My last post dealt with the belief, common among skeptics, that Christianity is simply a form of superstition. Modern “science-minded” people reject superstitions, and so religious belief holds no interest for them. Historic Christian doctrine is in fact much different, however; while some who claim to be Christian may indeed be superstitious, the faith itself is built not upon fanciful thinking but upon a bedrock of truth.This distinction, and the importance of pursuing truth, can be seen in the following analogy: imagine a person who is suffering from a medical disorder. One day he is fine and the next the disease begins the process of eventually killing him. Initially, he does not know he is afflicted.He “feels” fine. He continues to go about his business, concerned with the problems of everyday life and not suspecting that anything may be different, let alone dreadfully wrong. Eventually, symptoms begin to appear, but they are not particularly troubling to him.After friends insist that he have them checked out, he agrees to see a doctor.This is a big step for him, for he does not “believe” in doctors.He thinks that doctors are often wrong and that they rely too much on pills and not enough on just “living right.” He knows that others really believe in doctors, but he is “sincere” in his belief that doctors do more harm than good, especially when one doesn’t “feel” that anything is wrong. After running a battery of tests, however, the doctor identifies the illness and tells the patient what is wrong.
In addition to understanding the affliction, the doctor also has the means to provide the solution. The patient resists, however, insisting that he feels fine and that he doesn't need any help. He views the surgery and medicines the doctor offers as “butchery” and “potions.” He sincerely believes that the doctor is practicing voodoo.Ultimately, the patient dies, blissfully unaware of his true condition, content in his belief that he was fine, and proud of his refusal to resort to talismanic remedies to fix something he did not believe was wrong.
As this analogy demonstrates, how the patient feels about his situation is not particularly relevant. Nor is the sincerity of his belief. He may feel fine, physically and emotionally, but the issue would be his actual condition, i.e. the truth about his disease. Christianity needs to be assessed on these terms. Either the Biblical claims are true - we are in a world of trouble and only Jesus can save us - or they're not. If they are true, how we feel about them is of little consequence. And ignoring and rejecting them will, in the end, not succeed.
Now some may object that doctors practice science, and so the analogy is misplaced. The patient was wrong not to rely on science. But science is simply one way of testing and developing knowledge.It is not the only way. Science cannot tell us whether we possess souls and whether these souls are in need of salvation.And science cannot tell us whether improbable past events actually occurred.The only way we can make that assessment is by considering the evidence upon which Christianity is based and becoming familiar with the philosophy that supports its claims.
But we must do so with an open and inquiring mind… for the consequences of ignoring our spiritual illness can be as devastating as the disease was for the unsuspecting patient.
Posts
11 comments:
You didn't mention one bit of evidence for Christianity; you just stated that it's based on facts. If there's any evidence for it, what is it?
Al said: “science is simply one way of testing and developing knowledge .It is not the only way”
Well, modern science is by far the best way we have found to date. Science is very good at assessing the probability of past events, including measurable Biblical claims. (We can use an evidence-based ‘historical method’ to assess Biblical documentation). If you can show that any other method of “testing and developing knowledge” has anything like the effectiveness of science, many of us would like to know about it!
Al said: “Science cannot tell us whether we possess souls and whether these souls are in need of salvation.”
Science can tell you about the lack of evidence for such supernatural claims and we can legitimately conclude that the probability of them being true is very low (depending on the specific claim). Other methodologies that attempt to improve that probability assessment tend to be faith-based, not evidence-based, and do not help (even slightly) to determine the truth.
Sandra:
Thanks for your question. Christianity is based on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The evidence of these events is the historical record of those living at the time, and those who later wrote about those events. The writers include those whose lives were transformed by their encounter with Jesus, but also a number of “non believers” as well who corroborate his life and crucifixion and the transformative effect his life had on human history. The evidence also includes the prophesies written before the time of Jesus that were fulfilled by him, lending additional support to his claim of divinity. It is a cumulative case that could not be made in a 500 word essay.
I would suggest several books that would cover the case:
The Historical Jesus or the Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, both by Gary Habermas
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.
These books lay out the case in a readable and straightforward way.
mcp:
Science is a systematic way of attaining knowledge, usually involving development and testing of hypotheses. Repeatability is typically the way that scientific knowledge is verified.
Past events are not testable nor are they repeatable. I can’t formulate an hypothesis regarding whether Washington crossed the Delaware and then put Washington in a lab and test different possibilities. I have to review the witness accounts and assess them for veracity and accuracy. On a very practical level, I have seen murder cases over the years in which the probability that the defendant would kill the victim was exceedingly low. Multiple character witnesses would testify to the defendant’s good character. Yet, the defendant did in fact commit the murder. So, yes, science may have some role to play in, eg., testing the age of a possible ancient writing, but it can neither prove nor disprove that the resurrection occurred.
You say that science can tell us about the lack of evidence for such supernatural claims. Actually, science tells us nothing about such things. Science, by definition, is confined to testing the natural. It presupposes that nature is all there is. But, by the same token, science cannot explain the mind, or why it is that I can detect “beauty” or “truth,” nor can it prove that reason and the scientific method are the best approach to obtaining knowledge. Science assumes that reason is reliable, as it is impossible to “prove” reason through the use of reason. These are philosophical questions. As for other methods being used to improve the probabilities, Christian apologists concede that the resurrection is an exceedingly improbable event. We don’t attempt to establish that it was highly probable. Indeed, it is its improbability that requires a supernatural explanation. You have foreclosed such an explanation, apparently believing that “science” demands it, but this reflects a limitation in your approach, not an actual or legitimate constraint.
