Board index ‹ Christianity

[Nameless]

I see nothing divine in Christianity. Can you help?

[jimwalton]

That sounds like a great discussion, but before I can respond with anything I need to know what you mean and what you're thinking. Can you clarify and explain a little?

[Nameless]

I think possibly one of the issues that comes up often is that of evidence and the need for evidence to make something believable and be accepted, and we hear it all the time. I don’t think that evidence is terribly important in a belief, at least not initially. One of the things that I went through was the shifting of my beliefs and what I considered as a standard of proof. I did become more empirically evidence-based because I realized the sheer amount of things that I didn’t know just as I continue to realize the things that I still don’t know as well as the things that I may never know. It’s almost like a strange triage way of learning. And above all this I realized that it was very easy for a person to trick themselves, and I’m no different. One of the reasons I come here is the question; why do people believe what they believe, and what does that mean for my own beliefs? Now, I think that asking for evidence is a tricky proposition because I would consider our standards of proof to be different. I would be surprised if you didn’t have some personal story or deep personal reason for choosing Jesus. When I hear some of these stories (and some are better that others) I can understand why a person went that route but it’s always a subjective belief and that person is at the mercy of their own biases (and in a way we all are), I’m no paragon of truth, by a long shot. I believe (in a way) you and I are at opposite ends poking belief (and un-belief) with the same kind of stick, if that makes any sense.

I don’t see anything divine in Christianity (or other religions for that matter)

I’ll give you one of the major reasons why, it caused me to stop and question the Bible in general.

The exodus, and the way it’s handled by evangelicals and believers in general. The reason I think I this was “the straw the broke the camel’s back” is because it reaches a point where there has to be some kind of consensus as to the story being tangible history. I wasn’t a believer in biblical infallibility, I assumed that the writers took some artistic license with the story, and I was fine with that. I had been taught as a believer in the Christian God of love, a very warm fuzzy God. This is not the God of the Old Testament (or even the New Testament, depending on who you ask)—not even close, but you’ve heard this before, I imagine. Now, after Moses comes down on from the mountain and killed some folks, I had to stop. I thought; ”O.K. let me see what the actual history and background is on this story.” What I found was that there was no evidence at all for the Exodus on multiple fronts, Egypt, the time in the desert, and a taking of the Promised Land. This for me was a crippling blow. This is the very important aspect of the Abrahamic religions and there’s simply nothing there. Of all the attempts that I’ve seen to try and reconcile this have failed my standard of proof. Most attempts at conversion come from a desire to trigger an emotional response. Belief on faith is an emotional decision and I don’t doubt that people will have things to help strengthen that belief but there standard of proof is different and when they try these attempts (and they sometimes seem very tempting) I ask myself; “How does this make the Exodus history?”

[jimwalton]

You've asked lots of different things. I'll try to get it all in one post, but it may be long. I'll abbreviate at the risk of leaving out some important things.

You said you don't believe evidence is important in the beginning of faith, at least. I think exactly the opposite. I don't think faith is really possible until there's evidence. I think faith is making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make that assumption reasonable. When we sit in a chair, we can't be sure it will hold us, but we assume it will (faith) because we've sat in thousands of chair, and we have evidence that they generally hold up. Same with turning the key in your car (assuming it will start), going to the grocery store (assuming it is still there), etc. You'll notice in the Bible (whether Moses, Elijah, Jesus, whoever) that people were never asked to believe until evidence was put in front of them, and then they could have faith for future things based on what had already been evidenced to them.

The problem with empiricism is that it can't possibly be the justifiable basis for all knowledge. We learn in many different ways, and our senses are only one of them. There are lots of different kinds of reasoning (deductive, inductive, abstract, abductive), and only some of those are empirically-based. In addition to that, I have known my sense to deceive me: I see a building in the distance that looks like a rectangle, and I get there to find out it's round! I think I hear a person behind me, but I turn and no one is there. Empiricism has it's values, but there are limits to it.

Which brings us to the very shaky ground of epistemology—how we know what we know. It's never been resolved. We don't really know how we know what we know, and anything we know can be logically and empirically challenged, to the point where, to be able to live in reality, we just have to say, "Well, that's what I believe." And that's makes sense, but it's funny stuff. People believe what they believe because of experiences, empiricism, reasoning, evidences, and bias, and that's the best we can do. It's quite subjective. I've read some books on the philosophy of science and am shocked to find out how subjective even science is.

Standards of proof are another matter. any lawyer will tell you there are different kinds of evidence: material evidence, circumstantial evidence, testimonial evidence, anecdotal, statistical, reasoning, documentary, historic, scientific, etc. Different kinds of evidence are valid in different situations. For instance, a lawyer may use scientists, eye-witnesses, circumstantial evidence, and testimonial evidence to bring his case to a jury, who must weigh the various evidences to arrive at a verdict. If science were the only evidence, court cases would be decided by scientists, not juries. But a whole lot more is involved. Evaluating the Bible is more like a court case than a science experiment. We have to use the proper measures in appropriate places. Miracles can't be proven by science because they're not repeatable on demand, or even able to be studied by reproducibility in controlled environments (the only appropriate arena for scientific inquiry). When we talk about the reliability of Scripture, we take into account many factors of evidence that are not scientifically related. Objective truth can be approached deductively, inductively, abductively, and through reason alone (mathematics).

My reason for choosing Jesus is the resurrection. The resurrection has the weight of evidence heavily in its favor, and to me that is the convincing keystone. While experiences count in this arena, the case rests far heavier on the reasonable evidence for the resurrection. That's what I stand on. After that, my experiences and the experiences of others, the history and sociology of the origins of the church, and the truth I read in the Bible all add to what creates faith in me.

As to the Exodus, I have studied this deeply, and there's a lot I can say, but I'll try to give you the Reader's Digest condensed version.

1. Plenty of evidence of Semites in Egypt has been found, but nothing to specifically identify any of them with Israelites. One 4-room Israelite house has been found, but that's a far cry from what we're looking for.

2. Every cultural indicator in the book of Exodus is true to the culture of Egypt at the time. Everything about it rings true and has been verified. Somebody knew explicit details about the time and the culture, which doesn't make as much sense if the book was written 600 years later. Even the geographical references are spot on.

3. If you're looking for evidence of the Exodus itself, you need to understand that archaeologists don't usually dig in the middle of the desert. They dig on tells, where there is a good chance of finding something and therefore of securing funding. Nobody's digging in the desert. Besides, a nomadic people aren't going to leave much behind. They take everything with them. There really isn't much for an archaeologist to help with here.

4. You can't expect the Egyptians to carve into the side of their temples how they were humiliated by the Israelites. You're not going to find that record. There really isn't much for an archaeologist to help with here.

5. Not a single papyrus record has been found in the Nile Delta, where the Israelites allegedly lived. Not a single one, from any era, Egyptian, Semite, or Israelite. Why? Because such things don't survive in the damp and humid. They need hot and dry. Again, there's not much that an archaeologist can help with here.

And yet then we turn around and claim that the archaeologists have found nothing, and so the story of the Exodus is a crock. You know, I did a few cartwheels yesterday, but I can't prove it, a scientist can't measure it, and an archaeologist won't find evidence of it.

I agree that I wish there was more. It would be awesome to find material remains of 25,000 people having lived in Goshen 3500 years ago. But the delta is always in motion, changing it silt and its course. The Israelites were mainly shepherds, not farmers, but we'd still expect material remains, except maybe in the area of Goshen in the delta. Those are environmentally challenging situations for an archaeologist. In addition, the people wandered. They didn't stay in one place once they left Egypt, and we have very few place markers for where they were. We don't even know where Sinai was. Where do you expect an archaeologist to dig? I've been to Israel. There are archaeological remains on just about every hilltop. It's crazy. But they can only dig up so much, so they concentrate on the prominent tells. Nobody's just digging in the desert. You know the old adage: absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence.