As for religious beliefs, I'm going to say that the founder of a religion coming back from the dead qualifies as both a large and an unusual "transaction."
I'm an agnostic, and by that, I mean I'm a doubting atheist. My agnosticism comes from a lack of sufficient, persuasive evidence for the existence of God. In the comments on this blog and on Facebook, many people have responded that God provided sufficient, persuasive evidence through the person of Jesus of Nazareth:
"You say that God should reveal more of himself than just creation, I think he did... in the person of Jesus Christ."
"If Scripture is to be believed, then God gave more proof than could be demanded of any deity by sending his Son."
"Your arguments so far have not dealt with Jesus Christ, who is the ultimate answer to the mystery of God. ... Every argument I've ever had against God cannot get around Jesus."
Does the historical Jesus of Nazareth provide us with sufficient, persuasive evidence of the existence of God?
I just finished reading Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan (not to be confused with Christian rapper Reza Rection nor with a character in The Chronicles of Narnia). Aslan is a professor of religion, and his book advances his conception of the Jesus of history. "I have constructed my narrative upon what I believe to be the most accurate and reasonable argument, based on my two decades of scholarly research." His studies have led him to the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth was
- One of many first-century wonder workers and exorcists in Palestine (although he appears to be the only one performing wonders and exorcisms free of charge)
- A charismatic leader and teacher
- One of many at that time who claimed to be the Messiah to shake off Roman rule
- One of many at that time to be crucified by the Romans for sedition
Although his understanding of Jesus is clearly at odds with Christianity, one very interesting concession he makes relates to the behavior of Jesus' disciples after the crucifixion. "Something extraordinary happened. What exactly is impossible to know. ... There is this nagging fact to consider: one after another of those who claimed to have witnessed the risen Jesus went to their own gruesome deaths refusing to recant their testimony." Is this "nagging fact" sufficient, persuasive evidence supporting the occurrence assertion of the resurrection?
In Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christ, we read,
[The disciples] were willing to spend the rest of their lives proclaiming [the resurrection of Jesus Christ], without any payoff from a human point of view. ... They faced a life of hardship. They often went without food, slept exposed to the elements, were ridiculed, beaten, imprisoned. And finally, most of them were executed in torturous ways. ... You've got eleven credible people with no ulterior motives, with nothing to gain and a lot to lose, who all agree they observed something with their own eyes - now you've got some difficulty explaining that away.
I completely agree. I have difficulty explaining away the nagging fact of eleven credible people remaining terminally loyal to their eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection. However, I don't believe this difficulty amounts to sufficient, persuasive evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. David Hume makes an interesting argument about miracles in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X. He says the probability that an event has a miraculous explanation is always lower than the probability that the event has a natural explanation. Always. I believe that's why Reza Aslan says, "The resurrection is not a historical event. It may have had historical ripples, but the event itself falls outside the scope of history and into the realm of faith."
Maybe faith is the core of the problem. Maybe faith is believing in something despite insufficient persuasive evidence. But why is faith required? I see no intrinsic value in faith itself. Why would God purposely and stubbornly withhold sufficient, persuasive evidence of his existence and Jesus' resurrection? So that we're forced to have faith? Why? What is virtuous about beliefs that lack justification?
Maybe faith is the core of the problem. Maybe faith is believing in something despite insufficient persuasive evidence. But why is faith required? I see no intrinsic value in faith itself. Why would God purposely and stubbornly withhold sufficient, persuasive evidence of his existence and Jesus' resurrection? So that we're forced to have faith? Why? What is virtuous about beliefs that lack justification?
It is extremely interesting to note that, while Aslan unashamedly presents and supports the idea that Jesus was a very exceptional - but not divine - man, he also says, "For every well-attested argument made about the historical Jesus, there is an equally well-attested, equally researched, and equally authoritative argument opposing it." There are people who are smarter and better educated than me who have arrived at authoritative, well-researched conclusions about Jesus which contradict the authoritative and well-researched conclusions of other people who are also smarter and better educated than me. That by itself is enough to conclude that sufficient, persuasive evidence regarding the resurrection does not exist.
Hiya Greg, I thought that was a very honest and refreshing post. I would like to comment on the turning point of your analysis which seems to be Hume's argument. It's a fair position to question the miraculous and not to believe on a whim. As a Christian that is in fact how I avoid being duped by the likes of televangelists such as Benny Hinn. However it seems that in real life this healthy skepticism is replaced with what is in fact an a priori prejudice against all miracles, and as a result of any possibility for God to reveal himself to you. History can provide evidences but nothing can in fact be proven in a scientific sense. In light of this I would say that the intrinsic value of faith is the ability to make a correct judgment on what the facts themselves tell you and to live by that judgment. We exercise faith all the time when we are faced with very important matters and where indecision due to a perceived lack of evidence can lead to regret.
ReplyDeleteHume's argument seems sound, especially in light of an a posteriori understanding that people of all faiths experience miracles from very different gods. If there was consistency among the testimony of those who experienced miracles, then the miraculous would be valid evidence (and it would probably not be considered miraculous, but rather factual/scientific).
DeleteBeyond Hume, the Bible itself seems to have an a priori prejudice against the miraculous as evidence for or against God. Deuteronomy 13 says, "If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, 'Let us follow other gods' (gods you have not known) 'and let us worship them,' you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul." If the Bible disallows miracles as evidence for the existence of other gods, then it should also disallow miracles as evidence for the God of the Bible.
I have asked God for an experience or for a testimony of his existence that is undeniable. An omnipotent being can do that regardless of the intellectual hurdles between me and him. However, that has not happened. Maybe it has for you, but for the reasons stated above, that kind of personal revelation does not qualify as sufficient persuasive evidence for anyone other that the one to whom God undeniably revealed himself.
Greg- I enjoyed what you shared in this post, philosophically stimulating for sure. I wanted to comment on your thoughts on Faith. What you explained is exactly one of the things that motivated me to go to seminary - to gain knowledge, because the "faith" lingo bothered me so much. Your idea that Faith replaces knowledge or that "faith is believing in something despite insufficient persuasive evidence," is very common among both Christians and non-believers. What I discovered is that this idea does not exist within the early Christian Faith and is not found in the Bible at all.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, the definition of Faith is "Trusting," or active trust. This means actually trusting God, not just thinking He could be trusted if I need to. But in order to Trust God, you need to affirm some beliefs about Him and think that God makes sense to believe in. You ask why Faith is required, and the answer is because Faith or "Trusting" is a relational concept, therefore, "Faith" brings us into a relationship with God - if we don't trust Him, then we don't have much of a relationship. But Faith is never the reason for a belief within the Scriptures, it is the foundation of the relationship with God. If you did not believe certain things then you would have no reason to Trust God. Again this means "Trust" is the foundation of the relationship, not of the belief. So, "What is virtuous about beliefs that lack justification?" NOTHING - so I find myself generally agreeing with your point here. Biblical Faith is built on Knowledge, and Knowledge leads one to Trust. Just like we Trust our family based on what we know and believe about them. Here is the surprising thing we find in the Scripture: Multiple times the authors and even Jesus say: "So that you may know..." We never see: 'so that you may have faith.' We find this statement in multiple places starting in Exodus 6:7, 7:17, 8:22, 10:2, 16:6,12 and a few more. Then Jesus points it out again in Mark 2:10 and then Peter makes another assertion in Acts 2:36 (know for certain...). Finally, John reminds us again in 1 John 5:13. Knowledge and Faith were never in conflict, rather the first is the basis for the latter. Sadly, people have convoluted the concepts and use Faith as their reason for knowing or believing - which is confusing and really just means they don't know how to explain whatever they are referring to. (I also referred to the subject of Faith in a FB response to your 2nd post, but of course it came up again since the idea is such a mess.)