@Al:
I think you may be grossly underestimating the power of a scientific/evidence-based approach to attaining knowledge.
Al said: “Past events are not testable nor are they repeatable”. But the ‘fingerprints’ of past events are often observable, and those observations are very definitely repeatable. How otherwise do you think we could learn about anything from the past? So of course we can assess the evidence available today and determine that the probability that “Washington crossed the Delaware” is very high.
Al said: “science tells us nothing about [supernatural claims]. Science, by definition, is confined to testing the natural”
Science can tell you a great deal about many supernatural claims. Whenever a supernatural event is claimed to have an effect on the real world, science can investigate that part of the claim. So science can investigate claims based on a (supernatural) demon-theory of disease, and compare them to those of the germ-theory of disease. Science can investigate claims of supernatural healings, and while not 100% ruling them out, can legitimately conclude that any supernatural effect is indistinguishable from placebo.
Al said: “science cannot explain the mind”
Science can tell you a great deal about the mind, and is discovering more all the time. I don’t know why you would think otherwise.
Al said: “Science assumes that reason is reliable, as it is impossible to “prove” reason through the use of reason. These are philosophical questions”
Agreed, but so what? I’m sure we both agree that reason is reliable in practice. And philosophy is unable to answer the questions anyway!
Al said: “Christian apologists concede that the resurrection is an exceedingly improbable event… Indeed, it is its improbability that requires a supernatural explanation. You have foreclosed such an explanation”
I certainly haven’t “foreclosed such an explanation”, what makes you think I have? But any explanation is only required if the resurrection claim itself is true (or likely to be true). What possible methodology that is not evidence-based have you used to establish that?
mcp:
You are comparing apples to oranges. We learn things from the past by collecting evidence of what occurred. Evidence consists of witness testimonies and physical artifacts. Probability assessments can tell us that a past event is highly unlikely. They cannot tell us that the event did not occur.
A “placedo” is the label placed on a cure that cannot otherwise be explained. Perhaps it is the power of the mind, or perhaps there was some other intervention. Science will not be able to determine which is which. Having no access to the supernatural, it does not speak to such questions, but only to physical manifestations.
Science tells us about what areas of the brain light up when certain thoughts are occurring. But the brain is not the mind. The mind is not the item being studied – it is the thing that is doing the studying.
I think you have foreclosed a supernatural explanation because each of your comments supports that conclusion. False dichotomies such as “demon-theory of disease” vs. “germ theory” demonstrate that you are not open to the possibility that supernatural interventions can occur that are not the stuff of horror films. The resurrection is an event that is heavily attested to in the historical record. It is not a “likely event” – quite the contrary. It nonetheless needs to be explained. A supernatural intervention is the best explanation of the evidence. The only way to conclude that it is not is to begin with the premise that nature is all there is…. But I’m beginning to repeat myself.
Al said: “A “placedo” is the label placed on a cure that cannot otherwise be explained”
No it is definitely not that. Wikipedia’s definition (which I think is a pretty good one): “a placebo is a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient. Sometimes patients given a placebo treatment will have a perceived or actual improvement in a medical condition, a phenomenon commonly called the placebo effect”.
And I repeat: “Science… can legitimately conclude that any supernatural [healing] effect is indistinguishable from placebo.”
Al said: “the brain is not the mind. The mind is not the item being studied”
A consensus of neuroscientists would disagree with you there. The mind is a property of the brain.
Al said: “The resurrection is an event that is heavily attested to in the historical record. It is not a “likely event” – quite the contrary. It nonetheless needs to be explained. A supernatural intervention is the best explanation of the evidence”
I will again repeat myself: “any explanation is only required if the resurrection claim itself is true (or likely to be true)”. You have already agreed that a resurrection is an exceedingly improbable event.
Now if you are talking about the REPORTS of a resurrection in the historical record, then sure, by all means look for an explanation for those reports. However, a supernatural intervention is not the only feasible explanation for the reports, so why would you favor a supernatural rather than a natural one? Surely your belief in the resurrection does not rely on one particular explanation (amongst several) for 2000 year old reports of an exceedingly improbable event!?
mcp:
Christianity is not an abstract claim that a
resurrection “probably” happened. When you insist on framing it that way, you betray the bias that is preventing you from considering the case. Christianity is based on a cumulative case, beginning with Biblical prophecies fulfilled in the life of Jesus, and continuing through his life, the effect he had on his followers, their behavior after his death, the radical transformation they underwent, the unique message they introduced to the world, their willingness to die rather than renounce a claim – that he rose again – with no worldly motive. It is the complete case that must be assessed, and yes, I do believe that the only reasonable explanation of all the evidence is that he did in fact rise from the dead, just as his early followers said.
@Al:
Just to clarify, are you claiming that the historical written evidence (Biblical and other) that we have available today is sufficient to conclude “that the only reasonable explanation… is that [Jesus] did in fact rise from the dead”?
Or are you relying on other evidence as well?
To MCP:
The evidence today has been the working of the Holy Spirit in changing of lives that manifest in the fruit that disciples of Christ do in our world. Jesus' resurrection brought on the Holy Spirit, the comforter. There is not enough room on this post to explain and I am afraid you don't have the eyes to see nor the ears to hear the explanation (Matt 13:15).
@Marshall:
It sounds as though you don’t think that that the historical written evidence is sufficient to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead. However, you think that ‘fruit’ in the changed lives of today’s Christians is sufficient. I think it is quite a leap to go from fruit to physical resurrection, and would be interested in your explanation!
Post a Comment