain these “embarrassments”? These stories written with perfect players in them would hardly be believable and compelling. People are flawed and to have written stories where everyone acts perfectly in accordance with god would be very transparent. These stories are written as such to teach. “Person A does this wrong and angers god. God extracts vengeance B. Person A either learns from this and goes to heaven or doesn’t and burns.” And the reader is given a simplistic story to show them what could happen if they behave against their god’s will, how vengeful he is, and how kind and caring he can be in the end.
May 31st, 2010 at 8:03 am
Tim and Toby,
Yes, I agree with you that embarrassing details ALONE do not prove the Bible is true. That’s why I said this in the column: “While embarrassing testimony is alone not enough to ensure historical reliability….”
I’m making a probability argument, not a deductive one. That’s the nature of historical conclusions: they require inference to the best explanation. Given ALL the data, ALL the background information– which the book lays out as objective truth, the existence of a theistic God and thus the possibility of miracles, OT predictions, early writings with eyewitness content, extra-biblical testimony, and eyewitnesses who submitted themselves to torture and death for an empirical claim (the resurrection)– the existence of embarrassing details adds further weight to the veracity of the Bible’s claims.
Of course it is POSSIBLE that they inserted these details in order make their story seem more credible, but that theory admits that embarrassing details DO tend to make a story more credible, and it cannot explain ALL the data mentioned above including why they would die for a known lie.
There are multiple gospels for numerous reasons including different audiences, different emphases, and the fact that multiple attestation adds to the veracity of the claims. Also, I don’t see how one author could stop the other three from writing.
I’ll say a little bit more about embarrassing details in Part 2 which is more about the NT.
Blessings,
Frank
May 31st, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Of course it is POSSIBLE that they inserted these details in order make their story seem more credible, but that theory admits that embarrassing details DO tend to make a story more credible
Not necessarily; I think that it’s an assumption on our part (or rather, in this case your part) that the inclusion of “embarrassing details” does make something more likely to be true. I see no evidence to support that claim in theory or in practice. It’s entirely possible for embarrassing details to exist in a story which is completely untrue (be that because the story is a lie, or simply because the story has been misunderstood or misrepresented by the so-called “eyewitness accounts”), and if you raise the possibility that these details somehow make it more likely that the story is true, then that *also* inescapably leads to the conclusion that it’s possible for them to have been inserted for the sake of making it more reliable (which wouldn’t be true if they didn’t make it more believable). It’s quite circular.
Kinda reminds me of that episode of King of the Hill where the new guy employee keeps showing up late, so one day Hank asks him why he was late and he tells this really long story about some stuff that happened on the way to work. Hank says, “that’s quite a long story,” and the guy answers, “yeah, that’s how you know it’s true!”
and it cannot explain ALL the data mentioned above including why they would die for a known lie.
I don’t really believe that someone would die for a “known lie.” I’m not saying that any and all accounts involved with the Bible are “known lies.” I am saying that there are many other possibilities than the ones you present, and many of them are just as probable (if not moreso) if we use the same logic you use here — if “embarrassing details” make a story more believable, then that alone provides a motive to include them dishonestly and thus makes that just as likely (considering the payoff of figureheading a religion); likewise, whether they were or were not “lying” becomes completely irrelevant if you consider the possibility that the original story was written in an era where people would worship practically anything they did not immediately understand (and thus a supernatural explanation for events would be FAR more common than it would be by an eye witness today); in that sense it’s neither a lie nor malicious (in fact it’s very possible that the person believed it WAS true), but simply incomplete — the person may not have properly interpreted what he or she was seeing, or he/she may have leapt to a hasty or incomplete conclusion, or simply lacked the expertise to make an informed judgment.
To me, any of those explanations seem far more likely than the idea that Christianity was some kind of conspiracy from the start — if there does exist some bias towards Christian theology, I believe it exists in the followers that came after the fact, not in the original accounts. We simply don’t have enough information to verify the truth or falsehood of the original accounts, so we tend to rely on methods which we trust for their effectiveness as of today, which is what leads people like me to discount them.
Granted all that….I think it’s a bit dishonest to present our choices as (A) “The Bible is 100% true for the reasons you’ve explained,” or (B) “everything in the Bible is a deliberate lie.” This false dichotomy ignores a slew of more acceptable social explanations, such as how word of mouth distorts, or how personal eye-witness accounts are never 100% reliable, and it makes it seem as though someone who questions the accuracy of Biblical accounts does so for just one or two simple, arbitrary reasons, when in fact there are a host of reasons. It’s nearly impossible to pin all of those reasons down into one short sentence that would fit neatly as an option (C); it’s much more complicated and more scientific than that.
June 1st, 2010 at 8:35 am
I think the idea of OT predictions needs to be tossed completely out. It’s a very, very weak argument. As we know it was written before the NT and it’s not hard to write details to fit the OT’s predictions. Or for people to deliberately set out to fulfill those predictions.
The idea of early writings is shaky as well because it can’t really be established that jesus would have been born within year 1 and died in the 30’s. Born later it’s good for your theories, born earlier it makes them weaker. And from what I’ve seen in a 20 second search of the internet it seems he would likely have been born earlier.
June 2nd, 2010 at 12:43 pm
@Tim-
“This reminds me of a case I saw on Dateline a few years back…”
“Kinda reminds me of that episode of King of the Hill where….”
I think you may be watching a little too much t.v. If this life is all you’ve got, you might want to get out and start living it.
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I think you may be watching a little too much t.v. If this life is all you’ve got, you might want to get out and start living it.
Good job making ad hominem attacks that do nothing to discredit anything I’ve said
Saves me the trouble of making you look desperate.
June 2nd, 2010 at 5:07 pm
P.S.
A clarification, for anyone else who lacks basic reading comprehension skills: the examples I used from TV were examples of how one could (theoretically) use Mr. Turek’s argument in order to make what is obviously not true in fact seem true. The logic behind “it’s embarrassing and therefore more likely to be true” does not hold.
June 2nd, 2010 at 5:10 pm
“the existence of a theistic God and thus the possibility of miracles”
what are the miracles today? In the bible they’re grand things, loaves and fishes, water into wine, but what miracles occur now and why aren’t they more prevalent? You’d think it’d be a thing the media and theists would be flogging to death if they occurred now. Or has the bar been lowered when it comes to miracles? Is finding one’s keys when they’re late for work what qualifies as a miracle now?
June 2nd, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Toby,
Have you read “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist?” Chapter 8 is devoted the question of miracles.
Tim,
The issue isn’t whether every detail in the biblical writings is true. The issue is whether the main storyline is true, particularly the resurrection. Eyewitnesses on the Titanic gave contradictory accounts about the ship going down– some said it went down whole, others said it broke in two before it sank. Those are contradictory. But what everyone agreed on was that the Titanic sank! Likewise, everyone agreed there was a resurrection, even if they gave seemingly contradictory details about who saw who first.
As I said before, embarrassing details, like enemy attestation, when coupled with other evidence strengthens the veracity of the claims. Such details certainly enable us to say they are more likely true than false. Who lies to make themselves look bad and then get martyred?
Blessings,
Frank
June 2nd, 2010 at 10:49 pm
@Tim- my comment was not made with the intention of stirring a debate, nor was it made in an attempt to discredit anything you said. It was simply a stated opinion.
My comprehension skills are just fine. You just took that comment for more than it was worth. It sounds like you watch a lot of television. That is all.
June 2nd, 2010 at 11:32 pm
“Who lies to make themselves look bad and then get martyred?”
True believers. Which has nothing to do with evidence.
“even if they gave seemingly contradictory details about who saw who first.”
Are they contradictory or not?
“embarrassing details, like enemy attestation, when coupled with other evidence strengthens the veracity of the claims.”
Like Chuck Barris’s autobiography Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. In which the popular host of The Gong Show details that he was actually a CIA spy and killed 33 people.
June 3rd, 2010 at 5:53 am
Who lies to make themselves look bad and then get martyred?
I believe I made it clear that I don’t think anyone “lied to make themselves look bad.” I don’t think that’s the case at all. That’s a misleading false dichotomy on your part.
June 4th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Tim, I can give you a concise option C.
C) The Bible cannot be accepted as true because it does not meet the criteria of proof that I have established.
Every conversation I have had through the years with skeptics of the Bible come down to a ‘proof criteria’ that the skeptic claims the Bible does not meet. As a result, they will NEVER accept the Bible as a reliable account and will reject it. The only question that remains is how logical and reasonable their self developed ‘proof criteria’ is.
June 4th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
[LONG post warning….]
Every conversation I have had through the years with skeptics of the Bible come down to a ‘proof criteria’ that the skeptic claims the Bible does not meet. As a result, they will NEVER accept the Bible as a reliable account and will reject it. The only question that remains is how logical and reasonable their self developed ‘proof criteria’ is.
A couple things:
1) I’ll give you that some people think like that. Although that is hardly limited to skeptics of the Bible — for example, many Christians think the exact same way, just in the opposite direction. There is no evidence (or lack thereof) that would cause them to not believe in the Bible’s veracity. So I think it’s unrealistic to say that this is a characteristic of religious skeptics, specifically, or that this characteristic is the sole cause for a person’s skepticism of the Bible (it certainly isn’t mine).
2) As for my criteria….the reasons I don’t believe the Bible can be seriously verified one way or the other are many, but the one that relates most closely to your point here is “because there are so few unbiased (see: unChristian or unconverted) sources, recent or distant, that can be reliably cited to verify the Bible’s contents.” The only reason we can even rely on the ones that do exist is because other similarly-biased sources insist that they are valid.
I can tell you, with complete honesty, that if Christianity IS somehow true, I would really like to know how and why. But if there exists ANY question of that in ANY corner of my mind, I will entertain that question until I am given a satisfactory answer. I refuse to entertain a false image of faith in something whose existence cannot be proven and with whom I can live a happy and fulfilled life without. God is not necessary to explain concepts like “justice” or “love” to me, so I can enjoy them whether or not I believe in a god.
3) Just a side note….the argument you’re making here is very frequently cited by theists who are bitter about simply not being able to change the minds of skeptics. To accuse them of having unfair standards of evidence is kind of a touchy subject — on the one hand, it’s fair to say that a person’s standard rules out the possibility for certain things. But doesn’t everyone’s worldview do that? The Christian worldview, for instance, rules out the possibility that god does not exist — anything that happens which at first glance appears to contradict something in the Bible is quickly explained away with “god works in mysterious ways” or “god doesn’t need us to understand his ultimate plan,” and so on and so forth — there is no criteria for falsification whatsoever. And so it is in that sense a very “biased worldview” as well.
The reason that’s important to acknowledge is that there is usually a reason underlying why a person has adopted a particular standard or worldview — it’s not selected at random from the “Wheel-o-Worldviews.” A person who utilizes a scientific approach to the world has come to believe, through personal experience, that scientific evidence is the best way to verify things about the world; he or she hasn’t just decided arbitrarily to accept that standard. So you can accuse a person’s worldview of being unfair, but that person is usually that much less likely to consider the possibility that yours is “more true” than theirs — if you won’t at least acknowledge what appears, to them, to be the most basic aspect of the world as they see it, then what reason do they have to take anything else you say seriously? If you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that they are correct (i.e. if you cannot put into words a firm understanding of the criteria of falsehood necessary to dismantle their worldview, as well as the criteria for establishing it as truth), then that gives them the impression that you haven’t seriously considered it and therefore don’t know it as well as they do, which destroys much of your credibility in their eyes.
That refusal, on your part, may be more responsible for their refusal to seriously consider the Bible than any innate characteristic of their worldview.
June 4th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Thanks for your reply.
Tim:
I’ll give you that some people think like that. Although that is hardly limited to skeptics of the Bible — for example, many Christians think the exact same way, just in the opposite direction.
Kyle:
Actually most people are exactly like that. And I agree that Christians think the same way. But that is not the topic of discussion here so saying it is of little value.
Tim:
As for my criteria….the reasons I don’t believe the Bible can be seriously verified one way or the other are many, but the one that relates most closely to your point here is “because there are so few unbiased (see: unChristian or unconverted) sources, recent or distant, that can be reliably cited to verify the Bible’s contents.
Kyle:
Thanks for presenting your criteria. So let me ask you some questions. Why would we expect to have what you classify as sufficient unbiased sources to verify any ancient document, including the Bible? What you have presented here is unreasonable. You have established a criteria that no other ancient document can meet but yet you hold it up as a standard of proof. Also, what are the criteria for determining a sufficient number of sources? Also, what are the criteria for a source to be unbiased? I submit to you that an ‘unChrisitian or unconverted’ source is by no means a useful litmus test of bias.
Tim:
But if there exists ANY question of that in ANY corner of my mind, I will entertain that question until I am given a satisfactory answer. I refuse to entertain a false image of faith in something whose existence cannot be proven and with whom I can live a happy and fulfilled life without.
Kyle:
Thanks for sharing another criteria. You will not accept God unless he is willing to submit to your standard of proofs. Entertaining questions is normal and searching for answers is also a good thing. But to imply that you refuse to exercise faith unless they are all answered seems unreasonable to me. There are daily activities you partake in that require faith because you cannot possibly know ALL the answers to EVERY question your mind could entertain, but that has not stopped you yet.
