I'd like to start out by saying that I think my previous post rambled a bit more than it ought, for which I apologize to my readers. This issue (why is God's existence not obvious?) is a rather difficult question, and I struggled my way through that last post. I did mention, though, that I would attempt to provide my own answer to this question: how is it that the existence of God is so 'non-obvious' when God is the Creator of the world and the world was created to reveal God to humanity?
Well, here is my first stab at explaining this phenomenon. In line with my last post, I will be keeping "in-house" Christian language to a minimum.
To begin, we have to spend some time clearing a little conceptual ground which relates to whether Christianity is a natural or obvious belief structure. Charles Taylor notes in ch. 14 of A Secular Age that it took some time for unbelief/atheism to become an intellectually viable position. Taylor's point is an important one: it is hard to disbelieve when such a conceptual option is culturally unavailable. Not impossible, perhaps, but rare. Again, we ought to keep this idea in mind when we try to understand the decline of faith in our age. However, setting our discussion up in these terms may be misleading. For many in Western culture, Christendom or the Western medieval model of a totally pervasive Christian culture is what they think of when they think of the default position of Christianity. I think, however, that we need to remember that Christendom was not and is not the default position. That is, Christianity has not operated always and everywhere as a totally pervasive, solitary conceptual option for its adherents.
Rather, Christianity began in the Roman Mediterranean as one seriously implausible account of the world among other accounts. Early Christians did not proclaim a message of truth which won converts due to the clarity or, for lack of a better term, "obviousness" of its message. What I mean to say is that Christian proclamation did not result in a bunch of people slapping their foreheads and responding with an, "Of course, that's how the world works! Why, I knew that all along!"
You might be wondering why I bring this point up or if I'm even addressing the original question. What I'm trying to do is start out by saying that, from a Christian perspective, the Christian perspective has not historically been the only conceptual option for those who hear it, and it is admittedly not an immediately obvious position. In other words, though we Christians think the Christian perspective is the true perspective, we are (or ought to be) quite aware of its difficulties, and, historically, we have been since the beginning. The New Testament speaks of Christian proclamation as a "mystery," as something "offensive" and "veiled." This emphasis is not isolated simply in the beginning, either. Even in the High Middle Ages, during Christendom par excellence, Thomas Aquinas could note that reason would never establish or arrive at the conclusion of Christian truth in the events of redemption. Reason could only defend the possibility of its truth-value and defend against charges of irrationality.
To continue my answer, I believe our problem lies in a fairly specific area. We tend to think that the truth of God's existence ought to be obvious, mostly because we often think of truth as something obvious or immediately apparent. We rely on the idea that we understand truth with our minds in the same way that we see objects with our eyes. In this model, "facts" are discovered in a manner not unlike noticing the color of the sky or the proximity of some obstacle. So, we think a truth statement like "God exists" is epistemologically equivalent to "The sky is blue."
However, I think, upon further reflection, that we could admit that the truth is not always obvious, even if it is a "determinative" or "high-impact" truth which affects all our other ideas. There are many examples I could use, but let me point out one fairly easy one. We all agree that the earth rotates around the sun. Why? Is that an obvious truth? If one were to step outside and observe the sun with the naked eye for years, would the conclusion that the earth rotates around the sun be reached? I think we can all admit that, in most cases, this conclusion would not be reached by anyone who watches the "sunrise" and the "sunset" every day. However, I doubt that any of us finds it necessary to object against this truth.
I use this example to demonstrate that something can be clearly true in one sense, i.e. we all accept the idea, and it helps to organize a whole load of other ideas. At the same time, it is not manifestly true, i.e. most of us could not prove it, it took years upon years for this view to pervade our culture, and it does not match up to all of our direct experiences.
I hope this example shows you where I am heading. Namely, I want this illustration to point out that ideas which are true do not need to be obvious or easily reached in order to be true. We accept this idea when it comes to our example above. So, the next question has to be: why do we expect truth concerning God to be more easily reached? That is, why should we discover that God exists in a manner simpler than that involved in discovering an observable fact about the physical universe?
Now, I could make another point in this direction, and I will note it briefly before continuing on to my next main point. First, we should note that observable facts about the universe like knowing the earth rotates around the sun or noticing the someone's hair is red are actually facts which require a great deal of training to notice. For example, one must be taught that "red" denotes a particular observable phenomenon which occurs on the surface of various objects and then realize that the type of "red" which we apply to red brick is somehow related to the "redness" of someone's hair. For the other example, we can see that observable facts of a scientific kind actually require particular theories and methods to be internalized before they can be reached. Once reached, though, they can be disseminated to a more general population rather easily, despite the fact that the general population could not arrive at such conclusions on their own. Follow this line of thought and then ask why the existence of God should be something easy to discover without the internalization of a particular framework.
What I would like to note at this point is the objection that I would imagine many of you are now harboring in your mind. It is likely offensive to you that God's existence should be difficult to ascertain, that it should be as difficult as the discovery that the earth rotates around the sun. Isn't that a little curious? Why should you think that unless you are engaged in speculation concerning the characteristics which God ought to have and how he ought to behave? I have to note something that Pascal also noted so many years ago. He noted, similarly to what I stated above, that ascertaining God's existence is difficult. There is enough evidence to lead the religious seeker eventually to discover the truth of God's existence but there is not enough evidence to guarantee that outcome. When he faced objections from those who did not believe, Pascal pointed out that their objections were rather ridiculous. How could they, who ostensibly do not believe in God, wish to dictate the terms under which God would reveal himself to human beings? By engaging in such debate, the unbeliever has now become one who asks religious questions, i.e. a religious seeker.
But perhaps I am now simply being clever? Please object if I am, for I will admit that I am trying to be somewhat provocative. I am arguing that the existence of God need not be more obvious to any of us than any other truth. It is capable of being denied or affirmed in many of the same ways. It could not be a truth apprehended by human beings if it were any different.
This specter of difficulty, though, can be handled in a couple ways. First of all, if knowledge of God's existence is analogous to other types of knowledge, then people actually can discover it. That discovery of the truth might be difficult, take time and patience, and test our devotion to the question to the uttermost leads us in a rather different direction. Second, though, knowledge of God need not be difficult. Rather like our example above, once something is known and disseminated throughout society, it is no longer necessary for every person to go through the same arduous process to discover it. Clearly, not very many of us need to rediscover the heliocentric model. So, truth can now be apprehended through much easier channels, which deal more with the issues of warrant for belief, trust in sources, and faith in the truthfulness of other person's testimony.
Now, of course, we have opened the door to all sorts of different questions which I have not addressed here in order to keep the discussion from becoming merely "in-house." Yet these questions are actually theological or metaphysical questions. By considering this issue concerning how human beings discover truth, using terms which are common to both Christians and others, we can arrive at a place where we are not simply discussing whether it is difficult to believe in God, but whether it is appropriate that belief in God is so difficult and whether God ought to have behaved differently. We are in a different realm altogether from where we started.
Thanks for writing, Zach. I won't comment on the post now but I was curious to share this with some friends of mine. Shamefully, I'm not sure how to do that. Could you let me know? Thanks. Keep it up bro!
ReplyDeleteOk, so I get what you are saying, but i certainly hope this is not an argument that is attempting to show god exists. It does not do that. With the sun example, there was no need to to start that proof with the statement you have to believe this in order for it to be true. That is usually the way theists start their arguments. The earth rotates the sun has been demonstrated by evidence for hundreds maybe thousands of years. We wouldn't believe this without good solid evidence that took years of calculations to get this. What is the actual evidence for god?
ReplyDelete@Hector: I think you should be able to pass the website or article url on simply by copying and pasting it into some sort of message you send to them. Let me know if that doesn't work.
ReplyDelete@Erik: Btw, is this Mr. Resly or another Erik (simple curiosity)?
I wonder if you are getting what I said. I am not trying to be ungracious here, but I will look at each part of your statements. First, my argument is not an attempt to show God exists. It was an attempt to consider how God's existence could be "non-obvious" even if it were true. My main contribution here is simply to point out that the way we come to decide certain things are true can actually be a rather long, difficult process. Then, why should we consider that a decision concerning God's existence would be short or easy? So, I'm am completely aware that my argument "does not do that;" it does not establish God's existence, nor did it try to.
Second, I didn't start the example of the sun with a "statement that you have to believe this in order for it to be true." Quite simply, you misread my statements. What I did say is that the earth rotates around the sun regardless of whether we believe it does so or not. Our belief has no effect on its truth-value.
Third, your dismissal "that is usually the way theists start their arguments" seems a little out of place, and I'm not sure why you felt the need to mention it, particularly since you didn't even read my argument right It approaches something like a mixture of a red herring fallacy and the genetic fallacy, that is, you attempted to discredit my argument simply by associating it with arguments of a particular origin, and you mentioned something completely irrelevant. Either way, reread what I said.
ReplyDeleteThird, yes, the fact that the earth rotates around the sun has been demonstrated for hundreds of years. It has not been demonstrated consistently for thousands of years; that's a bit of an exaggeration on your part. However, you have made a rather interesting move after that. Namely, you said, "We wouldn't believe this without good solid evidence that took years of calculations to get this."
What you're really saying is that you accept and believe , in some rather general way, in the types of evidence, means of argumentation, and general authority of the persons who have demonstrated that the earth revolves around the sun. You accept this idea mainly on a second, third, or fourth-hand basis (if that!). Now, the thrust of my argument concerns just this issue: you have not and probably could not prove that the earth rotates around the sun. However, you have it on good authority that it, indeed, does do so.
You, specifically, don't have "good solid evidence" with "years of calculations" to get this. Certain scientists whom you trust have these items, but you mostly have a type of trust in the authority of their decisions concerning a set of data which you have actually never considered.
Even in their case, the emergence of this view in the West has as much to do with the inadequacy of the explanatory power of the old model as it did with the gradual accumulation of evidence. The heliocentric model turned out to be more accurate when it came to predicting the behavior of certain stars, the movement of the planets, etc. It would be interesting to me for you to delineate precisely what sort of "good solid evidence" you actually possess yourself on the basis of your own direct experience.
Now, don't get me wrong! I have no problem with accepting that the earth rotates around the sun. I am simply using this example as a type of analogy concerning the way we actually gain knowledge about complex questions. We might have better examples, such as discovering truth in a court of law, but this example is simply the one I chose for this post. That said, don't try to push my analogy beyond its purpose. It is not meant as an absolute illustration of the way we could gain knowledge of God; it is merely a signpost, pointing out the way we gain knowledge.
Finally, your question: what is the actual evidence for God? Well, good question! I would like to point out first of all that I'm not actually trying to uncover that question here and that a main part of my post has to do with addressing something I see as a rather large issue: our evidence for God's existence can be contested, much as our evidence for many other things. There is very little evidence which could not bear an interpretation other than the interpretation of the believer or theist.
Now, if you are trying to get me to speak of some specific sort of evidence, I must again protest that I am not actually trying to answer this sort of question. I imagine you have heard a few if you are familiar with "the way theists start their arguments." So, I could start with the argument from causation, from design, the ontological argument, or many other arguments.
However, I will break that mold and simply point out the way I actually came to decide that God exists, without suggesting that the way I decided is the way anyone else ought to. Namely, I began to think that the traditional Gospel accounts of Jesus of Nazareth actually were the most accurate accounts of his life and sayings. So, I read the accounts about Jesus written by early Christians. It was while reading those accounts and hearing the words of Jesus, "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his very soul?" Also, I heard, "Take up your cross and follow me. Whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for the sake of the gospel and for my sake will save it."
ReplyDeleteI am not suggesting that this sort of encounter with the words of Jesus is how anyone else will decide that God exists (or not decide so). I'm am simply pointing out the way that I did. I believed these to be the words of Jesus of Nazareth, due to a discernment of historical probability. And, I believed that the words he spoke, both those I mentioned and those unmentioned, actually revealed God to me.
So, for your question, "What is the actual evidence of God," I will stop at saying that there are many types of evidence for God, much of which I could rehearse before you. Some might persuade you and much would not. Yet there is evidence for God, and we are stuck with the predicament that such evidence is not entirely different from the evidence for anything else.
For a different way of approaching the issue, you could always read part of a blog I follow: http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/the-problem-of-goodness-2/#comments
ReplyDeleteMaybe, you didn't understand me. I was making sure you didn't think this point went anywhere near proving god. The sun analogy is poor because the way we know the earth rotates around the sun has been duplicated in study after study. The predictions of what would occur have been accurately demonstrated. The studies are also readily available to replicate if one feels so inclined.
ReplyDeleteYou also missed the point of what i said as well. The point was, I do a lot of debating online and elsewhere with theists and they quite frequently tell me I have to accept god to find god. They cannot provide a test to demonstrate that they are right. This is quite different then the earth rotating around the sun. Its actually a polar opposite. The scientists who demonstrated this have left us the tools to do this ourselves if we want.
Your proof for god is simply a bit of confirmation bias. Had you been raised in Iran, I highly doubt you would read the bible and feel that way, you would instead be influenced by the culture of that country and feel that way about the quran or koran(which ever spelling they use now). At least this is statistically very probable.
Statistically probable brings me to your statement about statistical probability. You see there is a big difference between my statistical probability I present and yours. Mine is based on population and how big a percentage is that religion. Yours is based on an assertion that Jesus is probable. I would say the odds against a virgin birth combined with a zombie rising from the dead make the odds, lets say about nill. Why do I say this? Lets see. Lets actually take the actual sample size of humans and see how many have historically been known to have been born of a virgin. Oh lets say its about 0 in quite a few billion.(taking out jesus). Then lets look at the odds of a zombie walking, and surprising we have the same odds. Definition of zombie used: A dead body brought back to life by a supernatural force. Source wordnet.
Then we take a look at the sources. We have 4 sources that were written at the very earliest 65 ce, probably 70 or later. These sources contradict by 10 years or so the birth of Jesus. King Herod's death vs the time of the census. Then you factor in that the crucifixion and resurrection story has many contradictions, such as the time of the events, who witnessed the events, the people at the women saw at the tomb, and more. This all leads me to believe that the best case scenario for jesus is he is as real as leatherface from texas chainsaw massacre(based on real life serial killer Ed Gein), but nobody makes the mistake of thinking leatherface is a real historical being.
This is also not even factoring in that Jesus claims to be the son of yahweh who is also yahweh himself. How did he not know his dad's character? He claims him loving. That is probably the biggest contradiction of them all. We have a god who has no problem with children being murdered in mass genocides( numbers, genesis, hosea) he has no problem with beating slaves(exodus), he has no problem with ordering child sacrifice( jeptha and abraham). Sorry that's a pretty distorted view of loving.
by the way no I'm not that other Erik.
ReplyDeleteErik,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be using a lot of energy trying to explicate how we know the earth rotates around the sun. First, you don't need to convince anyone here. That's essentially a given. Second, I said you shouldn't press the analogy too far. I used it to point out that the way we come to understand particular "truths" is actually not simple in any way. That was the thrust of the argument, rather than some assertion of the one-to-one likeness of how heliocentric model was discovered to the way one might come to knowledge of God.
I think you really need to take some time and read my statements carefully because you're heading in a direction with them and making claims about them which are essentially inappropriate for the type of discussion I'm trying to have.
Now, I'll take a little time here to respond to your comments because I'm glad to be engaged in conversation here, but I want to point out that you're not even addressing the issue I raised in this post and the last one, namely, how can an idea which is true be fairly hard to arrive at?
Concerning your comments:
First, don't confuse what I'm saying with what some other group online is saying. You're just going to confuse all of us by introducing issues which I'm not talking about. I'm not telling you that you have "to accept god to find god." Not even on my radar screen here.
Second, you don't seem to see how your example of scientists leaving particular methods for discovering the truth about the heliocentric model actually works more to confirm what I'm discussing. Analogously, I could point out that there are particular methods for coming to the conclusion that God exists. We should not expect these methods to be of precisely the same nature; it would be a little ridiculous to try and establish some empirical test whereby we would attempt to predict God's behavior as if he were a solar system. Yet, there are ways of doing this.
Your comments continue to confirm my point in another way. Namely, I haven't seen you trot out any evidence for the heliocentric model. You simply continue to appeal to the authority of scientists, the manifest nature of the evidence, and the idea that you could go through the steps if you wished.
Ahhh!
ReplyDeleteMy apologies: I lost an entire post's worth of comments where I deal with some of your objections. I don't have time to rewrite everything so I will simply sum things up.
Erik, apologies here, but you are raising peripheral issues and trying to head in a direction which I'm not particularly interested in. Not only that, but the majority of your examples lack nuance and specificity. I'm not going to spend so much time in the future dealing with these kinds of arguments (particularly if I will then lose them when I attempt to post them!).
If you can't stay somewhat on topic, if you continue to appear as if you're not actually reading things carefully, and if you continue to respond in an immature way, bringing up peripheral issues and misrepresenting my statements, I will begin to moderate your comments.
Hi this is erik, I understand your point I really do, Im making a point here as this post was sent to me by a friend who is a christian. That is why I am going in this direction. To make it clear this argument does nothing to demonstrate the existence of god. I have then gone on to address your statement about the statistical probability of Jesus, with actual known facts. Anything you think was not supporte let me know and I will post my references. Dont just use the fallacy of asserting immaturity for disagreeing with your beliefs. After all I could do the same thing, by simply saying I think your immature for having an imaginary friend but I didn't go the ad hom route. I actually presented biblical stories and contradictions and cited the books a lot of them came from, I can easily present sources for the others as well. I presented arguments based on evidence. The evidence for my probability is if you take out Jesus, how many recorded virgin born humans do we actually have? