Board index ‹ Bible

[Bilge Bulge]

I'm much less concerned with who wrote the books than I am with the content itself.

We know, without any doubt, that J.K. Rowling wrote the Harry Potter books. This says nothing about their credibility as reliable statements on reality. Even if we knew, without any doubt, that the Gospel of John was, in fact, written by John, it is still nothing more than a story until outside evidence backs up its claims about reality. I don't care that John is in fact actually John while claiming that Jesus did miracles and such until there is a reason to believe that supernatural events can occur or did occur. Someone's word is not enough evidence to believe this. I'm sure you've heard the adage, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". An old book is not sufficient evidence to make supernatural claims about the truths of reality.

We also know that a large portion of the book (The Old Testament) is very clearly a story, and not based on what we know of actual historical events. This further drops the credibility of later biblical stories as actual facts.

[jimwalton]

I'm glad to hear you recognize the documents might be authentic, and even that the authors may be who they say they are. Your caution is in the fact that John attributes miracles to Jesus. And then, obviously and correctly, you go behind that to the question of whether or not supernatural events are possible. I like the way you think.

Supernatural events are only impossible if your presuppositions disallow them. Of course science cannot prove that the universe is a closed system, that no metaphysical entities (let alone beings) exist, and that causation by those metaphysical entities is impossible.

The way science generally works, I'm sure you know, is that a hypothesis is stated and an experiment is designed to test the hypothesis. Depending on the hypothesis, specimens are gathered or facts are measured and repeated and documented. Through trial and error the technique and instrumentation necessary are refined to give the information desired, and patterns are established to help eliminate spurious ideas ( and specimens) and measuring mistakes.

Miracles are more like pebbles dropped in the ocean than they are like science experiments. There is no lasting effect and no possible proof for later generations to find. If it's true that Jesus walked on water, what artifacts do you expect an archaeologist to dig up, or writings from anyone other than the 12 who saw it? But more to the point is: Does that prove it didn't happen?

Suppose I was hiking a trail in Vermont with some friends, and the five of us saw a catamount (cougar; mountain lion) cross the path in front of us. He was there and gone so quickly that none of us was able to take a picture. When we go back to the house eager to tell our story, other family members may want to see the evidence. We have none, but we each saw it and testify to it. We tell other friends, and they check on the Internet and discover that scientists say there haven't been catamounts in Vermont in decades. Does that mean we didn't see one?

What evidence does one expect of the feeding of the 5,000, an axe head floating, a donkey talking, a pillar of cloud by day and fire by night, or Jesus healing a lame man? Certainly nothing an archaeologist can find, and obviously not a phenomenon a scientist can test and confirm. Asking for scientific proof of Jesus' miracles is like asking a doctor to use a stethoscope to check out my broken heart and prove that it is so.

Much more important to the discussion of miracles is the identity claims that Jesus made. If there is no such thing as God, we would expect miracles to be a ridiculous imaginative mistake that people make based on wishful thinking or legend building. But if God is a real being, miracles are no problem. Indubitably, the Creator God, having been the designer and creator of the laws of physics, has the freedom and power to use those laws or supersede them at his desire and to serve his purposes.

If there is such a being as God, and if Jesus was his Messiah, it would not at all be improbable for God to empower him to do miraculous signs. The question is more the identity of Jesus than the rationality of miracles by his hand.

Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga asks what the problem is in believing in miracles—why should anyone object to it? "Why can't the causal continuum be rent by the interference of supernatural, transcendent powers? Why are miracles necessarily incompatible with modern science? They are only incompatible if it can be proved that nature is a closed continuum of cause and effect, and closed to intervention or interference on the part of beings outside that continuum, including God himself." In no way does the predictable character of nature exclude the possibility of miraculous events. Science cannot prove that the universe is all there is, meaning that it's a closed causal system. Natural laws offer no threat to special divine action.

The only way to show that miracles are impossible is to disprove the existence of God, a task that is both logically and scientifically impossible.

What about Jesus' miracles in particular?

1. We have the eyewitness testimony of the apostles. Jesus' miracles were one of the major evidences to convince them that he was who he claimed to be. His healing, the Transfiguration, and his resurrection were a large part of what motivated them to accept that he was God. Their faith was based in part on the miraculous signs they saw him perform.

2. The inclusion of verifiable historical data in the miracle stories lends credibility to the entire narrative. The authors obviously intended to be interpreted as recording historical events. For instance, in 2 Chronicles 32, Isaiah and King Hezekiah pray for a miracle to save them from being conquered by the Assyrians. Assyrian records corroborate that Sennacherib did not conquer Jerusalem, but returned to his capital city, and later was assassinated by his sons, as the Bible records.

3. Josephus, in a text considered historically reliable, mentions "Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who did surprising deeds…"

4. The cultural milieu of Jesus' life speaks to the truthfulness of the records. The era of 1st century Palestine was not one characterized by superstition and gullibility. Jews were educated people, and Romans and Greeks were skeptics. That the Gospels record that people swarmed around Jesus, both requesting and experiencing miracles, is evidence of their veracity. What is also recorded is that the people were skeptical of Jesus' ability to do miracles until they saw with their own eyes and were convinced. What is lacking is corroborative writing of their happening. The only written record of Jesus' miracles is in the Bible itself.

5. Jesus' enemies admitted that he performed miracles.

6. Alternative interpretations of the miracles (mass hallucinations, mythical creations of biased authors, etc.) are neither logical nor credible. There is no such thing as mass hallucination, and the historical nature of the narratives, along with the intent of the authors to have been recording history speaks strongly against alternative interpretations.

7. The resurrection of Jesus is immensely compelling.

As far as the Old Testament, that it is "very clearly a story" sure looks like a conclusion based on your presuppositional prejudice. In actuality, the OT corresponds tremendously well with what we know of actual historical events. It only drops the credibility of later biblical stories if you turn a blind eye to what archaeology and history have told us.

[Bilge Bulge]

Thanks for being civil and coherent. I'll get right to it.

> Supernatural events are only impossible if your presuppositions disallow them

Nope. That isn't how this works. Beliefs are formed as they're demonstrated, not believed until they're proven wrong. I don't presuppose that these things are impossible, and never claimed they are, but I have no reason to believe them until they're demonstrated.

> science cannot prove...that no metaphysical being exists

Again, there is no reason to believe that one does simply because it can't be disproved. I'm sure I'm not the first one to tell you this, but that is just another positive presupposition that can be used in support of any claim.

> Does that prove it didn't happen?

The fact that we can't find it isn't proof that it never happened, but again, there is no reason to believe it did just because it hasn't been proven to have not happened. Flying Spaghetti Monster exists entirely because of this argument.

> When we go back to the house eager to tell our story, other family members may want to see the evidence.

Sure, but considering this is a perfectly realistic event that happens and we know that cougars are real, this is hardly related. It's a bit of a stretch to try making this connection.

> What evidence does one expect of the feeding of the 5,000, an axe head floating, a donkey talking, a pillar of cloud by day and fire by night, or Jesus healing a lame man? Certainly nothing an archaeologist can find, and obviously not a phenomenon a scientist can test and confirm.

Maybe we can't find the archaeological evidence for this, but that doesn't mean we should believe it. Virtually all of our evidence, throughout all fields of science, would lead to us concluding that these things do not happen. Certainly we could not disprove it happening then, but there has never been the slightest observation to support these possibilities, and countless observations that make them absolutely outrageous claims. In all of the tests that scientists have done so far, not any observations have been made to support this being a possibility.

> wishful thinking or legend building

Now you're getting somewhere.

> If there is such a being as God, and if Jesus was his Messiah, it would not at all be improbable for God to empower him to do miraculous signs.

Sure, and if Allah is the creator, it would not at all be improbable for Mohammed to have flown to heaven on a Pegasus.

> Science cannot prove that the universe is all there is, meaning that it's a closed causal system.

This has been covered so thoroughly it's tiresome. Something not being disproven is not evidence that it is true. Claims like this become harder and harder to support when all of the evidence that we do have continues to explain reality in other ways.

> The only way to show that miracles are impossible is to disprove the existence of God, a task that is both logically and scientifically impossible.

