Board index ‹ Christianity

[Yummy Yummy]

While it is so clear to you that Christianity is accurate, do you at least see why non-believers hear/read the assertions of Christianity and confidently dismiss them?

Do you recognize that the assertions are far-fetched and would not pass any basic smell test for a rational adult who doesn't already believe?

And I get it, you've had special experiences that have made it clear to you that Christianity is 100% true. But for someone who has not had those experiences, do you see why they find the claims of Christianity utterly preposterous and silly?

Or does Christianity seem totally rational to you from an objective perspective?

[jimwalton]

Our whole case as Christians rests on 2 premises: the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus. The case for the existence of God is far stronger than the case against, making Christianity the rational conclusion if we are honestly inferring the most reasonable conclusion. And the evidence for the resurrection is also quite strong versus the case against. These evidences are mostly "confidently dismissed" as a matter of a priori bias rather than (in most cases) a true and honest evaluation of the evidences at hand.

So it is difficult to understand how many can dismiss them. We are left to assume (and many conversations bear out) that atheists have not truly and honestly engaged the data at hand.

Given the rational conclusion that God exists and that Jesus rose from the dead, no assertion a Christian makes is far-fetched. And to claim it "would not pass the smell test for a rational adult who doesn't already believe" is simply a statement of bias. Since theism and the resurrection make the best sense of the data, of course the assertions of Christianity pass the "smell test" unless, of course, one entertains presuppositional bias.

> And I get it, you've had special experiences that have made it clear to you that Christianity is 100% true.

Our experiences are only one of many evidences for the existence of God. The others are logical and scientific.

> Or does Christianity seem totally rational to you from an objective perspective

Of course it is. When one examines the logic and science, theism, and Christianity in particular, are quite strong cases of rational thought.

I should hope that you recognize your own apparent biases: "far-fetched," irrational, doesn't pass the "smell test," "utterly preposterous and silly," along with the assumption that it's all based in subjective religious experiences.

[Boom Izzy]

> We are left to assume (and many conversations bear out) that atheists have not truly and honestly engaged the data at hand.

I hope you don't honestly believe this.

[jimwalton]

I've been running this website for about 7 years now and have had thousands of conversations. I have yet, despite numerous attempts, to receive from an atheist...

1. A cogent case about what you believe that provides an argument stronger than the argument for theism.

2. An actual refutation of the case for theism. I think in several thousand conversations I've had here, 99.9% of what I get is "this has all been debunked" (which I know isn't true) or "you're an idiot." I think only twice have I gotten an actual discussion about the points of the substantive case for theism.

That's why I said "many conversations bear out..." While obviously some atheists have thought long, hard, and deeply about the issues at hand, it is my experience on this site that many, meaning most, have not.

But I have no desire to be biased here. Many Christians haven't thought through the issues, either.

[Yummy Yummy]

> Our whole case as Christians rests on 2 premises: the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus. The case for the existence of God is far stronger than the case against, making Christianity the rational conclusion if we are honestly inferring the most reasonable conclusion.

How do you get from belief in "existence of God" to "making Christianity the rational conclusion"? Do you acknowledge that your statement skips some key steps?

> And the evidence for the resurrection is also quite strong against the case against.

Evidence for the resurrection is LITERALLY only the Bible. That is not a strong case, and it certainly is not stronger than the case against which includes EVERYTHING we currently understand about biology, physics, and all other sciences. You're going to need more than a baseless assertion coupled with words like "quite" and "actually."

> Given the rational conclusion that God exists and that Jesus rose from the dead, no assertion a Christian makes is far-fetched.

Just to be crystal clear, I am NOT giving you this. Your baseless assertions are convincing to nobody but yourself and others who already believe. This is the definition of irrational.

> Since theism and the resurrection make the best sense of the data, of course the assertions of Christianity pass the "smell test" unless, of course, one entertains presuppositional bias.

Yet you've provided literally zero data. When you re-read your comment, do you honestly believe it to be a valid explanation for why EVERYONE should find it rational to believe in Christianity? Does the fact that the VAST majority of humans consider Christianity to be false imply that the vast majority of humans are irrational in regard to religion or that Christianity is not rational? (I would argue the former, but for different reasons than you would.)

> I should hope that you recognize your own apparent biases: "far-fetched," irrational, doesn't pass the "smell test," "utterly preposterous and silly," along with the assumption that it's all based in subjective religious experiences.

I've had plenty in the past. When people point them out, I try to take a new perspective and alter my views. I rarely see this type of honest re-assessment among Christians. When I do, they usually cease to be Christians very shortly thereafter.

[jimwalton]

> How do you get from belief in "existence of God" to "making Christianity the rational conclusion"? Do you acknowledge that your statement skips some key steps?

Of course I have skipped some steps. I don't write a wall of text for every question asked. I basically answered in 6 brief paragraphs, which makes it obvious I have not been thorough, but instead only cursory.

The evidences for the existence of God only take us to theism, not to Christianity in particular. To accomplish that, one must weigh the evidences for the credibility and authority of the Bible, the claims of Jesus, the evidences for the resurrection, and the early history of the Church. To do all of these in one post is both unwieldy and unwise. They each require a forum of their own to be dealt with properly, and even that is restrictive, as you likely know.

Am I being fair to assume that as an honest inquirer you have studied the primary documents, that you have read the cases by Christians and atheists, that you have listened to the debates between the two camps, and that you have evaluated the historical, logical, scientific, and philosophical data and arguments? I will assume these things, in which case I don't need to write a book in response to your question. You know the arguments, and you know the strengths and weaknesses of the various positions. You know the rationale and the evidences. If you have done these things, as I have, then you stand among those few atheists I had this discussion with who have actually engaged the data and arguments.

> Evidence for the resurrection is LITERALLY only the Bible.

This is not true. Some of the strongest evidence for the resurrection comes to us from the historical record: the growth of the new movement (the Church) in the very heartland of the root movement (Judaism)—and not only that, but also its expansion in the very locale of the crucifixion and alleged resurrection. If ever there were a place where the eyewitnesses could confirm or refute the resurrection, it was in Jerusalem within months of the dirty deed done dirt cheap.

A literal and historical resurrection is the most reasonable conclusion to explain why many staunch first-century Jews would abandon the Sabbath, the sacrifices, and the Law of Moses and claim the reality of a physical resurrection in the city in which it recently occurred. The Jews were fanatically attached to their Sabbath. Since the early Church was almost exclusively Jewish, it must have required an event of deep and startling significance to make them switch. The institution of Christian worship on Sunday traces back to the place and date of the resurrection. The resurrection alone accounts for this transition. If the story were false, the movement would have been quickly and easily stamped out.

N.T. Wright says, "Neither the empty tomb by itself…nor the appearances by themselves (both from the biblical record) could have generated the early Christian belief. The empty tomb alone would be a puzzle and a tragedy. Sightings of an apparently alive Jesus, by themselves, would have been classified as visions or hallucinations, which were well enough known in the ancient world. However, an empty tomb and appearances of a living Jesus, taken together, would have presented a powerful reason for the emergence of the belief."

In other words, it's the undeniable historical record that gives us a more credible basis for the veracity of the resurrection than the material evidence (which in our era cannot be confirmed).

> case against which includes EVERYTHING we currently understand about biology, physics, and all other sciences.

It's precisely the nature of the resurrection against EVERYTHING we will EVER know about biology, physics, and all other sciences that makes the resurrection what it is. We will never get to a place where we can say, "OK, science can explain Jesus's resurrection from the dead." And that's exactly the point: What happened there was supernatural, not natural. It was an absurd claim that would get them nowhere unless it were convincingly and confirmably true at the time.

> Just to be crystal clear, I am NOT giving you this. Your baseless assertions are convincing to nobody but yourself and others who already believe. This is the definition of irrational.

See, this is what I get. I was assuming, as I mentioned, that you've done plenty of reading and engaging of the material. I was assuming that you've studied and wrestled with the arguments for theism (cosmological, teleological, language, fine-tuning, axiological, the argument of other minds, and experience, among others. The assertions are far from baseless.

Am I left to understand that you have arrived at your conclusion without serious study of these matters? That's the definition of bias.

> Your baseless assertions are convincing to nobody but yourself and others who already believe.

They are convincing to many who didn't previously believe. That's what "conversion" means. An Oxford don named C.S. Lewis converted from atheism to Christianity on its weight of evidence. Philosopher Dr. Rosalind Picard from MIT; biologist Francis Collins; biochemist Alister McGrath; Dr. Gunter Bechly; and thousands of others (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _nontheism)

> Yet you've provided literally zero data. When you re-read your comment, do you honestly believe it to be a valid explanation for why EVERYONE should find it rational to believe in Christianity?

Of course I haven't provided data. The conversation at hand is "Do you understand why thinking people reject Christianity," not "Give me the entire case for theism and Christianity in 10,000 characters or less." I was assuming, hopefully rightly so, that you have investigated the case for yourself. If you haven't, but have drawn a conclusion before assessing the evidence, that's the definition of bias.

I have read works such as "The Existence of God" by Richard Swinburne, and "God and Other Minds" by Alvin Plantinga. Christianity is not only rational, but the case for theism and Christianity are stronger than anything put out by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and certainly Carrier. I've listened to debates between Hitchens and Craig. I've read the debate between Kai Nielson and J.P. Moreland. Christianity is the most rational case on the block.

> Does the fact that the VAST majority of humans consider Christianity to be false imply that the vast majority of humans are irrational in regard to religion or that Christianity is not rational?

The majority has never been good at displaying truth. One just needs to breeze even cursorily through history to see that majority positions are not how we determine truth positions (mythology, flat Earth, any particular religion, doctors not washing hands, etc. ad infinitum).

> I try to take a new perspective and alter my views.

That's good, and respectable. All people should be like this, myself included.

> I rarely see this type of honest re-assessment among Christians. When I do, they usually cease to be Christians very shortly thereafter.

I obviously don't know in what circles of Christians you circulate. My experience has been the opposite. I've met and had conversations with Stephen Schaffner (The Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT), Francis Collins (the genome project), Jennifer Wiseman (in charge of the Hubble telescope), Denis Alexander (molecular biologist at Cambridge), and so many others: philosophers, scientists—giants in their fields, and all Christians. And you must certainly be aware that the scientific giants of history—Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, to name a few—were all Christians. Christianity is the most rational case on the block.

[33 AD]

> While obviously some atheists have thought long, hard, and deeply about the issues at hand, it is my experience on this site that many, meaning most, have not.

<20% of professional philosophers are theists, and that percentage is divided among all sorts of theism (not just Christianity). So, I’m curious, if it’s your belief that rationally considering the evidence should reliably lead one to Christianity, why are so few professional philosophers Christians? Do you think most of them simply haven’t rationally thought about the issue?

[jimwalton]

Being a Christian is not just about being intelligent. Truth is accessible to all, whether poor or rich, educated or illiterate, man or woman, etc.

I'm not claiming that all smart people would choose to be Christians. Becoming a Christian is a matter of perceiving God on the basis of the evidence, an awareness of personal sin, belief, and love for God. Plenty of intelligent people become Christians, and plenty don't.

There are smart people who are Democrats, and smart people who are Republicans. Smart Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and Christians. There are smart philosophers and smart electricians (my nephew earned a master's degree in philosophy and was considering going for his PhD, but chose instead to become an electrician).

What I was saying is that in my conversations on this forum, the atheists with whom I have dialogued have not put forth any rational or cogent case for what they believe. Since they are of the opinion that the case for theism isn't strong enough, I have challenged them to give me the case to which they subscribe which is weightier—and that's where the whole thing flushes. Only twice, I think, have I received such a case. I am left to conclude that such a case doesn't really exist, which leads me in the direction that many haven't thought rationally about the position they hold.

[Yummy Yummy]

> Am I being fair to assume that as an honest inquirer you have studied the primary documents, that you have read the cases by Christians and atheists, that you have listened to the debates between the two camps, and that you have evaluated the historical, logical, scientific, and philosophical data and arguments?

Not all, but a lot. I certainly hope your argument doesn't rely on this. In fact, if a rational belief in Christianity relies on someone having conducted extensive research, then I'd argue that cuts against the likelihood that Christianity is true. If a devout Christian cannot make the case to someone who is ignorant, then that suggests belief requires mental gymnastics that fly in the face of rationality. In other words, if you can't keep it simple, then either there are underlying delusions and emotions or perhaps God simply doesn't want simple-minded idiots like me believing. Instead, perhaps he wants only intellectuals (such as you, young children, people in desperate emotional times, etc.) believing in the truth of his religion.

> A literal and historical resurrection is the most reasonable conclusion to explain why many staunch first-century Jews would abandon the Sabbath, the sacrifices, and the Law of Moses and claim the reality of a physical resurrection in the city in which it recently occurred.

Why do Christians keep putting forth this horrible rationale? The fact that so many Muslims have blown themselves up in the name of Allah is therefore proof that Allah is the one true God. YOU SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THIS ARGUMENT IS??????? It is literally only convincing to people who already believe.

> N.T. Wright says, "Neither the empty tomb by itself…nor the appearances by themselves (both from the biblical record) could have generated the early Christian belief. The empty tomb alone would be a puzzle and a tragedy. Sightings of an apparently alive Jesus, by themselves, would have been classified as visions or hallucinations, which were well enough known in the ancient world. However, an empty tomb and appearances of a living Jesus, taken together, would have presented a powerful reason for the emergence of the belief."

> In other words, it's the undeniable historical record that gives us a more credible basis for the veracity of the resurrection than the material evidence (which in our era cannot be confirmed).

Where is the evidence of the crucifixion of a man named Jesus, the location of his tomb, and the FIRST-FREAKING-HAND witness accounts of his tomb later being empty? I hereby challenge your understanding of the word "undeniable."

> Of course I haven't provided data. The conversation at hand is "Do you understand why thinking people reject Christianity," not "Give me the entire case for theism and Christianity in 10,000 characters or less." I was assuming, hopefully rightly so, that you have investigated the case for yourself. If you haven't, but have drawn a conclusion before assessing the evidence, that's the definition of bias.

Does that mean your answer is "No, I do not understand how rational adults cannot accept that an all-loving and all-knowing entity would be surprised by his creation becoming bad and, therefore, decide that literally 99.9% of them are deserving of death (including those horrible and evil little infants) by drowning in a great flood"? Or can you see how a rational person might view that as a fabrication designed to elicit emotions such as awe and fear in others?

[jimwalton]

> Not all, but a lot. I certainly hope your argument doesn't rely on this.

None of us could possibly study them all. What I was wondering is if you were one of the ones who was at least moderately read, rather than like some I talk to on this forum who admit they've never read any of it. Glad to hear you've done some work.

> In fact, if a rational belief in Christianity relies on someone having conducted extensive research, then I'd argue that cuts against the likelihood that Christianity is true.

Belief in Christianity doesn't rely on extensive research, but a rational belief would require at least some evidence.

> Why do Christians keep putting forth this horrible rationale? The fact that so many Muslims have blown themselves up in the name of Allah is therefore proof that Allah is the one true God. YOU SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THIS ARGUMENT IS??????? It is literally only convincing to people who already believe.

The argument isn't ridiculous, and your comment hints that you missed completely what I was saying. Muslims blow themselves up in the name of Allah because they are (1) fervent in their belief, (2) have been convinced that sacrifice for Allah will be rewarded, and (3) have been led to believe that blowing themselves up for Allah is noble. That's completely different from my point. A better analogy would be a frenzied movement to Judaism breaking out in Mecca during Ramadan.

What I'm saying is not that the disciples were fervent, trying to be noble, or seeking reward. What happened in Jerusalem is that the evidence of Jesus's resurrection became well-enough known that Jews turned away from the practice of Judaism and left it behind. They became Christians. It wasn't a matter of becoming "Suicidal for Jesus," but instead they adhered to a new perspective and paradigm based on the evidence right before their eyes.

> Where is the evidence of the crucifixion of a man named Jesus?

* Tacitus, greatly respected Roman historian, wrote: "To kill the rumors, Nero charged and tortured some people hated for their evil practices—a group popularly known as 'Christians.' The founder of the sect, Christus, had been put to death by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, when Tiberius was emperor."
* Josephus wrote, "Now there was about this time Jesus, ... Pilate, at the suggesting of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross..."
* Thallus write about a "it was at the season of the paschal full moon that Christ died."
* Ignatius writes that Jesus "was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate."
* Lucian of Samasata alludes to Jesus "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world."

> the location of his tomb

The tomb was a well-known public location. The Gospel of John says the location of the tomb was close to the site of the crucifixion (Jn. 19.41-42). The site was known by the Jewish leaders who were enemies of Jesus, the Roman government, and the followers of Jesus as well. If the tomb were not empty, all that would be necessary to discredit claims of the resurrection would be to prove that the known tomb of Christ was still occupied by his corpse, but his enemies never produced a body. Not a single ancient writer, secular or Christian ,refutes the fact that the top was empty. There is never any record or claim to the contrary.

Christianity would never have flourished in Jerusalem if the tomb were not empty. Jesus was publicly executed and publicly buried. Sermons about the resurrection (given in Jerusalem within a month and a half of Jesus's crucifixion would be utter nonsense if the tomb was not verifiably empty.

> and the FIRST-FREAKING-HAND witness accounts of his tomb later being empty?

The Gospel of John has multiple evidences of an eyewitness account.

* Times of day (1.39; 4.6, etc.)
* A link with one of the feasts (2.13, 23, etc.)
* The aroma of perfume wafting throughout the house (12.3)
* Place names are brought in naturally and for no apparent reason other than narrative events
* The call of the disciples (1.35-51)
* The episode of the foot-washing (13.1-20)
* Information about persons not mentioned elsewhere: Nicodemus, Malchus, Annas
* Claims to eyewitness testimony: 1.14, 19.35

Now the burden of refutation is on you to explain how you know John is NOT an eyewitness account.

> Does that mean your answer is "No, I do not understand how rational adults cannot accept that an all-loving and all-knowing entity would be surprised by his creation becoming bad and, therefore, decide that literally 99.9% of them are deserving of death (including those horrible and evil little infants) by drowning in a great flood"? Or can you see how a rational person might view that as a fabrication designed to elicit emotions such as awe and fear in others?

I hope you see how you have distorted both what I said and Christianity itself.

God (all-loving and all-knowing) was not surprised int he least by his creation becoming bad. You're probably thinking of Gn. 6.6, but there's certainly nothing there of surprise or God having been caught off-guard. Instead, God had suffered personal loss, and knew that the "ledgers of life" had to be brought back into balance. God is injured when people sin, especially when He had warned them, and even greater when they refuse to repent.

> decide that literally 99.9% of them are deserving of death (including those horrible and evil little infants) by drowning in a great flood"

The flood wasn't global, but rather a massive regional flood. God was judging the guilty population, not the world. The evidence leads us in this direction and to this conclusion.

If you deem that those judged by the flood were undeserving, you need to support your claim. The Bible says that people's wickedness had increased so much that this particular society was a failed society, committed to evil and its perpetuation. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'll be glad to read it.

> Or can you see how a rational person might view that as a fabrication designed to elicit emotions such as awe and fear in others?

Perhaps you can give me evidence that this is a fabrication.