Claims vs. the Other Three C’s
One of my recent posts attracted some attention in the comments section. A Christian questioner, when I challenged him with the contradictions inherent in the gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, replied:
If you hear a story from 4 views and you were not there to witness the event then the next logical step is to select the points that are the same and assume that these are the facts.
This is a commonly-raised tactic used to diminish the value of consistency among accounts in helping establish the credibility of a “singular event” (I will discuss this term much more below) and it is based on a parodic shadow of how historians actually work. There are many issues that must be dealt with before the intersection of stories can be used to grant credibility to their core claims. Following is a list of such criteria (I’m not claiming it is exhaustive), along with my opinion of whether or not the gospels fulfill them. While answering “no” to one or two may only slightly decrease the credibility of the core claims, answering “no” to many of them is a major red flag. Please note that when I say “no” below, I am not asserting a mathematical 100% certainty, but rather a lack of scholarly consensus.
- Were these eyewitness accounts? (No. They were, at best, second-hand accounts.)
- Was there no chance of collusion among the authors of the accounts? (No. The text of some gospels is clearly based on others that must have existed prior.)
- Are the accounts written by parties with no vested interest? (No. All the canonical gospels were written by Christian apologists.)
- Are there any other eyewitness accounts written by parties with no vested interest? (No, even though you’d think that, for example, all the dead who were supposedly raised and walked around when Jesus died would have made an impression on someone as they lived out their “second lives” and eventually died again.)
- Do the accounts agree on other details? (No. It is, for example, impossible to construct a coherent timeline of the time from the Crucifixion to the Ascension without ignoring, glossing over, or proposing additional undocumented miracles to account for numerous conflicting biblical details.)
- Is there any physical evidence of these specific events having occurred? (No.)
- Are the claimed events explainable within the observed laws of nature? (No.)
The last criterion is the primary focus of the rest of this article. It boils down to Hume’s maxim:
…no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish…
Carl Sagan put it in even simpler terms when he wrote,
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
But what makes a claim “extraordinary?” I like to think about factual claims as classified into four levels. To help me explain this I’m going to enlist the hypothetical help of my seven year-old son, Bevan.
Level 1: Ordinary Claims
Let’s say that one day I claim to Bevan as a matter of fact that, “I eat almost every day.” He would hardly find that astonishing. In fact, he would probably want to know why Dad even felt the need to say so. It is an ordinary claim, and well-established in the natural course of things. It happens all the time and evidence for it mounts so quickly that even a child understands that, as Hume points out, it would be extraordinary to claim otherwise. We incorporate ordinary claims, usually implicitly, into almost every writing and utterance we make.
Level 2: Singular Claims
But what about historical events that aren’t so readily tested? Let’s say that I claim to my son that nuclear weapons were once exploded in two cities in Japan called Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These were “singular” events: they happened once and are not likely to ever happen again. Furthermore, these events happened before either of us was born. In response to a story like that he would undoubtedly pepper me with questions: What is a nuclear bomb? How does it work? Where is Hiroshima? Who dropped the bomb? Why did they do it? Did lots of people die?
If my answers are consistent, and I am willing to answer “I don’t know” where I really don’t, then his little built-in bullshit detector will not go off, and he will assign a high probability of that story being true.
But that’s not the end of the story: just because he provisionally accepts it doesn’t mean it is true: history does not work on certainties as does mathemetical proof— it works on probabilities based on a preponderance of the evidence.
As Bevan grows older he will ask more sophisticated questions answered by science and history that will either corroborate my story, or conflict with it: Why were the US and Japan at War? What is an atom? What was the Manhattan project and who worked on it? What is the effect of radiation on people? What is the difference between fission and fusion? Are there peaceful uses of nuclear technology? What is Hiroshima like today?
As long as these answers fulfill the criteria I mention above (eyewitness accounts, consistency among accounts, accounts from numerous disinterested sources, supporting physical evidence, etc.), they fill in and expand a puzzle which shows the true picture of history. And while there may still be outstanding questions, (for example, Japan’s view of the end and meaning of World War II vs. the U.S. view) the child realizes that their picture is asymptotically approaching completion, to the degree and depth to which they are willing to study, and that, while singular, the claim his Dad made to him about Hiroshima is well-substantiated and to a high degree of certainty.
Level 3: Extraordinary Claims
Now let’s imagine me presenting another “fact” to young Bevan: “The god Zeus changed into a swan and had babies with the human Leda.” Again I can imagine him peppering me with questions: What is a god? What other powers does Zeus have? Could Dad beat him in a fight? Did he have to be a swan to have a baby with Leda? What were the babies’ names? (Helen, Clytemnestra, Castor, and Pollux.) Were the babies half-swan?
I might offer answers that are consistent and credible for a seven year-old, and go on to add that there are many stories about Zeus, Hera, Aprodite, Apollo, Hercules, and all the rest of the Greek gods and demigods, and every one of these stories agree that these characters existed, and that there were even temples built to honor them, some of which are still standing. If I did a good job of it, he would again assign a high probability of that story being true.
However, as he grows older in an environment of free inquiry, he will continue to ask increasingly sophisticated questions: What is the biology of reproduction? What is a species? What modern evidence is there for the existence of the Greek gods? What was the influence of Greek mythology on us today? What are other mythologies like? Is Greek mythology more likely to be true than the others?
As his questions become deeper, and though my answers may continue to have a certain internal consistency, my son is likely to realize that that they lack correspondence with observed reality, and that is exactly what makes them “extraordinary.” The picture these claims form begins to bump up against the picture forming about the rest of the world and doesn’t seem to fit.
There are several strategies my son could use to reconcile this conflict: First, he could take a “leap of faith” by delicately stitching together the pictures in an awkward and fragile way and insisting that “Dad said it, I believe it, and that settles it.”
Alternatively, using a different kind of “leap of faith,” he could put each world view into separate “compartments” of belief that can be held simultaneously without ever bringing them close enough together to require acknowledgement that the edges simply don’t match.
Finally, he could avoid the “leap of faith” entirely by ultimately discarding part of his beliefs— particularly the literal belief in Greek mythology that Dad taught him.
Level 4: Impossible Claims
One more thought experiment with my son: let’s say I told him that I had once seen a squanticle. Never having heard of a squanticle, his first question would probably be to ask what it is. I would tell him that it is a two-dimensional shape drawn with one continuous, closed, non-overlapping line that is both perfectly a square and at the same time perfectly a circle. It has four corners and none at all. He would then undoubtedly ask me to draw one, to which I would reply that I really shouldn’t draw one because anyone who sees a squanticle immediately goes crazy and I wouldn’t want that to happen to him. And besides, the only color that can be used to draw a squanticle is squant, and I have deliberately not allowed any squant crayons into the house because I wouldn’t want him to accidentally draw a squanticle and go crazy.
At first my son might accept such an explanation. After all, this is Dad, right? But as he continues to learn, things just won’t add up: Squares can never be circles. If people go insane when they see a squanticle, and Dad isn’t insane, then how can Dad claim to have seen one? The nature of a shape is independent of its color. And finally, the color squant doesn’t even exist. Dad must have been pulling his leg.
Combining the Levels
Now for a true story involving claims on all four levels. One evening when my son was around four, I informed him over dinner, with a straight face and to my wife’s mild consternation, that under our dinner table at our very feet there lived a small dragon. He looked, and not immediately finding a dragon there asked me where it was. I told him that it was indeed there: it was an invisible green dragon named Fred. He peppered me with questions: How could it be green and invisible? Why couldn’t he touch it? (He learned the term “non-corporeal” in that conversation.) Why didn’t it make any noise? Was it friendly? Was it heavy? Could it breathe fire? Would it? Why did it live under the table? Was it just visiting? Did other people live with dragons? I gave him matter-of-fact answers to his questions, but I could tell he was not really satisfied by them: he wanted to see the dragon! Notably, one question that his young mind did not think to ask was, “Dad, how do you know there is a dragon under the table?”
In the coming days I reinforced the story by mentioning Fred in an off-hand way. Around that time our apartment flooded during a rainstorm and I told him that Fred went to live in the ballfield next to our building while the dinner table had been moved out during the restoration work that followed. Another time, I gave him a folded green paper dragon that I quite deliberately told him was not Fred. He asked me if it looked much like Fred and I told him no, because since Fred is invisible anything that looks like him can’t be a good representation of him.
To this day, we occasionally still talk about Fred. Sometimes we talk to Fred. We wave to Fred. I have never told him that Fred isn’t real. But it is clear that he knows the truth, and he has said as much: Dad was pulling his leg, and now he’s in on it. Why is this?
Because even though four year-olds are trusting, they are also rapidly building their picture of reality. Pieces that don’t fit are quickly discarded. Even though I presented my claims about Fred in matter-of-fact terms, his inability to find evidence for them immediately made him skeptical. And because I used no psychological coercion tactics such as shame, guilt, fear, or authority to compel him to believe me, he was free to hold the truth of my claims in abeyance, and to eventually reject my story as a fabrication.
Comfort, Coercion, and Culture
So what about Christianity? It too is a story involving claims on all four levels. As usual, the Level 1 (”ordinary”) claims are almost too mundane to discuss, and are therefore implicit: “The sun rose and set much the same way 2000 years ago as it does today,” etc. The existence of a historical Jesus is a Level 2 (”singular”) claim, as are attempts to harmonize the gospels and address other biblical contradictions not involving miracles. All claims of miracles or other divine intercession are at Level 3 (”extraordinary”). And the theodicies that attempt to address the Problem of evil and tortured expositions on the ineffable nature of the Trinity are Level 4 (”impossible”) claims.
So given this mix of dubious claims, why don’t we reject Christianity as easily as my son rejects Fred?
In the first place, unlike Fred, Christianity is comforting. It claims to have answers about ultimate questions: the meaning of existence, the purpose of human life, how to live rightly, the quality of existence after death, etc. These are weighty questions that we all eventually confront, and it is certainly much easier to rely on a seemingly knowledgable authority to hand us ready-made answers that have a certain internal consistency, than it is to set out alone to construct our own answers to these daunting questions.
Secondly, a sizeable part of the world is now steeped in a culture where Christianity— or rather, numerous competing strains of Christianity— are major survivors of the theologic wars that have been going on since the dawn of history. The younger and more intensely you are exposed to Christian indoctrination, the higher the probability you will become a Christian. This is true for other religions as well: people in the Muslim milleu are likely to become Muslims. So too with Judaism, Hindism, etc. Other myths, such as Zeus-worship, have fallen into disfavor: they are among the many fallen warriors of the theologic wars. But all of these religions— both the survivors and the fallen— point to their holy texts, their holy places of historical significance, their holy shrines, their holy relics, their holy men… as if they somehow constitute evidence for their metaphysical claims.
Finally and most importantly is that all of the psychological coercion tactics that I know would be unethical to use on my son with regard to Fred, are the stock in trade of the Christian milleu. Whether put delicately by a gentle Christian counselor, or thundered in a fire-and-brimstone sermon: shame, guilt, fear, and submission to authority built into the monotheistic world views are the essential mind control techniques that lead people to abdicate the personal sovereignty we observe in all healthy children: that wondering, joyful, self-centered, and rebellious spirit that religion (and too often society in general) tries so monumentally to quash into dull, complicit uniformity.
Dogmatism vs. Dynamism
So why do we pick one faith over another, and why do some pick no faith at all? For the vast majority, the Three C’s: Comfort, Culture, and Coercion, form an unbreakable knot that binds believers to their particular dogmatic world view.
But for a skeptical minority, including children unspoiled by coercion and still forming their view of the world, the other “C”: the quality of the empirical and logical Claims is paramount. These people have a dynamic world view: with the flexibility to adopt new beliefs as they are substantiated, the courage to discard beliefs that have become discredited, and the serenity to hold their beliefs open in the presence of the unknown.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Hey Robert,
It’s your old friend Terry again!
Incidentally for those unaware I am the Christian in which this article refers to.
The three C’s. Yes they do indeed have much to do with our development as human beings. One other C I would like to include in my personal opinion is Caution.
I mentioned in the previous thread that our life experience has much to do with our views on life. One simple example using your analogy from a child’s perspective would be an element on a stove. Children are curious and perhaps this could be said of all human-kind. The child that touches a hot element will quickly understand the result of that action. Caution will now play a role in the child’s view of the stove’s element. The element in future may not be hot but still the Child will be cautious. This is a learned response through life experience.
Alternately we have our knowledge come from teachers. We can simply take what is said for granted or we can somehow apply it in our lives to draw our own truths. Some things are much easier to prove in our own truths than others due to our profession. In other words it would be easier for me to prove something about computers than someone who is not skilled in that area. Some scientific evidence is accepted as truth because the people providing the evidence are professionals in that field. Science has been often discredited through new findings over the years as well as history, archaeology, medicine, geography …
As far as religion is concerned I grew up in a family that allowed us to make our own decisions. Although I had no coercion from my family, certainly coercion always exist and culture and comfort definitely play a major role.
Religion did not prove to be an answer for me but what Science cannot prove is where the bible lends the comfort of what Robert referred to.
I made no denial that a “leap of faith” was needed on my part when it comes to God/Jesus and the information contained in the bible.
We have spoken at depth together now and I mentioned that I certainly have no intentions to convince you towards my beliefs. Anyone who has visited our previous thread will understand that my initial comment was entirely related to Ronald Weinland’s books and that I found some good information in them.
I do have one question for you though?
Has your change been a result of the bible and what is written or as a result of your bad experience with WCG?
Cheers my friend,
Terry
December 17th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Gosh Terry, you appear to be hedging a bit towards psychological development theories there. Be careful where you tread. There are theories that support both nurture and nature causalities in human development.
I feel very strongly that beliefs in superstitions and Gods are primarily learned behaviors. Indeed, the vast majority of children brought up in Jewish homes will become Jewish of faith, just as children in Muslim and Christian homes will become members of their respective parental models’ faith systems. However, I can easily accept that there are a great many people born into this world with a genetic predisposition for developing maladaptive behaviors and belief systems.
Recently, while taking a psychology course at my local college, I learned that just over 50% of Americans develop mental disorders. I find it interesting how close that percentage is to the number of people in our country that claim to believe in God. In fact I certainly had to stifle a chuckle.
I also find myself smirking at your less innocuous form of coercion. You asked Ironwolf if his change from the irrationality of Christianity were really because he came to a logical conclusion on his own or if it were based in some reactionary emotional response fueled by his experiences with WCG.
This is something I hear all too often in my discussions with believers. This is merely an attempt at making a completely rational decision seem irrational by asserting that the person making the decision could have never made such a choice unless they were emotionally driven and thereby implying an invalid conclusion. This is the kind of trick used to make a person doubt themselves and their own thoughts. Truly one of the oldest of mind tricks.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
elementalmuse,
No trick of any kind is intended! Reading the personal history of Robert and our past discussions it is evident that he has had great experience with WCG and has was involved with them when the big change was made from Armstrong to Tkach.
I have no affiliation with this church and never had. My question which probably should have been posed in our previous thread is based on my own personal experience as a kid with the Catholic religion. It is understandable and evident to me that it was that religion which caused such a change for me at that time.
It is very easy for someone to become disinterested in a subject because of the teacher and not because of the subject.
I feel confident that Robert is aware of my sincerity of the question and knows that it is directly pertinent to my own experience with religion.
This being said, perhaps the question better suited our previous thread’s conversation!
Cheers,
Terry
December 17th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
elementalmuse,
One final point is in regards to your mention of “psychological trick”. I am certainly no Psychology major and if I were to ever even consider using such a ploy I would certainly try to find a much smaller target.
I have no ambitions of challenging Robert’s intellect and would not feel to confident in such a battle. The guy is obviously pretty well educated and much better learned at the subjects than I am.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Duality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq7XbKd321I
December 17th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Gotta love them Canucks!
Pretty cool video!
Cheers,
Terry
December 18th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Terry,
As far as psychological trickery is concerned, I simply felt compelled to state something that seemed apparent in your question. If this was not your intent, my apologies. As far as Ironwolf’s past is concerned, it seems from his open demeanor, that he is someone that isn’t necessarily living in the past, as many believers would presume of any non-believer. This is because of the believer’s inability to fathom their world in the absence of God.
I think about this mentality quite often. It puzzles me to no end. I too grew up in the Catholic church, but I can report no ill occurrences during my youth that polarized me in any one direction. What’s more, I can say that when I finally stopped long enough to to think about the skeptical questions I’d been presented with, and just answered them unto myself in complete honesty I never felt more relieved. I felt better about myself, and my future.
What comfort is it that we find in the concept of God? I think I have an analogy that fits the situation. There are many of us, if not all, that have experienced what it is to have an imaginary childhood friend. Which in truth is simply our innate duality as human beings manifesting itself. It seems that because so many people fail to develop fully in a psychological sense they are plagued with hold-overs from these earlier developmental stages in life.
As children we are highly egocentric, in other words, the world revolved around each us respectively, as that was the only way we were able to perceive it at that stage in our lives. Having a close secret companion was a great comfort. As we grow older we are meant to pass out of this phase. However, at times of great distress human beings tend to reflexively return to behaviors and habits that comfort them, such as comfort foods and the like. In my mind God is really a grown person’s way of keeping that comfort zone in tact by calling that secret friend God.
Its perfect really, I mean no one looks down on you, or calls you mentally incapable. The vast majority of people tend to exercise the same self deception so you don’t feel alone. What’s even more enabling than its general acceptance is its actual encouragement. I apply this analogy because it seems to fit best.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:14 am
elementalmuse,
My apologies back to you! It is a weakness of mine to let things that people say affect me. It’s definitely something that I need to work on but at the same time I suppose it is still relevant to point out my intentions.
I hear what you’re saying and in many ways I agree. I have certainly attempted to find comfort at the end of a bottle. I don’t recollect having an imaginary friend although I suppose that you could parallel this with God.
I pray to God, nearly, everyday and so those that see me might say he is imaginary. Some days I feel strong that he is listening and other days I feel like I am just going through the motions.
If you read my story through the link on my name you could easily draw the conclusion of me not wanting to feel alone. The other part is to have an answer to the inevitable how? I am talking of course beyond what Science can prove and what our logic can’t conceive.
Perhaps God is the cop out for me but I still need to draw on the relevance of the Bible. Yes some of the stories in their are hard to swallow. I think that human nature for us is to agree to things that we feel won’t interfere with our self centered lives. I know that sounds stereotypical to say but I think that it can be proven factually.
It bothers me for instance that a great deal of believers want to dismiss or simply ignore what is written in Revelation and at the same time most people want to dismiss what our Scientists have been screaming at us to take heed of with regards to Global Warming for the past decade or two.
Our reactionary positions tend to be the norm. Ironically I think that you will find that most believers believe in Science as well.
If someone were to ask me honestly what I would desire most (if I had a wish). I would have to say peace of mind. I guess in some ways medicine could help me out — anyone for a lobotomy?
So I am trying and at this stage my answer is Christianity. Have I found the peace of mind I am looking for yet? No. My gut feelings tell me that I am on the right path though.
Cheers my friend,
Terry
December 18th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Terry,
If Global Warming is of human making, then it can possibly be undone by humans.
If Global Warming has anything to do with Revelation, then it is a judgment upon humankind of God’s making, and won’t be undoable by humans.
So which do you choose: the hope for positive change in the here and now, or the apathy of accepting God’s “judgment?”
December 18th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Hi Ironwolf,
Interesting discussion here, but I can’t agree with all of your assertions at the start. May I propose the alternative view?
• Were these eyewitness accounts? (No. They were, at best, second-hand accounts….. Actually 3 out of 4 of them were – Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus, and Mark is identified (outside of the bible) as the one who fled Jesus’ arrest, naked, and was definitely a follower, although not one of the Twelve. Only Luke was not an eye-witness, and he states that plainly.)
• Was there no chance of collusion among the authors of the accounts? (No. The text of some gospels is clearly based on others that must have existed prior….. Absolutely right – there is every probability of collusion. It is widely believed that Mark’s was the first gospel written, and it was used by both Matthew (who added extra details) and Luke who expressly states that he built his gospel up by research into written and verbal accounts.)
• Are the accounts written by parties with no vested interest? (No. All the canonical gospels were written by Christian apologists. ….Again, I agree – No; although I disagree that they are “apologists”. I see no attempt to explain any of the events, they are simply portrayed as facts, for you to believe or not. Or do you mean something different by the term?)
• Are there any other eyewitness accounts written by parties with no vested interest? (No, even though you’d think that, for example, all the dead who were supposedly raised and walked around when Jesus died would have made an impression on someone as they lived out their “second lives” and eventually died again….. Actually, yes. Judea was under Roman rule at the time, and the Romans recorded the claims of this strange new “Cult”. To be fair, much of this was about the early church, rather than Jesus’ life itself, as they didn’t cotton on to Him until the church began to grow. The history shows, though, that they were worried about a revolt, as were the Jewish leaders. Further, although we do not have the originals, in the writers own handwriting, we have more copies of the books of the bible, copied (in general) sooner after the event than most texts from the ancient world. Yet who disputes the writings of Pliny for accuracy, or Virgil?)
• Do the accounts agree on other details? (No. It is, for example, impossible to construct a coherent timeline of the time from the Crucifixion to the Ascension without ignoring, glossing over, or proposing additional undocumented miracles to account for numerous conflicting biblical details. ….Hmm, interesting one. I’m not into apologetics, myself, but I may just try and answer this, out of curiosity. Wait one, as they say…)
• Is there any physical evidence of these specific events having occurred? (No….. In terms of what? Of written evidence there is plenty. What physical evidence do you expect to see of something that happened 2000 years ago)
• Are the claimed events explainable within the observed laws of nature? (No….. Agreed. Is it fatuous to say that’s the whole point?)
I hope that’s cerebral enough to avoid the label of “preaching”, as I would like to see your answers to the above. Meanwhile, I’ll work on point 5…
Cheers,
Dave
December 18th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Robert,
That’s an interesting point. I do believe that Science has given us enough evidence to realize that we are responsible for Global Warming. I do not propose to link this to Revelation but it may turn out to be that way.
The fact that I believe in God and Jesus Christ I also believe that we cannot thwart his will. With this said I would have to say that I believe we will be unable to stop the events of Revelation from happening. Are they tied to Revelation — who knows?
I believe that Science has gave us plenty of warning with respects to Global Warming and some have theorized that we may be too late to change the conditions that were warned by these Scientists for so long now.
My point is that it seems we as humans are always seeming to cram for the final or be reactionary. This seems to me the problem with proof vs. probability. Most did not take the Global Warming issue seriously so long ago when Scientists demonstrated that we could have a chance if we commenced with action at that time. Now that it seems their probabilities have become proof they are showing uncertainty of our ability to repair the damage.
This is the same with respect to belief in the Bible. If I say that I am a true Christian then I must believe in the book of Revelation and yet most never wish to discuss it and a great deal of churches won’t even talk about it. I believe that much of it has to with an inability to interpret the writing but to me it seems that this book should be most important to us.
So based on your final question my answer has to reflect both Science and God. I hope for a positive change in the way we that we govern ourselves with respect to the warnings of Science. I accept God’s judgment in Revelation based on the belief that what is written shall come to pass and use the opportunity to strive to be more pleasing in God’s eyes.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Dave,
Here are my responses to the points you have disagreed or raised doubts about:
• Eyewitness accounts: The authors of the Gospels were anonymous. The names of some of Jesus’ supposed disciples were given as titles to those texts in the second century. They were not eyewitnesses. See The Identity of the Evangelists: Second Century Guesses.
• Other eyewitness accounts: As I said, I’m looking for other eyewitness accounts of the miraculous goings-on Jesus was alleged to have instigated, not accounts of the Romans as they wrote about some strange “cult” decades or centuries later. Pliny wrote circa 112 CE— hardly an eyewitness. And if we’re thinking about the same Virgil, he died in 19 BCE, so I don’t see how he could be an eyewitness.
• Conflicting details: Here is the specific challenge of which I spoke. Please note the challenge does not consist in proposing piecemeal how each alleged contradiction could be reconciled. Here is the exact challenge:
• Physical evidence: I wouldn’t necessarily expect to see physical evidence. Nonetheless, I was not giving a list of everything I would need to prove the historical reliability of the gospels— only a list of things that would raise the probability of them being reliable. You say there is “plenty” of written evidence, but written evidence amounts to hearsay testimony— the most unreliable form of evidence. That is why this point asks for physical evidence also. (And from what I have seen, “plenty” is hardly a word I would use.)
• Violation of natural law: You ask if this isn’t the point, and I agree it is. But this is also what makes these claims “extraordinary” and considerably raises the standard of evidence to which they must be held.
I think you know the difference between what is preaching and what is not.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Terry,
Seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. I’m certainly open to the idea that we’ve fouled our own nests so badly that we may not recover. But that’s a far cry from saying that Global Warming is somehow God’s doing and part of the tripe that oozes out of Revelation. I’d rather take responsibility for the mess and do my best to help clean it up. That’s why I drive a Prius… as little as possible.
I suggest you help clean it up too— Revelation 11:18
says God will “destroy those who destroy the Earth.”
See, I can twist scripture to fit my own ends too!
God wants everyone to buy a Prius.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Hi Ironwolf,
Thanks for the response. I wasn’t trying to claim that Virgil or Pliny were eye-witnesses or even contemporary. I was just pointing out that we accept texts that are ascribed to them as being accurate and faithful copies of the originals, and do not doubt their authorship. Yet, copies of these texts are few and far between, and the copies we have were made many centuries after these two notables died. In contrast, there are several hundred copies of books from the bible which were made a few decades (in some cases) after the originals, but with the same thought process as above we deign to doubt their authenticity or authorship. That is illogical, and produces a (potentially) twisted account, as you quoted in your first point.
I have visited the site you linked to with the easter challenge and I understand it. I am working on it now, and will respond, God willing. I make no promises as to when , as I have a life to lead, and it’s 3 o’clock in the morning here and I have to work at 8. It is not a challenge to take lightly, although I do accept it eagerly.
Physical evidence - if you don’t expect to see it, don’t ask for it, or use its lack as a valid point. If you refuse to accept the written testimony (of Roman clerks as well as early Christians) because it is hearsay, then there is very little evidence to support much of what we “know” happened. I could justifiably doubt that Darwin wrote about evolution, for example. Who can prove that he didn’t copy someone else, or that the records of the publication of “Origin of the Species” weren’t falsified by his fanatical wierdy-beardy followers? And, for that matter, Shakespeare didn’t write a single sonnet - his wife’s third cousin’s aunt’s bakers’ sister’s neighbour did, at five pence a throw. No, if I am going to believe in all this, which only has written evidence, I cannot with the same arguments dismiss the gospels.
Cheers,
Dave
December 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dave,
I ask for physical evidence because it would help your case if it existed. If you have none to offer, then just admit you don’t and we’ll move on.
As far as I know we have little reason to doubt the authorship of Virgil or Pliny. Did they not identify themselves in their own (quite substantial) bodies of work? Yet, if the evidence in the article I referred to previously carries any weight, the ascription of the canonical gospels to the evangelists happened not until the second century. Surely this is a bit odd for documents that you wish me to believe are reliable and, in fact, of divine provenance? So the cases are different: we do have much more reason to doubt the authorship of the gospels.
I already spent quite some time in my main posting explaining the difference between “singular events,” such as Charles Darwin penning On the Origin of the Species or the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which Terry had previously raised in this same way) and “extraordinary events” such as the miracles described in the gospels. I find it rather sad that the faithful are so anxious to shore up the weak historical support for their holy texts that they go to the length of casting aspersions on such recent and well-documented events. It really does cast you all in a very disingenuous light.
Oh, and the Shakespeare authorship question is a rat’s nest you probably don’t want to poke into too deeply.
I look forward to your completed challenge.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:02 am
Good morning, Mr Ironwolf,
I must be off to work, but wish to quickly say 2 things.
On the authorship of the gospels: you do not have to believe - it is your choice. I am merely stating that you doubt the authorship of the gospels, about which in you say “the ascription of the canonical gospels to the evangelists happened not until the second century.” This second century started about 70 years after the death of Jesus, and about 10 years after the Gospel of John. You tell me - what are the earliest copies of texts that are attributed to Pliny and Virgil? Are they nearly so young? Are they nearly so numerous? Yet you (and I, for that matter) do not doubt that they are correctly identified. We must apply the same logic. Did Pliny identify himself? Yes, he did. Did John identify himself? Yes, he did. I see no difference.
On casting aspersions: Oh, please. Read my words again. Do you really think I am doubting Darwin and Shakespeare? If you believe so, then accept my apology - I do not doubt them, Wikipedia or no. The point was that I do NOT doubt them, and hence I do not doubt the gospels.
Got to go. Cheers,
Dave.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:20 am
Dave,
You say John identifies himself in the “Gospel According to John”, but since the title (and hence the attribution) came much later, what we can see from the text itself is that an unnamed author/narrator introduces a character named John in verse 1:6, who is spoken of in the third person. But John is introduced as a character in the exact same way in Mark 1:4
and in Luke 1:13
. So why do we not have three Gospels of John?
You can, of course, believe what your faith tells you to believe, but there is no scholarly consensus on the Johannine authorship issue, and it has been debated since the second century.
See Gospel of John#Authorship.
See Authorship of the Johannine works.
Again, it’s rather disingenuous to insist on the use of the date at the start of the second century. A century has 100 years in it, you know. The dates I’m seeing for the start of evangelists’ names being ascribed to the gospels are after 150 CE, at least 50 years after you are allowing. Before that they were all circulated and referenced as anonymous works.
The number of copies of a document does not attest to its provenance, only its popularity— and factuality is not a popularity contest, either.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:12 am
Hi Ironwolf,
Agreed. So if a century has 100 years, and John’s gospel was written about AD90, or if you prefer AD60 (which is another opinion) that makes the oldest copy we have a copy that was made, and ascribed to John, between 60 and 90 years after the original. As I understand it, there is no copy of Pliny’s writing, or Virgil’s, that was made so close to the original, yet there is little doubt as to the authorship.
Poularity v provenance: I agree with both your points, but you seem to be missing mine. The number of faithful copies shows accuracy, and also attests to the widespread belief of the author’s identity held both those then living.
Speaking of oneself in the third person was an accepted style of writing at that time - many of the classics do the same. I was thinking more of John 21
v24 - the disciple Jesus loved (v20), where he testifies that he wrote it.
OK, back to work,
Dave.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:16 am
Good Morning Robert,
Nice little slide in with scripture (Revelation 11:18
).
Revelation to me is an account of what will take place and I feel that there will be events that Science will find too extraordinary attempt to reason. This is why I have not stated Global Warming although you could see the results and possibly compare them to Revelation.
Of course I will have to throw in the argument that I believe God made man and therefore I could say that it is God’s doing but frankly I don’t desire to debate that.
I would choose to believe that something will happen so magnanimous that it will be difficult to not accept a higher power at work.
Cheers,
Terry
December 19th, 2007 at 5:34 am
Dave,
Your articles of faith may dictate what you must make John 21
to mean, and your articles of faith may also dictate that only the blind or demon-possessed could possibly think otherwise. And I grant that even today some authors speak of themselves in the third person.
But I think, rather, that there is much room to disagree with that interpretation of those scriptures. Pretty much everyone is spoken of in the third person, so there must be something to identify John the character in the story with the author/narrator. I read John 21
and I see nothing of the kind.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:39 am
Terry,
As long as you’re talking about your faith from a subjective viewpoint and not asserting anything testable, you’ll not get any conflict from me.
December 19th, 2007 at 6:11 am
Robert,
I would submit to that. The results of the test (whether I pass or fail) will not be graded during my earthly life as I know it according to my belief in God.
Cheers,
Terry
December 19th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
December 20th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Off-topic rant deleted. This exact text appears several other placed on the net. Never let it be said that I won’t delete something that doesn’t belong here , even if it’s by an atheist.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Dave,
Thanks for your answer to the challenge. I haven’t had time to go over it but I expect to in a few days.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Hi Mr Ironwolf,
That’s cool. I have a busy few day myself, and look forward to this discussion in due course. In the meantime I bid you a :
happy Christmas/blessed Yuletide/great Winter Holiday
(delete as appropriate, :-))
Dave.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Oh no! My smiley didn’t! Maybe it’s :), or ;)? Or is it the second bracket that caused the problem
December 20th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
…indeed, it was the bracket. So this should work:
?
OK, all smiley’d out now…