----------------------------------------
Okay... cool stuff:
For my first post over at Simply Ecclesia, I re-posted an article I wrote a while back to defend Christian apologetics as an evangelistic tool, but more importantly as a necessity for thinking human beings. The first paragraph drew some criticism from a non-Christian. Here's the paragraph in question:
The word apologetics comes from a Greek word meaning "to give a defense." So Christian apologetics means literally, to give a defense of Christianity. Through the ages, many Christian apologists have labored to explain that the Christian worldview is in fact the most reasonable worldview and that its truth claims are valid. God really did create the universe, Christ really did die and rise from the grave, salvation really is available to all of mankind, and furthermore, these are claims that can be supported with evidence and reason and which we can believe in much the same way we believe George Washington did in fact cross the Delaware into Trenton, New Jersey to attack the Hessian army. That is not something that we take for granted as true without any evidence. We believe that it really happened and can be reasonably sure that it did.
I want to feature the exchange on this blog so that you can benefit from it too. Here is the commentator's response:
Re: The claim that the evidence for the existence of “God”{particularly, the deity the Christian Bible} is as substantial and believable as the evidence for the existence of “George Washington”.If the evidence for the existence of “God” were equal to that of the evidence for the existence of “George Washington”, it seems to me that conversations like these, and millions more, would be obsolete/unheard of. Yet, to the contrary, these conversations are very common. Moreover, it’s interesting to me that there are no blogs/websites that are{to the best of my knowledge} dedicated to affirming/proving that “George Washington” ever existed. Thus, we can logically infer that the reason for this is because there are no people who deny the existence of “George Washington”.
So why is this?
Here are some distinctions to consider:
- Historians, history teachers, history books, libraries, etc., are not offering people information about George Washington, conditionally. In other words, if one feels the evidence for “George Washington” is flimsy, and/or, if the whole “first President” idea seems really silly, then one is perfectly free to reject any and all information on the subject, with the worst consequence being a bad grade in History class. Assuming, as the article does, that both “Historical figures” are founded on equal evidence—how does an “F” in History class stack-up against the consequence for denying the existence of the deity of the Christian Bible?
- For those who are not skeptical of George Washington’s existence—how many people are skeptical that he threw a silver dollar across across the Potomac river, which is over a mile wide at its narrowest point? If you don’t believe it, why not? After all, it’s part of the “History” surrounding the life of George Washington.
- Autobiographical material on George Washington: There is autobiographical literature, as well as literature written by friends and family—that is, people who obviously lived in his lifetime. Can we say the same about “Jesus”?
- If “faith” in the existence of “God” is simply “trust” based on “evidence” - presumably like “trusting” the historical data for the existence of “George Washington” - then I’d be curious to know how many hours per week the Christian dedicates to affirming the existence of “George Washington”. I’d be curious to know how much money per week the Christian spends tithing in the name of “George Washington”; praying in the name of “George Washington”; blogging in the name of “George Washington”.
Sincerely and in reason, Boom’.
And my rebuttal:
Boom: Thanks for leaving your thoughts. Here are my responses:
Your first argument is that if the historical evidence for Jesus Christ is as strong as the historical evidence for Washington, that there would be no controversy over it just like there is no controversy over W. That’s not necessarily true. I’m going to make an assumption that you believe that the scientific evidence for evolution is very strong, as strong as the evidence for W’s historical existence. Correct me if I’m wrong. I’m assuming this because most atheists believe that the question of evolution is mostly settled by the scientific evidence. Yet there is a controversy! If I am wrong, pick another example… there are plenty. But let’s keep going with this one:
Many people disbelieve in Darwinian, naturalistic evolution and there are entire books, blogs, and websites that exist to affirm and prove it to them. You may say that this is because the disbelievers refuse to accept the scientific evidence because they are prejudiced by their faith, and that this is the difference. But I would make the same argument to you, that disbelievers in JC’s historical life, death, and resurrection ignore the historical evidence because they have a philosophical and theological prejudice against the existence of God and/or miracles.
It boils down to this: your first argument is a non sequitur- it does not follow that simply because people (even a lot of people) disagree with a proposition, that this proposition does not have lots of good evidence to support it. The only way to demonstrate that my claim is wrong is to engage it directly and show me how little evidence there is or how the evidence that I claim to be substantial is not very good evidence after all.
You give me four more items to consider, I’ll number my responses accordingly:
1. Though you don’t really get around to saying it explicitly, this first item of yours basically says that the Christian claim is a much bigger claim with farther reaching consequences than the claim to W’s historicity. Right you are. It’s almost tautological to say that the Christian claim is a very big claim. I don’t really see how that has much bearing on whether the claim itself has substantial evidence as compared with that of W’s existence. And it is misleading to say that Christians offer this claim conditionally, as if they plan on punishing you if you disbelieve it (granted some frankly do, and for this I can only be outraged, yet it has nothing to do with the truth of the propositions we are discussing). The fact remains that if the Christian claim really is true, then you and I are terminally sick and there is only one Cure.
2 and 3. There are lots of legends that surround historical figures, which are not historically trustworthy. They have sketchy source material and have “the look and feel” of a legend, rather than a historical report. We can separate these from the more historically trustworthy information we have about such figures like Washington. The thing about Christ, which few people seem to be aware of, is that we have extant manuscripts from letters and Gospel writings that date to within just years after his crucifixion. Surely all the source material that composes the New Testament was written shortly enough after Christ’s crucifixion that legendary distortion of the story would be minimal. Many of the eyewitnesses to Christ’s ministry would have been alive when these letters were written and distributed to the earliest churches. Two of the four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, the disciples Matthew and John. The other two were written by associates of eyewitnesses. The Gospel accounts also lack the “look and feel” of legendary material. They seem much more historical in their approach for a lot of reasons, which I can outline in an upcoming post (or comment if requested), but for the sake of brevity…
4. Just because the evidence for both claims is strong, doesn’t mean that I’m going to respond to both in the same way… because they’re different claims. One claims that a man helped to found the country I live in. The other claims that a man was God. If I have equally good reasons to believe both claims are true, that doesn’t mean I’m going to react to both claims in the same way- that would just be stupid of me. The reason I pray and tithe to Jesus…. is because I think he’s God and I think Washington was just a man. I hope that clears some things up. Thanks again.
Likewise, in all Sincerity and in Reason.
I'm going to add updates to this post if "Boom" responds and the dialogue continues. It's no fair sneaking over to my blog, giving myself the final word, and not including his answers for you. You can also follow any more comments on the original post.
----------------------------------------
UPDATE:
Messamore: Your first argument is that if the historical evidence for Jesus Christ is as strong as the historical evidence for Washington, that there would be no controversy over it just like there is no controversy over W. That’s not necessarily true.
Good evening{or whatever the case may be}
To start off, please note that I never stated that the inference I made is/was “necessarily true”. I said, “it seems to me that conversations like these, and millions more, would be obsolete/unheard of.” That is merely my opinion; it is speculation. What is indisputable, on the other hand, is that there exist people who don’t find the evidence for Christianity’s “Truth claims” convincing. Of course, what people deem “convincing evidence” is obviously subjective. It was you who made the comparison in the original article that the evidence for the historical claims of “George Washington” and “Jesus Christ” can be supported, equally, with “evidence and reason”. I merely asked a question based on this assertion. I haven’t made any absolute claims here.
Messamore: It boils down to this: your first argument is a non sequitur- it does not follow that simply because people (even a lot of people) disagree with a proposition, that this proposition does not have lots of good evidence to support it.
If we agree that “good evidence” is “convincing evidence”, and vice versa, then as I just stated above, this, too, is purely subjective. So, no…it’s not “non-sequitur”, because I have never claimed that because there is “controversy” over the existence of “Jesus” that this is certain evidence of its falseness, nor have I ever claimed that because there is no “controversy” over the existence of GW’s existence, that this is certain evidence that it is truth. Again, I made an inference.
Messamore: The only way to demonstrate that my claim is wrong is to engage it directly and show me how little evidence there is or how the evidence that I claim to be substantial is not very good evidence after all.
If your “claim” is that the evidence is “good”, then I’m not trying to “demonstrate” that your “claim is wrong”, because ultimately, that is your opinion. I’m saying—-I concede that you are thoroughly convinced that there is “good evidence” for the historicity of “Jesus”. Similar to how a Mormon is obviously convinced that there is “good evidence” to support Mormonism, and a Scientologist is obviously convinced that there is “good evidence” to support Dianetics.
Messamore: I’m going to make an assumption that you believe that the scientific evidence for evolution is very strong, as strong as the evidence for W’s historical existence. Correct me if I’m wrong. I’m assuming this because most atheists believe that the question of evolution is mostly settled by the scientific evidence. Yet there is a controversy!
I can’t/won’t speak for “most Atheists”, but for me, yes….I believe Evolution is supported…not “settled”, by scientific evidence. Science is provisional, so nothing is ever really “settled”, in an absolute sense. If you have a better alternative for the diversity we see, then by all means, scientists would be happy for you to prove them wrong. Simply show them the “science” in “Creation”.
For the record, I won’t be going off-topic on the whole Creation vs Evolution issue, other than addressing your “controversy” point, which I just did, above.
Messamore: Many people disbelieve in Darwinian, naturalistic evolution and there are entire books, blogs, and websites that exist to affirm and prove it to them. You may say that this is because the disbelievers refuse to accept the scientific evidence because they are prejudiced by their faith, and that this is the difference. But I would make the same argument to you, that disbelievers in JC’s historical life, death, and resurrection ignore the historical evidence because they have a philosophical and theological prejudice against the existence of God and/or miracles.
I’m not “ignoring” the evidence; I’m simply not convinced by it. I’m no more “prejudice” against believing the supernatural claims of “Jesus”/”Yahweh”, than you are “prejudice” against believing the supernatural claims of “Muhammad”/”Allah”.
Messamore: You give me four more items to consider, I’ll number my responses accordingly:
Alright.
Messamore: 1. Though you don’t really get around to saying it explicitly, this first item of yours basically says that the Christian claim is a much bigger claim with farther reaching consequences than the claim to W’s historicity. Right you are. It’s almost tautological to say that the Christian claim is a very big claim. I don’t really see how that has much bearing on whether the claim itself has substantial evidence as compared with that of W’s existence.
Okay.
Messamore: And it is misleading to say that Christians offer this claim conditionally, as if they plan on punishing you if you disbelieve it
The claim is that “punishment” awaits those who disbelieve in the Christian version of the “Creator of the Universe”. This is presumably supported by Christian doctrine. So, if you support/promote the doctrine, then you are implicitly supporting the claim. The “Christian” is supporting/promoting “God’s Word” - including its threats for noncompliance - since, evidentally, said “God” cannot threaten us directly. The point is—the “consequence” for noncompliance remains, regardless of who carries it out.
Messamore: The fact remains that if the Christian claim really is true, then you and I are terminally sick and there is only one Cure.
Terminally sick? How lovely. Anyway—the fact remains that “if” the Muslim “claim” is “really true”, then you and I are in the same boat bound straight for Jahannum. And I understand that it’s much hotter there, than the “lake of fire”.
Messamore: 2 and 3. There are lots of legends that surround historical figures, which are not historically trustworthy. They have sketchy source material and have “the look and feel” of a legend, rather than a historical report. We can separate these from the more historically trustworthy information we have about such figures like Washington.
Okay, fine..then I’ll ask again—do you find the legend that GW chucked a silver dollar across the Potomac to be “sketchy”?
Messamore: The thing about Christ, which few people seem to be aware of, is that we have extant manuscripts from letters and Gospel writings that date to within just years after his crucifixion. Surely all the source material that composes the New Testament was written shortly enough after Christ’s crucifixion that legendary distortion of the story would be minimal.
Are we to believe that supposed “Absolute Truth” is subject to even “minimal distortion”? I even recently heard as much as a 2% margin for error, from an alleged expert on the subject.
Messamore: Many of the eyewitnesses to Christ’s ministry would have been alive when these letters were written and distributed to the earliest churches.
Source?
Messamore: Two of the four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, the disciples Matthew and John. The other two were written by associates of eyewitnesses.
The Book of Mormon has “eyewitnesses” too, many of whom signed the document, itself.
BTW, there are also living eyewitnesses to large-footed community apes; to Aliens; to ghosts, and on and on.
Messamore: The Gospel accounts also lack the “look and feel” of legendary material.
Says who?
Messamore: 4. Just because the evidence for both claims is strong, doesn’t mean that I’m going to respond to both in the same way… because they’re different claims.
Yes, agreed…different claims.
Messamore: One claims that a man helped to found the country I live in. The other claims that a man was God.
So, you would agree that one is slightly more fantastic than the other, I hope.
In reason, Boom’.
Thanks again for leaving your thoughts. I can’t get enough of talking to people who care enough to engage issues and who are cool enough about it to be kind and reasonable. If that’s the tone I can expect from readers and commentators on this blog, I’ve come to a good place.
If you say your claims were more modest than I was taking them to be, that’s my bad. But is it fair to say that the rhetorical purpose of your first paragraph was to cast doubt on the claim that the historical evidence for Christ’s life is sound? Don’t let me put words in your mouth, so correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems perfectly clear to me that your first paragraph used a syllogism taking the following form:
1. If the historical evidence for Christ were sound, there would be no controversy.
2. There is a controversy.
3. Therefore, the historical evidence for Christ is not sound.
Now you didn’t explicate the conclusion above, just items 1 & 2. You jumped to a different conclusion not following the form of the syllogism as you laid it out with your first two assertions. You wrote (the admittedly more modest… like way more modest to the point that no one would disagree): “Thus, we can logically infer that the reason for this is because there are no people who deny the existence of ‘George Washington’”
But your syllogism was set up so that if readers accept your first two points, then without you having to say so explicitly, they must conclude the evidence for Christ’s historicity is unsound, point 3 above. I challenged point 1, the major premise that if the evidence for Christ were sound there would be no controversy by showing that there are counter examples wherein the evidence for something might be considered sound yet there is still a controversy.
———-
As for the issue of consequences for disbelief. Let may state unequivocally that I do not believe hell is God’s punishment for unbelievers. I believe in hell, but my view of it is informed by the Greek Church Fathers that were lost to the West when its theologians developed the view of hell that is common in Christianity today.
I am totally on your side and on the side of every atheist and non-Christian who believes that a God who punishes and tortures people in hell for their disbelief is an evil God rather than a good and loving One. God’s punishments are always temporary, never eternal, never inflicted simply to make us suffer for offending God, and are always designed for the ultimate end of our salvation and health. God does not will the death of any of His creatures, but rather that they all should live. I think Christians who believe otherwise are innocently mistaken. I think Christians who relish the thought of God punishing unbelievers have a very unfortunate disposition, to say the least.
If this is news to you or seems inconsistent with actual Christian doctrine, I cannot more highly recommend that you read The River of Fire.
As for being terminally sick, I know it’s not lovely. I’m not saying that it’s lovely. I’m saying that it’s true. I’m not interested in being comforted, but in knowing the truth. If I had cancer, I’d want to know so that I can seek treatment rather than die.
The truth is that we all have a disease that’s killing us called sin. It is a contagion, a dangerous infection that has entered creation through Adam’s Fall and it’s literally killing us. That’s why people die. The lovely part is that there is a Cure. There’s no shortage of It. And It’s free to all.
———-
As for your other questions regarding the historicity of Christ, let me say they will be addressed in an upcoming post. This first post was a defense of historical apologetics, not an example of it. My next post will deal with some of the historical facts surrounding Christ’s life, death, and alleged resurrection.
Thanks again, Boom.
0 comments:
Post a Comment