You are saying the same thing over and over, and the response is rather obvious. It's the same as your other points.

> What about Jesus' Miracles?

1. Eyewitness testimony, in a book full of other stories that already contradict reality, is hardly reliable.

2. Some points being historically accurate has no bearing on the truth of spiritual claims. If I perfectly describe my house, school, and city to you, then tell you that I'm God, you have no reason to believe that I'm God, even if my descriptions of the former claims are perfectly accurate, especially if I waited to tell you for thousands of years and my story has become legend.

3. Josephus is widely regarded as a forgery, and at best is just another story we don't have any reason to believe.

4. See response to number 2. This is still evidence written in the Bible and we don't have good reasons to believe it is literal history. Other religions and other supernatural claims line up with the cultures from which they've originated, and you don't seem to believe in those.

5. Jesus' enemies, according to the Bible, also performed miracles. For all the same reasons above, this is not evidence that any of it happened or is more than a story.

6. Alternative interpretations are irrelevant unless we take the Bible as literal history, which we shouldn't, especially considering much of it contradicts what we indisputably know about actual history.

The resurrection of Jesus is told in stories that all contradict each other and hardly compelling unless you already believe in the rest of the Bible. To an outsider, his resurrection is barely an inconvenience to him and can't be considered a sacrifice, thus hardly compelling. Furthermore, it is another story in the Bible that makes little sense and makes God seem either inept or cruel. He was so thirsty for blood sacrifice that He had to create a loophole in his rules in order to feed his bloodlust without murdering all of his creation (most of which he continues to kill anyway). He sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself over a rule he created for the wrongdoings that he knew his creation would do when he created them. Why he didn't just actually forgive everyone and not require sacrifice is a question that theists continue to dance around.

> OT corresponds tremendously well with what we know of actual historical events

No, not at all. Either you've been given bad information or you are willfully ignorant of what archaeology and history have actually told us. There was no worldwide flood, there was no Exodus, and we certainly weren't created from sand. We also know that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, and the Earth doesn't sit on pillars. If you're genuinely and honestly looking for what the evidence says, I'd encourage you to read some works by legitimate scientists, not the acrobatic woo put out by Creationist "scientists". This is an area you simply can't get around if you're talking about the weight of actual evidence.

Your post was well-written, but essentially boils down to a really long version of "Since you can't disprove God, you must believe in him". I could use nearly all of your claims, up to the point of Jesus' specific miracles, in support of literally any other god or supernatural claim. You must understand why this is not compelling to someone who doesn't already believe. You are the one making the presuppositions here; I'm simply not accepting them.

I'm curious. Are these points the main reasons for your belief? If you base your beliefs on what hasn't been disproven, why don't you believe in Allah or Krishna? Do you believe alien abduction stories similar to your cougar story? Do you believe the tales of Xenu or the writings of Joseph Smith? Once you think about why you don't believe in these things, you might begin to understand why I don't believe your claims and be able to formulate a more compelling argument. You certainly write well and communicate effectively, which is something I don't see a lot in these discussions.

[jimwalton]

The issue here is not negative evidence, but that you don't believe in the reliability of the sources of the positive evidence that exists. I have not promoted any negative evidence, nor do I frame my belief system on such. Negative evidence isn't a valid platform for knowledge or faith.

The world is awash with accounts of miraculous events, not easily relegated to ignorance or primitivity. Reports of miracles cross cultural, historical, and educational lines. I haven't said I believe it because it hasn't been proved that it couldn't have happened. Instead, there is an abundance of positive evidence. The issue is that you don't believe the reliability of the source. If you are sincere, then, your job is to investigate the credibility of the source material for supernatural events, not to debunk the whole subject on false accusations of negative evidence and presuppositional prejudice.

So also with the existence of God. History records many and varied evidences of God's activity in the world, also across cultural and educational lines. I don't believe a metaphysical divine being exists because he can't be disproved, but because the arguments are more reasonable than those against his existence, and because the positive evidence of his existence and activity in the world is compelling. You brushed me aside too flippantly. It's not that extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence, but that all events, extraordinary or not, require a reliable source. It's not the outrageousness of the claims that conditions belief, but the soundness and dependability of the source.

While science may tell us that these things don't happen, it may be admitted that science is the wrong measuring stick and instrument by which to measure such things. Miracles, by definition, are unique events, often without warning. They lie outside of the purview of science, which requires repeatability, control, and peer review. We have to use the right measuring mechanism. We don't measure distance in gallons or mass in Fahrenheit. We don't study the stars with a microscope or use a wrench to lift water. We must use the right instrument and reference the proper measuring mechanism. Many things exist, though not as physical entities able to be studied by science: intuitions, love, justice, and guilt, to name a few. Miracles are not scientific realities, and neither is God. You're applying the wrong tool and measure to the question.

Your real barrier in this whole conversation is that you seem to think the biblical text is ludicrously untrustworthy and provably fictitious: "stories that contradict...[no] good reasons to believe it...not compelling...much of it contradicts what we know about actual history." It is there a more productive conversation would rest.

Obviously, I beg to differ with your conclusions, and I don't have bad information, nor am i willfully ignorant.

> Worldwide flood

I don't believe there was a worldwide flood either.

> there was no Exodus

You are yourself basking in negative evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are many many facts that make the Exodus a very plausible event.

> not created from sand

I agree we weren't. "Created from dust" in Gn. 2.7 is an archetype of humanity's mortality.

> The sun doesn't revolved around the earth

The Bible never claims it does.

> ot the acrobatic woo put out by Creationist "scientists"

I am neither enamored nor impressed with the ilk of Creationist "scientists".

I would be pleased to dialogue more about biblical reliability if you so desire.

[Bilge Bulge]

I could write a long response tackling each one of the mistakes here, but I'll make it simple. All of your arguments could be applied just as reliably to any religious or supernatural claim. Extraordinary claims do, absolutely, require extraordinary (especially reliable) evidence. Stories in old books are not good enough. Replace "God" with "Allah" in your post and enjoy your new life as a Muslim. Do you understand why this isn't convincing?

[jimwalton]

My arguments cannot be applied just as reliably to any religious or supernatural claim. There are three tests for truth: (1) logical consistency, (2) empirical adequacy, and (3) experiential relevance. Simply put, Christianity fulfills all three, and the other religions do not. Rational critiques of Islam, since that was your example, reveal that it does not meet the ordinary tests of truth.

Islam fails on all three counts. It is not historically testable. It is not internally consistent. It is not a reasonable explanation of experience.

Muhammad's encounter with Gabriel was private, and the entire system is built on that encounter. In Islam the distance between Allah and humanity is so vast there is no relationship, or even a possibility of it, and yet it speaks of community. God is so transcendent and remote he exists as an impersonal unity, which leads to a totalitarian understanding of authority and a cruel indifference to persons. Life becomes cheap because an unknowable and impersonal God has not revealed himself as a being of love, but one whose unknown will was mediated through a medieval warlord. Mohammad first believed that message he got from an angel choking him was a demon. How can a religion that claims that its prophet came to the entire world restrict its miracle to a language that is not spoken by the vast majority of people? How can Mohammad, whose passions were so untamed, earn the right to speak moral platitudes? The Qur'an claims parts of the Bible are holy Scripture, and then it contradicts the Bible. Mohammad said the prophets were confirmed by miracles, but then he never performed any miracles. Islam is more accurately a geopolitical worldview masquerading as a religion. Political power and enforcement become the means of obedience. It is a religion of power and conquest. Nothing social can reflect his nature or be essential to his being (in contrast with Christianity). Such a god has no interest in people, no use for people, and no positive social action in society.

Christianity, in contrast, rests on logical presuppositions supported by evidentiary confirmation. Christianity also offers a unique metaphysics. In contrast to other religions, the Christian God reveals himself to be absolutely independent and self-contained, yet also absolutely personal, both transcendent and immanent. God is personal and communicates personally. We don't believe in Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster because reasoning shows that they fail the tests for truth. This doesn't mean there aren't elements of truth in Islam, because there are. But it isn't true.