Tim:
A person who utilizes a scientific approach to the world has come to believe, through personal experience, that scientific evidence is the best way to verify things about the world; he or she hasn’t just decided arbitrarily to accept that standard.
Kyle:
Fine. What qualifies as scientific evidence?
June 5th, 2010 at 2:30 am
“What qualifies as scientific evidence?”
When turning the ignition key, my car starts. No, wait, If the inner workings of my cars engine are not completely understood by me, is it not an act of faith to blindly trust that it will start? Well, starting it -w/o knowing why it does start- certainly doesn’t qualify as “scientific evidence” now does it? Welcome to the world of faith to Tim, and everyone else, who engages in activities for which they can offer no cogent, detailed explanation.
FWIW: The old “past experience” argument was invented by Christians. We’re not privy to all the reasons how God works in our lives, we simply recognize that faith (a very substantive form of reason that is not blind) is why He does.
June 6th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Actually most people are exactly like that. And I agree that Christians think the same way. But that is not the topic of discussion here so saying it is of little value.
Well, it’s nice to see that you’ve met every single person in the world (or even *most* of them) in order to have the justification to say that “most people are exactly like that.”
Why would we expect to have what you classify as sufficient unbiased sources to verify any ancient document, including the Bible?
*WARNING: INCOMING ESSAY*
Do you know the reason why we value ideas which are true and consistent to the best of our knowledge? It’s not just for fun. It’s for purposes of application — we want to understand what is helpful to us and what is dangerous, and in order to do that, the ideas which represent our interpretation of the world around us must be true and clear to the best of our ability to verify. Following from that, it’s easy to see why “George Washington was the first president” is not an important fact in itself….but if there comes a situation where that fact is relevant and important, it is in our best interest to make sure that it is accurate, and thus our skepticism of it would become greater. So you see, the standard of evidence depends on the importance of the matter. If you told me “the sky on Mars is yellow,” I would not really put much thought into whether or not you were correct until such a time came that the information became relevant to my interests. Then I would ask how you knew that, so I could ascertain the truth or falsehood of it.
So understand that our perception of reality operates on a preponderance of evidence — not which case is proven beyond doubt (for no case ever is or has been), but which case is most proven. And the more important something is, the more skeptical we become (because we are more worried about what will happen if we are wrong). We never assume that one case is true by default and then wait until it’s proven wrong — for we must have a reason to think that which we believe to be true is, in fact, true in the first place.
How this relates to the Bible is simple: the world, as I see it, does not really show me whether or not there is a god, whether or not there is an afterlife (much less an eternal afterlife), or whether or not there is such a thing as objective morality. From natural evidence alone — the evidence of my experience, that is — I cannot determine that such things are even worth considering. I would never have even heard of god or Jesus or Allah if not for religious texts written by other humans. Compare, then, THIS preponderance of evidence with that of the Bible and the Biblical way of thinking (objective morality, personal god, afterlife of conditional punishment, etc.), and maybe you will begin to at least understand why I consider it irrelevant to my interests. I have no reason to entertain the possibility of an eternal afterlife; the fact that it cannot be falsified is irrelevant. There are many things which cannot be falsified (pink unicorn theory is a great example; see also Flying Spaghetti Monster), but that does not mean we should entertain them as true “just in case.” If we did that in every case, we would run ourselves into the ground with endless existential pondering, for there is simply too much to comprehend in the way of what is “technically possible.” It would be like asking a computer to comprehend every possible scenario for every possible situation that could ever happen.
You have established a criteria that no other ancient document can meet but yet you hold it up as a standard of proof.
Incorrect. No other historical event is driven by as much religious fervor and agenda as the Bible — no political misrepresentation has ever been carried out with the same level of intent or belief as expressed by those who wrote the books in the Bible. No society is closely-interweaved enough such that any writing on its part can be discarded under suspicion of conspiracy or misrepresentation. EVERYONE who writes in favor of the Bible is a Christian, and EVERYONE who is a Christian has a blatant and obvious agenda to prove that the Bible is true. And given that nobody has ever been converted to Christianity from, say, atheism, based on the science behind Christianity, it’s pretty telling.
You could say that a Christian is a Christian because he or she has accepted evidence in favor of Christianity….but again, he or she should be able to show that evidence without deferring to the conclusion that the evidence establishes. That is the evidence I’d like to see. I want to see something which forces me to conclude that Christianity is true, not something that, if we accept Christianity a priori, we can twist into a technically-consistent representation of a pre-established historical agenda. Then and only then will I be able to say that “Christianity is the most reasonable worldview.”
Also, what are the criteria for determining a sufficient number of sources? Also, what are the criteria for a source to be unbiased?
A source which has no clear and present agenda to prove the material true or false.
I submit to you that an ‘unChrisitian or unconverted’ source is by no means a useful litmus test of bias.
With regard to the evidence itself, no, of course not (see above). However, the fact that the person is Christian (and thus their primary duty is to “glorify god,” and to “spread gospel”), it follows that their premise assumes their desired conclusion.
Thanks for sharing another criteria. You will not accept God unless he is willing to submit to your standard of proofs. Entertaining questions is normal and searching for answers is also a good thing. But to imply that you refuse to exercise faith unless they are all answered seems unreasonable to me. There are daily activities you partake in that require faith because you cannot possibly know ALL the answers to EVERY question your mind could entertain, but that has not stopped you yet.
You sound bitter, again, as though my act of having a standard of proof is in itself a fault. “You selfish agnostic and your standard of proof! How dare you!”
I did not say that I refuse to exercise faith unless all questions are answered. I said that as long as I have serious doubts about the way such a belief system operates, I will not accept it.
If I took any other religion (or atheism) with such “faith” that you show towards Christianity, then I don’t think you would agree with the results. If I afford them all the exact same level of “benefit of doubt,” then I would find each of them equally convincing because I could explain away any inconsistencies based on the internal literature of that religion (or simply not believe, in the case of atheism). You can’t argue that Islam or Buddhism are not morally perfect (or that Christianity is), for example, without assuming that one of them is true beforehand (for whose “objective standard” would you use to judge the other faiths but the god of one of them, whom you have accepted in advance, thus assuming the truth of your conclusion beforehand?).
Fine. What qualifies as scientific evidence?
Here’s the definition that Wikipedia offers us, for starters:
Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is generally expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences.
A claim that something happened 2000 years ago is not evidence. It is a hypothesis or a claim. If we treat the Bible itself as a hypothesis, there is not enough evidence to support that it is true or false. You will not make any conversions arguing from that perspective.
June 6th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
P.S. To clarify one thing:
[Also, what are the criteria for determining a sufficient number of sources? Also, what are the criteria for a source to be unbiased?
A source which has no clear and present agenda to prove the material true or false.]
I forgot to say one thing….you’re assuming here that the source is the problem, inherently. The source itself is only really relevant when the evidence is based on *eye-witness testimony.* At that point we have to make sure the eyewitness is reliable. However, if there is some form of evidence other than eye-witness testimony, then the evidence should speak for itself and the reliability of the source should be mostly irrelevant. So again….if that’s the case, what evidence is there for Christianity as the “most reasonable worldview?”
June 7th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
@Tim-
To use your own quotes-
“And given that nobody has ever been converted to Christianity from, say, atheism, based on the science behind Christianity, it’s pretty telling.”
“Well, it’s nice to see that you’ve (Tim) met every single person in the world (or even *most* of them) in order to have the justification to say that “NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN CONVERTED.””
June 7th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
*sigh*
Just in case anyone else lacks basic reading comprehension skills….I understand that my post was long, but the above citation was printed shortly before this:
So understand that our perception of reality operates on a preponderance of evidence — not which case is proven beyond doubt (for no case ever is or has been), but which case is most proven.
For the few of you who are not capable of putting two and two together….what that means is, I currently entertain the view that nobody has ever converted to Christianity based on the science behind it. If you can find someone who claims that their conversion had nothing to do with morals, “purpose” or community, and that they were converted *specifically to Christianity* solely based on the science involved (along with a brief description of the thought processes that entails), then I would be glad to reconsider my notion.
[/tangent]
June 7th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
@Tim-
Your cute “sighs” and attempted slights at the perceived comprehension of another don’t change the fact that you are using an argument in one area that you dismiss in another.
You currently “entertain the view that nobody has ever converted to Christianity based on……”, while the person whom you argued against currently entertains the view that most people are the way he is describing.
You argued that he would have to know everyone in the world to say such thing, as you would have to in order to “entertain” your current view. Otherwise, you’d simply have to agree that both of those are matters of opinion, therefore your smart remark about knowing everyone is pointless.
For what it’s worth (simply an opinion coming), your panties are on a little too tightly.
June 7th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Your cute “sighs” and attempted slights at the perceived comprehension of another don’t change the fact that you are using an argument in one area that you dismiss in another.
Not at all…
You currently “entertain the view that nobody has ever converted to Christianity based on……”, while the person whom you argued against currently entertains the view that most people are the way he is describing.
You’re free to try and change my mind if you wish. It wasn’t much more than a minor tangential stab in the first place, but if you must, I can explain why our arguments are different.
What I am saying is steeped in principle, not in statistics — nobody is converted to Christianity by science because science alone is not enough to explain the belief that Christianity is “true.” You have to have some other factor influencing a conversion because science in itself does not point towards any religion — about the only thing you can really use to advance Christianity from a scientific standpoint is the concept of the First Cause, which is in itself debatable, but which (if you can get the other person to accept it at face value) you can use to open the way to other philosophical arguments in favor of Christianity. There is nothing directly scientific that can reasonably, consistently point us towards Christianity as opposed to any other religion (for *most* religions propose the idea of a creator which would presumably fill the role of the first cause). There is simply not enough information. So I’m relying more on a rational rule or concept to make my point here — that it can’t logically follow from “scientific worldview alone” to “Christianity.” There has to be something other than scientific evidence to further specify which religion is accounted for by, say, Creationism or Intelligent Design (given that we accept those two on face value). Christianity’s main tenets are based on decidedly unscientific concepts, such as the supernatural, and things which cannot be known scientifically (such as the nature of god).
Whereas what you said — that “most people are exactly like that” — this is not based on a logical necessity, but rather a supposition. You assume, without any way of actually knowing, that other people think that way for the reasons you say they do, because it is convenient for your argument to assume that they do. However, there is nothing logically *necessitating* those people to believe that way, and there is not a whole lot in the way of evidence that they think that way. So on what grounds do you say that “most people are exactly like that?”
For what it’s worth (simply an opinion coming), your panties are on a little too tightly.
Whoa….I dunno what kind of stuff you guys are into, but around here, men don’t wear panties
You argued that he would have to know everyone in the world to say such thing, as you would have to in order to “entertain” your current view. Otherwise, you’d simply have to agree that both of those are matters of opinion, therefore your smart remark about knowing everyone is pointless.
Really, they *are* matters of opinion. Most of these types of discussion are. However, I was making a statement about logical necessity, not about statistical accuracy — I was saying that people aren’t converted by science because the main tenets of Christianity are decidedly unscientific (the supernatural, god, etc.), and in fact very specific — if you used only the evidence of nature and a scientific understanding of the world, you could not deduce the truth or falsehood of Christianity to such a specific degree as to be converted to the entire belief system, morals and all — the closest you could come is the assumption that the universe was created, which could lead to any major religion. You would need some prior, specific awareness that came from another source (like the Bible), and you would need to accept it a priori before you could connect the dots, so to speak. To paraphrase, Christianity cannot be deduced from nature alone. Therefore, people don’t (or rather, CAN’T) convert to Christianity based on the science alone. Because the scientific explanation is incomplete.
June 7th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
P.S.
Although, looking back I must admit I was being a little rude. Apologies for that
I guess I’m a little jaded. I meant no personal harm.
June 8th, 2010 at 11:52 am
No harm, no foul. I always enjoy looking at the “other side’s” point of view, and you explain your views well.
P.S. I’m sure you don’t wear panties.
June 8th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Tim:
So you see, the standard of evidence depends on the importance of the matter.
Kyle:
All that stuff you wrote sounds real good and all but it does not address the questions I raised. My claim is that skeptics simply raise the bar of evidence to a point that is either unreasonable or illogical. Or in some cases both.
Tim:
So understand that our perception of reality operates on a preponderance of evidence — not which case is proven beyond doubt (for no case ever is or has been), but which case is most proven.
Kyle:
Yes and this ‘perception’ is at the core of the issue. Perception of reality is subjective, not objective. You just confirmed my claim. What I ask is taking an objective look at reasonable and logical expectations for an ancient book to be true. The blog article presented here offers one such a look at some of the evidence we do have.
Tim:
We never assume that one case is true by default and then wait until it’s proven wrong — for we must have a reason to think that which we believe to be true is, in fact, true in the first place.
Kyle:
Well, your claim of using scientific evidence just went out the window because what you have described here does not fit the definition that you provided. You are now being illogical.
Tim:
How this relates to the Bible is simple: the world, as I see it, does not really show me whether or not there is a god, whether or not there is an afterlife (much less an eternal afterlife), or whether or not there is such a thing as objective morality. From natural evidence alone — the evidence of my experience, that is — I cannot determine that such things are even worth considering.
Kyle:
OK, but to claim this is either scientific or objective is just plain wrong. It is only your opinion, nothing more.
Tim:
Incorrect. No other historical event is driven by as much religious fervor and agenda as the Bible — no political misrepresentation has ever been carried out with the same level of intent or belief as expressed by those who wrote the books in the Bible. No society is closely-interweaved enough such that any writing on its part can be discarded under suspicion of conspiracy or misrepresentation.
Kyle:
I am not discussing how the Bible has been or is being used by different people down through the ages. That has little to nothing to do with the truth of scripture that I thought we are discussing. I have no idea why you think this observation is relevant.
Tim:
You could say that a Christian is a Christian because he or she has accepted evidence in favor of Christianity….but again, he or she should be able to show that evidence without deferring to the conclusion that the evidence establishes.
Kyle:
I could also say that it only rains on Mondays where I live but what I say is not the subject at hand. I am asking for a reasonable and logical approach to the evidence we do have available instead of establishing subjective, unscientific, unreasonable, and illogical ‘proof standards’ that can quickly be seen through as strawmen.
Tim:
That is the evidence I’d like to see. I want to see something which forces me to conclude that Christianity is true, not something that, if we accept Christianity a priori, we can twist into a technically-consistent representation of a pre-established historical agenda. Then and only then will I be able to say that “Christianity is the most reasonable worldview.”
Kyle:
As can be seen from this post, you will never have enough evidence to ‘force’ you to conclude anything. You will only establish proof criteria that are unreasonable, illogical or both.
Tim:
A source which has no clear and present agenda to prove the material true or false.
Kyle:
What do you mean by ‘clear and present’ agenda? We are talking about an ancient document that records events that happened long ago. Are you suggesting that we consider these writings false as ‘a priori’?
How many unbiased sources do you require?
Tim:
If I afford them all the exact same level of “benefit of doubt,” then I would find each of them equally convincing because I could explain away any inconsistencies based on the internal literature of that religion (or simply not believe, in the case of atheism).
Kyle:
That statement can easily be shown as false. The fact that you made such a claim shows your ignorance of the subject at hand.
Tim:
You can’t argue that Islam or Buddhism are not morally perfect (or that Christianity is), for example, without assuming that one of them is true beforehand (for whose “objective standard” would you use to judge the other faiths but the god of one of them, whom you have accepted in advance, thus assuming the truth of your conclusion beforehand?).
Kyle:
I disagree with your claim here as well. We would have to start with a clearly understood and verifiable definition of ‘moral perfection’. Once that is done, we could compare and contrast different religious systems. But you have a problem, you only can offer up subjective morality as a standard. Therefore it would be very difficult to arrive at a definition we would agree upon.
Tim:
A claim that something happened 2000 years ago is not evidence.
Kyle:
DUH!
Tim:
It is a hypothesis or a claim. If we treat the Bible itself as a hypothesis, there is not enough evidence to support that it is true or false. You will not make any conversions arguing from that perspective.
Kyle:
That is what we are discussing and for the most part you are avoiding the issue. You have established proof criteria that no other ancient document can meet, but yet you maintain this unreasonable and illogical stance as a legitimate reason for not accepting any of it.
Tim:
I forgot to say one thing….you’re assuming here that the source is the problem, inherently. The source itself is only really relevant when the evidence is based on *eye-witness testimony.* At that point we have to make sure the eyewitness is reliable. However, if there is some form of evidence other than eye-witness testimony, then the evidence should speak for itself and the reliability of the source should be mostly irrelevant. So again….if that’s the case, what evidence is there for Christianity as the “most reasonable worldview?”
Kyle:
I am not arguing for Christianity as the ‘most reasonable worldview’. Where in the world did you get that? I am talking about the reliability of the events recorded in the Bible. Frank has a book that covers some of this material. Go buy it and read it. He blogs on this site about that evidence regularly. Study and read that. Oh, I forgot, you hold to unreasonable and illogical ‘proof criteria’.
I have read your subsequent posts relating to the ‘science behind Christianity’. When you first used the term, I had no idea what you were referring to. To make the original statement you did is irrelevant. Christianity is not science therefore to make such a statement brings nothing to this discussion and it is useless.
June 8th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
*FOREWORD: for anyone who cares….I am not really making an argument here as to whether or not god is real or Christianity is true. I am simply critiquing the manner in which Mr. Turek (and Mr. Kyle) have chosen to argue the case, assuming it is true. I feel that the arguments are inadequate and don’t do the case fair justice.
Now, onward:
All that stuff you wrote sounds real good and all but it does not address the questions I raised. My claim is that skeptics simply raise the bar of evidence to a point that is either unreasonable or illogical. Or in some cases both.
I imagine the things you’re accusing skeptics of being “unreasonable” about are the more philosophically deviant attempts to prove god’s existence (and subsequently, Christianity’s truthfulness) — “proofs” whose premises assume their conclusion, “proofs” such as, “love and truth are complex and difficult concepts, therefore there must be a god,” or, “the fact that we can experience things is a testament to the greatness of god.” These are circular proofs that don’t really *prove* anything to someone who is even remotely skeptical of the question of such a sentient entity’s existence (much less Christianity’s truthfulness). What they do address is what would be true IF you were Christian. What they do not address is what reason we have to be Christian in the first place.
Yes and this ‘perception’ is at the core of the issue. Perception of reality is subjective, not objective.
Exactly. And perception is our only way of interacting with the world around us. Not one thing that any of us says or does is devoid of perception.
What I ask is taking an objective look at reasonable and logical expectations for an ancient book to be true. The blog article presented here offers one such a look at some of the evidence we do have.
1) It is arguably impossible to take a TRULY objective look at anything.
2) The problem with this article is that it tries to fluff up what is basically subjective opinion into solid evidence. Even if we believe in the truth of the Bible, saying that “it has embarrassing parts” does not in any way address the likelihood of it being true or false, and it does not force any conclusion, positive or negative.
But we’ve addressed that already. So moving on:
Well, your claim of using scientific evidence just went out the window because what you have described here does not fit the definition that you provided. You are now being illogical.
Using scientific evidence to support theories which are generally accepted until proven wrong but not accepted as objectively true (given the flaws of human perception, which are acknowledged and accounted for by the scientific process) is somehow contradicting the fact that we don’t accept anything as “objectively true?” Please, explain.
OK, but to claim this is either scientific or objective is just plain wrong. It is only your opinion, nothing more.
1) Of course you know I never did claim that it was objective. It IS, however, scientific — I have used the methods at my disposal to observe the world around me, and I have drawn a conclusion based on my limited knowledge. That is the very definition of the scientific method.
2) Pretty much everything either of us says is “our opinion.” We don’t make objective rules, we just try and observe them, and we can be wrong.
I am not discussing how the Bible has been or is being used by different people down through the ages. That has little to nothing to do with the truth of scripture that I thought we are discussing. I have no idea why you think this observation is relevant.
You asked about sources. I was explaining to you that these sources (the Biblical testaments) are, by nature, driven by an agenda. That, to me, at least provides the possibility for a conflict of interest on their part. I’m not saying that being Christian prevents one from making an honest case for Christianity, but that evidence should speak for itself, and that I am asking for actual evidence, as opposed to arguments from authority (or the words of others that I am required to take “on faith,” such as eye-witness testimony). If Christianity is in fact true, then any argument a Christian can make in favor of Christianity and god, a complete atheist should be able to look at and draw the exact same conclusion without the foreknowledge that “god is real and Christianity is true.” So where is that argument, and where is that proof?
I am asking for a reasonable and logical approach to the evidence we do have available instead of establishing subjective, unscientific, unreasonable, and illogical ‘proof standards’ that can quickly be seen through as strawmen.
I’m not sure what any of what you just wrote means….how can a standard of proof be a strawman? Please explain that to me if you have time. I’m curious
As can be seen from this post, you will never have enough evidence to ‘force’ you to conclude anything. You will only establish proof criteria that are unreasonable, illogical or both.
1) How would you know? You don’t know what my standard of proof is; you’ve offered me no evidence; and you haven’t gauged my response to any evidence (because you’ve offered none). All you’ve done is take vague stabs at my “arrogance” for having a standard of proof in the first place….your argument seems to be that “having a standard of proof which does not pre-establish the idea of the Christian god is unfair to Christianity.” Which is of course baloney.
2) You seem to be confusing “objective truth” with “subjective belief.” My standard of proof applies to MY subjective BELIEF, not to objective reality. When I talk about not being able to “know” anything, I’m talking about objective truth (our imperfect perceptions do not shape objective truth, they only observe it, and our biases twist it); when I talk about my standard of proof, I’m talking about my personal perception. Please try not to get them confused
What do you mean by ‘clear and present’ agenda? We are talking about an ancient document that records events that happened long ago. Are you suggesting that we consider these writings false as ‘a priori’?
No. If you read my very first response to you, I told you that one important part of making a persuasive argument is to address the concerns and views of the opposing party. You can’t just tell someone “you need to accept that your view is wrong before you’ll be able to accept this evidence,” and expect them to just go along with it — you have to give them a reason to believe that their worldview IS wrong. Otherwise it’s just a “what if” — IF this were true, THEN this would follow.
So when you argue with someone who is arguing that the Bible is in some way “not true,” then of course you would need to consider the POSSIBILITY that this could be the case, and THEN explain how and why you’ve come to discount that possibility.
Side note: Think about it this way….if you realize some important truth and you wanted to share it with someone who thought like you, which would be a more important method of doing so — arguing from the point where you stand now, or arguing from the point where THEY stand now? If you argue from where you stand now (i.e. seeing what YOU see), you’re completely ignoring the possibility that the other person really, genuinely doesn’t see what you’re seeing now. You have to use your imagination a little, put yourself in that person’s shoes, and think about how YOU changed your mind from that state. You didn’t change your mind because someone told you you were wrong, you changed your mind because you saw or heard or felt something that convinced you. So why would you expect someone else to change their mind for anything less? THAT is what I am asking for — that something. What is it and how can I observe it for myself, or repeat it in some way, or observe something similar? You seem to be complaining that it’s unfair of me to ask for such a thing…now why is that?
That statement can easily be shown as false. The fact that you made such a claim shows your ignorance of the subject at hand.
Obviously not, evidenced by your refusal to actually show it to be false. It’s entirely logical to say that, IF I base my entire worldview on the idea that, say, Islam is completely true (as Christians do with Christianity), and if I allow for differing interpretations of the words of the Quran (as Christians do with the Bible), then I can explain away any evidence you can offer to the contrary. If I don’t have an answer for it, well, “Allah works in mysterious ways,” and it’s part of Allah’s divine plan.
I disagree with your claim here as well. We would have to start with a clearly understood and verifiable definition of ‘moral perfection’. Once that is done, we could compare and contrast different religious systems. But you have a problem, you only can offer up subjective morality as a standard. Therefore it would be very difficult to arrive at a definition we would agree upon.
Exactly — you have to agree on a standard (which means you have to accept one or the other) before you can judge any of them. Which means your premise assumes your conclusion — if you judge that Islam is wrong, but you’re using the standard of Christianity (or atheism, or Judaism), then guess what? Your premise assumes your conclusion! Because belief in the truth of Christianity is inherently linked with belief in the falsehood of Islam.
That is what we are discussing and for the most part you are avoiding the issue. You have established proof criteria that no other ancient document can meet, but yet you maintain this unreasonable and illogical stance as a legitimate reason for not accepting any of it.
Which criteria have I established that no other document can meet?
Maybe if we had no physical documented evidence of, say, George Washington’s existence, except for the words of a small cult whose designated purpose was to promulgate the idea that George Washington existed and that he was the first president of the US, then what you’re saying here would make a little more sense.
I am not arguing for Christianity as the ‘most reasonable worldview’. Where in the world did you get that?
Well, pardon me. I assumed you agreed with Mr. Turek’s view. And on Mr. Turek’s home page you can find the following:
“3 out of 4 Christian teens walk away from the church after they leave home. Frank Turek and the CrossExamined team are committed to reversing this alarming trend. Invite us to your campus and we’ll present a dynamic interactive seminar that’ll show you why Christianity is true and why it takes a lot more faith to be an atheist!”
…
The CrossExamined Solution
“Through seminars, television programs, podcasts, and this site, Frank Turek and the CrossExamined team help young people understand why the Christian faith is true and reasonable and train them to defend that view.”
If you don’t agree with that then I retract my statement.
Christianity is not science therefore to make such a statement brings nothing to this discussion and it is useless.
EXACTLY. That is what I meant by “nobody converts to Christianity based on the science.” Christianity is a completely non-scientific endeavor. So why do you insist that rationalists are being unrealistic when *Christians* offer *scientific* evidence which *they* insist proves the truth of Christianity (which is pretty much the stated purpose of this very blog site), and rationalists find that *scientific* evidence lacking?
If Christianity is a nonscientific endeavor, then why do you call people unreasonable just because scientific arguments are not enough to change their minds? A standard of proof is a scientific concept, remember.
June 8th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Tim, I have no desire to hijack this site with ever increasing length posts. So at some point we are going to have to move on with something useful instead of taking a back and forth approach to every point. As a result, I am going to try reducing my reply to answering some questions and trying to stay more brief.
Tim:
The problem with this article is that it tries to fluff up what is basically subjective opinion into solid evidence. Even if we believe in the truth of the Bible, saying that “it has embarrassing parts” does not in any way address the likelihood of it being true or false, and it does not force any conclusion, positive or negative.
Kyle:
Maybe, maybe not. Keep in mind that this is only a blog, not an essay paper. We could obviously explore the possibilities of the details being present as making the accounts more or less credible. Would this exploration ALONE result in a ‘true or false’ decision. I would agree probably not. But like I said, this is only one part of the whole that can be explored. I do not believe this short blog article is making the claim that this ALONE proves the accounts true.
Tim:
Using scientific evidence to support theories which are generally accepted until proven wrong but not accepted as objectively true (given the flaws of human perception, which are acknowledged and accounted for by the scientific process) is somehow contradicting the fact that we don’t accept anything as “objectively true?” Please, explain.
1) Of course you know I never did claim that it was objective. It IS, however, scientific — I have used the methods at my disposal to observe the world around me, and I have drawn a conclusion based on my limited knowledge. That is the very definition of the scientific method.
Kyle:
No, it is not. The scientific method involves performing experiments to verify or reject the proposed hypothesis. That is not possible with historical accounts (which is what we are discussing even though we have sidetracked), nor can observation of the world around you be very useful either. The closest you can get is forensics, which you are not appealing to in this case.
Tim:
If Christianity is in fact true, then any argument a Christian can make in favor of Christianity and god, a complete atheist should be able to look at and draw the exact same conclusion without the foreknowledge that “god is real and Christianity is true.” So where is that argument, and where is that proof?
Kyle:
This is an example of my claim. On the one hand you ask for this kind of proof while in this same post you agree with me that perception is subjective. You are appealing to the ability to make a purely objective decision based on evidence which you have already conceded is not possible. Good grief, I cannot successfully dialogue with you if you are so double minded. You know full well already that several people can observe the exact same event but yet reach different conclusions. So how on earth can I provide you with such an argument? This is a really good example of an unreasonable and illogical request.
Tim:
.I’m not sure what any of what you just wrote means….how can a standard of proof be a strawman? Please explain that to me if you have time. I’m curious .
Kyle:
You just proposed one. If you propose a standard of proof that cannot be met and use the lack of meeting the standard as a legitimate reason for not believing, that would be a strawman. Here is another one. Let us say that a guy demands that for him to accept that Bible as true, he personally needs to talk to every Biblical author. This is an impossible request. He set up a standard of proof that cannot be met just so he can claim the Bible is false. Here is another one. You once again imply that you are asking for evidence that will ‘force’ you to believe. That Tim is simply not going to happen. No evidence I can provide can possibly ‘force’ you to do anything.
Tim:
What is it and how can I observe it for myself, or repeat it in some way, or observe something similar?
Kyle:
How is it possible for me to present evidence relating to a historical event recorded in an ancient document that you can observe or repeat? There is no way to repeat or observe historical records. This blog is talking about events recorded by the authors of the NT. Is it fair to say that you do not consider these accounts reliable or true at all?
TIM:
Obviously not, evidenced by your refusal to actually show it to be false. It’s entirely logical to say that, IF I base my entire worldview on the idea that, say, Islam is completely true (as Christians do with Christianity), and if I allow for differing interpretations of the words of the Quran (as Christians do with the Bible), then I can explain away any evidence you can offer to the contrary. If I don’t have an answer for it, well, “Allah works in mysterious ways,” and it’s part of Allah’s divine plan.
Kyle:
You need to go back and read your original post for this was not your original assertion. Maybe this is what you intended to say but it was certainly not worded this way. If different religions teach contradictory things, then it is quite obvious that both cannot be equally convincing. But I still take exception to your assertion that the statement as worded here is ‘logical’. It is not logical to explain away evidence in the manner you suppose even though people do it all the time. However, just because people are often illogical does not ALONE provide proof of truth or falsehood. Further investigation is required.
Tim:
Which criteria have I established that no other document can meet?
Kyle:
You referred to unbiased sources. I asked why we would expect to have those kind of sources for ancient documents and how many would be required. That appears to me as unreasonable. Can you provide me with any ancient document that you accept as reliable that have these kinds of sources?
Sorry for the length. I tried to keep it down and maybe I will do better next time.
June 8th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Just a short comment about this statement of yours.
Tim:
If Christianity is in fact true, then any argument a Christian can make in favor of Christianity and god, a complete atheist should be able to look at and draw the exact same conclusion without the foreknowledge that “god is real and Christianity is true.” So where is that argument, and where is that proof?
Kyle:
You might want to check out Josh’s McDowell’s work. He was an atheist that set out to disprove Christianity and wound up becoming one. Also try reading some info on C S Lewis. These guys have some testimonies that would be the closest to this request.
June 9th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Tim, I have no desire to hijack this site with ever increasing length posts. So at some point we are going to have to move on with something useful instead of taking a back and forth approach to every point. As a result, I am going to try reducing my reply to answering some questions and trying to stay more brief.
I actually thought the exact same thing after I finished spending 34 minutes typing my last response the other day….yikes….
Keep in mind that this is only a blog, not an essay paper.
I have no intention of giving a bad argument a free pass just because it’s not intentionally in-depth.
But like I said, this is only one part of the whole that can be explored.
And it does nothing to further or hamper the possibility of Christianity being true.
No, it is not. The scientific method involves performing experiments to verify or reject the proposed hypothesis. That is not possible with historical accounts (which is what we are discussing even though we have sidetracked), nor can observation of the world around you be very useful either.
That quote was not referring to testing the Bible’s truth; I was talking about drawing a conclusion about the world without prior extensive foreknowledge of the Bible or its truth/falsehood. It goes like this: I see the world; I propose small disconnected theories to explain small things I see and how I think they might work; I test them by holding them up against other things I encounter. If they don’t match up, I have to re-think them.
In case you may have not noticed, I have been sort of jumping back and forth between “Christianity” as in “the Bible,” and “Christianity” as in “the intervention of god in today’s world,” depending on the topic.
On the one hand you ask for this kind of proof while in this same post you agree with me that perception is subjective.
Yes, exactly! The very evidence that Christians rely upon to enforce their *own* conversions is *admittedly* subjective. Either that, or it’s scientific, which we’ve already established to be insufficient. So why is it such a mystery to Christians that some people do not believe in the truth of the Bible?
You just proposed one. If you propose a standard of proof that cannot be met and use the lack of meeting the standard as a legitimate reason for not believing, that would be a strawman.
A “strawman” is a deliberate misrepresentation of someone else’s beliefs. What you describe here (an “unrealistic expectation”) is not a strawman. Just FTR.
In any case, my standard of proof is not unreasonable; to “believe” something means, according to dictionary.com, to “to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so (ex: “Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.”). When I say that I want evidence that will “force” me to believe in Christianity, I am saying that I want to see something which requires me to accept Christianity is true, at the risk of being logically inconsistent or irrational otherwise. All that means is that I want something definitive that can hold up under intense scrutiny.
I think you are overstressing my use of the word “force” here; I meant it in an abstract sense, not a literal or physical one (I feel that much was obvious).
How is it possible for me to present evidence relating to a historical event recorded in an ancient document that you can observe or repeat? There is no way to repeat or observe historical records. This blog is talking about events recorded by the authors of the NT. Is it fair to say that you do not consider these accounts reliable or true at all?
It doesn’t matter if I do or do not; what I am asking you to show me is what, to you, constitutes proof that they are reliable. How do you know that they are? Because people who believe them say that they are? These are called arguments from authority (or, in some cases, arguments from popularity), and they are not sufficient. Because of personal “divine revelations” which caused someone to convert to Christianity? Great, but that’s not something you can demonstrate to someone else; it’s about as valuable as word-of-mouth testimony.
It is not logical to explain away evidence in the manner you suppose even though people do it all the time.
If I was unclear then, my bad. However, I don’t mean to condone or accept such a way of thinking; I was trying to show you what I consider to be a major flaw in your assault on “standards of proof;” you’re saying that demanding any sort of concrete evidence to the truth of the Bible is “unreasonable,” and so the assumption is that it would be “more fair” to give Christianity the “benefit of the doubt” as we would to a less-important document, or something which is much more historically-verifiable and studiable. My point was that, if we do that for Christianity, then we’d also have to do that for other religions — if we give the BOD that Christianity is true because its source material says that it is, then we have to give that same BOD to other religions, because their source material says that they are true as well.
You referred to unbiased sources. I asked why we would expect to have those kind of sources for ancient documents and how many would be required. That appears to me as unreasonable. Can you provide me with any ancient document that you accept as reliable that have these kinds of sources?
It’s circular to cite the books in the Bible as evidence that the events described therein actually occurred; for they are the *only known* accounts of many of the events in the Bible (although some Biblical events and characters ARE historically verifiable), so if a person wanted to be skeptical of them and say, “how do we know that actually happened?”, there isn’t much we could do to verify that it did.
Given that, I don’t think it’s an “unreasonable standard of proof” to merely *question* the Biblical texts. I’m not even saying that they are FALSE, per se, I’m simply asking how we “know” that they are true.
You might want to check out Josh’s McDowell’s work. He was an atheist that set out to disprove Christianity and wound up becoming one. Also try reading some info on C S Lewis. These guys have some testimonies that would be the closest to this request.
I was referring less to testimony and more to the real deal itself. If that doesn’t make sense, let me describe it differently:
If I’m looking at a picture, what I am seeing — the picture — is “the real deal.” If I tell someone else (who didn’t get to see the picture) about the picture, then that is a testimony….it’s not the same thing as seeing the picture itself. Even if I know this person will think the way I do when they see the picture, there’s no way I can put into words exactly what the picture looks like. The only way to change this person’s mind is to show him the picture.
I have read MANY accounts and testimonies from people who claim to have seen or been visited by angels, demons, god and satan; from people who claim to have died and gone to heaven or hell for periods of time; from people who claim to have witnessed supernatural events, such as organs healing in realtime on an operating table; and so on and so forth. There are two possible common factors throughout all of these explanations — the fact that humans are fallible and their perceptions subjective; and the possibility that these stories are true. The only way for me to accept the latter is to see something of that sort myself, not hear about it from someone. So how does one go about seeking to verify the possibility of supernatural intervention?
June 9th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
What do I consider proof? This is only a brief list, not to be understood as comprehensive.
Early recorded eyewitness testimony, writings that recorded events less than a generation away from those events, the absence of any refutation of these writings from contemporary sources, verifiable historical figures mentioned in their correct context, verifiable locations and details about those locations, extrabiblical collaboration of some Biblical writings, manuscript support that literally blows away all other ancient documents.
I take from your last response that you do not currently know of any other ancient document that meets your unbiased source request? I also take that you still consider such a request as reasonable? I never said nor implied it is unreasonable to even question the texts. I have been quite clear about what I am saying.
The two guys I gave as examples go a LOT further than plain testimonies. They have written books about the evidence discovered by them along that journey. Like I said, that is the closest thing to your request I know of.
July 2nd, 2010 at 4:53 am
Do bickering and taunts really help people come to the truth or do they just cloud everything in attempts to save egos?
July 2nd, 2010 at 5:15 am
if an atheist has a pure motive to bring the unenlightened believer into a submission to a belief in the utter meaningless of the human experience, he won’t succeed if he seems pretentious. He might succeed if he shows himself to be the better humanitarian. seems like no person in this discussion showed him/herself to be that. you can’t come to the truth from a discussion that causes you to attempt to protect your ego, all you’ll do is protect your ego. you’ll literally trick yourself away from knowing whether or not there was something lacking in your arguments. a skeptic will never get anywhere if he continues to look like a snob in front of a believer, as well as vice-versa. but of course an atheist will always absolve himself from blame in this area.
if this whole humanity thing is completely pointless, then the job of humanity is to trick itself into thinking there’s meaning because humans like to get off on their existence. therefore in order for the ‘atheist’ to ‘win’ he has to look better than the ‘believer’. so work on those internet people skills!
August 8th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence in order for the claim to be _____________.
* To be believed*
A man claiming to be God incarnate is pretty much the most incredible claim anyone can make. Had Jesus not proved it by rising from the dead in a glorified body, had his disciples not authenticated themselves by performing superior miracles than the sorcerers and workers of magic of the day… ALL the claims of Jesus as Savior would have gotten nowhere. This is just the way the world works.
Someone claiming to be a prophet i.e. messenger of God is believable, it isn’t extraordinary… but a man claiming to be God is different. And as far as Jesus Christ we have the greatest documented historical impact in the many manuscripts of the Bible and being the most sold, translated, and published book in history.
It is the meaning of a thing that gets passed on, the genre of the literature is known and passed on that way. What happened with Jesus Christ was passed on as a real historical event, the meaning was that of reality, not of a myth. You don’t have eye-witness, and multiply attested works of other men claiming to be God… why? Because after their death they plummet to the ground.
Yet because Jesus Christ proved Himself to be legit, He rose above all other men by having the title of Savior of the world, and God made flesh come to reconcile human kind to Himself.
God bridged the gap between us and Him, because only He could. As limited humans we could never bridge that gap ourselves.