I don't have Faith in the Resurrection, I'm convinced of it, but I have Faith in Jesus because I'm confident in that belief. On that topic, there is a lot more evidence than just the Disciples dying - that is the specific reason we know the message of a Resurrection wasn't a fabrication or meant to deceive us. So I think you're right that this evidence doesn't take us quite far enough, but we still need an explanation for it. Just because one point of evidence isn't sufficiently persuasive doesn't mean the collection isn't. The resurrection isn't based on just one piece of evidence and the collection of evidence is quite persuasive. Love your willingness to say where you're at on all this.
Duane, I really like what you're saying here. My (limited) studies of epistemology have taught me that knowledge is "justified true belief." Therefore, justified belief is part of knowledge. Faith fits in there somewhere. You have faith in stuff you're convinced of. Me too. I have faith that the plane won't crash and that the chair will support my weight because I'm convinced that the plane won't crash and that the chair will support my weight.
DeleteI say amen to your view of faith.
What I really dig in this comment is the idea of judging a collection of evidence, rather than judging evidence on a granular level. I look at the disciples reaction after the alleged resurrection as inconclusive. You're saying that a lot of inconclusive evidence that all points in the same direction can be conclusive. I've got to let my brain work on that some more.
Dude, awesome response. This is why I love solid education and dislike Christian catch-phrases and fortune cookie theology.
DeleteRight, Justified True Belief is a solid position on the basis for knowledge in Epistemology. I think those are good examples for what I'm saying about Faith, our "Trust" in the plane, etc. is based on what we are justified in believing first. Glad that sits well. In regards to our initial beliefs, before we get to the Faith/Trust question, the collection of evidence is key. If there was only one reason for an idea and there wasn't a collection, then the idea may lack overall Justification. I will apply the same principle to the existence of God, I rely on a collection of evidence, I don't think there is one point or argument that just settles it - there is no magical reason that answers everything in either of these cases. The disciples reaction and ultimate deaths answers some of the questions as I mentioned previously - specifically that they didn't make it up and must not be liars since that would mean they 'lied themselves to death' - but there are other questions that also need answered before we conclude the resurrection is true. If the collection of evidence answers the general questions then this will amount to Justification.
DeleteLooking at this post again, I am reminded of my reaction to the quote you mentioned from Hume. Of course the probability that an event has a natural explanation is "more probable" than a miraculous explanation. The majority of events are Natural events - should be obvious - so it is certainly the more likely scenario. But it is irrelevant which is more likely in general, the question is what is more probable based on the evidence in the particular case. All we need is one miracle to be actual, so I don't think his comment argues for anything, it is meant dismiss the notion of a miracle at all, which renders the particular evidence to be irrelevant. The issue is whether any miracles have actually happened at all. However, we don't have much evidence outside the Bible to assess when it comes to Biblical miracles, except with one - the claim of the Resurrection. So that claim is key as to whether God has revealed Himself clearly; and if we have justification to believe that one, the rest are easy.
Greg, some thoughts:
ReplyDelete//Hume's argument seems sound... If there was consistency among the testimony of those who experienced miracles, then the miraculous would be valid evidence//
When you talk of consistency, it's like referring to the scientific method, which proves things through repeated testing. The resurrection is a one-time event that the Bible claims to have occurred 2000 years ago, so the scientific method is the wrong approach. We should be using the historical approach - the kind used to determine whether, for example, sources explaining Julius Ceasar's reign are reliable.
//and it would probably not be considered miraculous, but rather factual/scientific//
Again, I notice that "probably" is usually an euphemism for "always". I observe many agnostics like Dr Bart Erhman denying miracles outright because they are "by definition the least probable explanation". I hope you see the close mindedness of this position.
//Beyond Hume, the Bible itself seems to have an a priori prejudice against the miraculous as evidence for or against God... If the Bible disallows miracles as evidence for the existence of other gods, then it should also disallow miracles as evidence for the God of the Bible.//
Back to my comment on Trilemma, we all know God exists (but are blinded by our sin), so we are without excuse on judgement day. On top of this we need to realize that by Deuteronomy, the nation of Israel has had extensive dealings with God, and they have much more than miracles as basis not only for knowing that He exists, but also for knowing who He is. It only makes perfect sense that they would be morally culpable for being deceived by a trickster. By the way, learning about the character of God is also the best way for Christians like me not to get duped by the likes of Benny Hinn. The fact that he dupes a lot of people shows how little those people know about the Bible. Finally, this point is also irrelevant if there is strong evidence of Jesus' resurrection, which would deny the main point of this post.
//I have asked God for an experience or for a testimony of his existence that is undeniable.//
Experiences are good, but never enough. As a Christian I evaluate my experiences in the light of the Bible, because my trust is in the Bible. I would guess that you always interpret your experience in the light of "science" and would always look for a naturalistic explanation for whatever you experienced, and you that would distrust another person's story even more. But once again, what really matters is the evidence for the resurrection, and whether or not it is a true that you have a sinful nature that deceives you and closes your mind toward this evidence.
//An omnipotent being can do that regardless of the intellectual hurdles between me and him.//
I believe it's not an intellectual hurdle, but a psychological and spiritual hurdle. First you have to believe in the existence of sin, and you need to hate your own sin.
//However, that has not happened. Maybe it has for you, but for the reasons stated above, that kind of personal revelation does not qualify as sufficient persuasive evidence for anyone other that the one to whom God undeniably revealed himself.//
Maybe it's happening now, or will happen soon. At least that's what I'm praying for.
..
..
..
Speaking of evidence.. here's a start.
Why I Believe the Bible - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZNXMJGYNG8
Habermas-Humphreys debate - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93UyXGfYDG4
Habermas-Ahmed debate - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU2ButuNyI0
I totally hate it that we’re forced us to use a historical approach because it is very difficult for anyone to conclusively demonstrate what did or did not happen 2000 years ago. I am convinced that if God exists, he is capable of erasing the line between the supernatural and the natural, making his existence and identity a non-controversial factual claim, like gravity. (We clearly disagree about God’s obviousness. You think he’s made himself obvious. I think it’s obvious that he’s not obvious. Not sure where to go with that.)
DeleteDo you believe he is capable of making his existence a non-controversial factual claim, like gravity? And if so, then what’s holding him back?
I think your take on Deuteronomy actually backs up my point. It seems like you're saying that God revealed himself to the Israelites to such a complete extent that it was appropriate for them to disregard signs and wonders pointing to the existence of other gods. Why doesn't he make his existence that clear to everyone always?
//I totally hate it that we’re forced us to use a historical approach//
DeleteI also wish there were present non-controversial factual claim. I disagree that the evidence behind Jesus' resurrection is lacking.
//I am convinced that if God exists, he is capable of erasing the line between the supernatural and the natural, making his existence and identity a non-controversial factual claim, like gravity.//
All I have to say here is conjecture on my part, but based on my knowledge of God's holiness this would be in fact impossible. His presence filling the temple would still be considered by some as controversial evidence that is open to questioning. What you are asking for would be the full experience of God, but then that would have to include His holiness that hates, judges and punishes sin. So the issue here, I think, is not God's capability, but God's character as is clearly revealed in the Bible, and once again, our sin.
//I think your take on Deuteronomy actually backs up my point.//
Again, sorry for being a broken record, but what we have is a sin problem, so the solution is not empirical proof of His existence but an understanding of how to get rid of sin. Hence His word is more conclusive than signs and wonders.
//It seems like you're saying that God revealed himself to the Israelites to such a complete extent that it was appropriate for them to disregard signs and wonders pointing to the existence of other gods.//
If you read the Old Testament you see how bad the Israelites failed to grasp His revelation through signs and wonders. They kept disobeying!
//Why doesn't he make his existence that clear to everyone always?//
Back to my conjecture, his clear "existence" would be experienced by being fully in His presence, and there's just no mixing between His holiness and our sinfulness. Sorry, this probably isn't the "proof" you were looking for; I realize it totally sounds like a cop out. All I can do is refer you back to Jesus' resurrection.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete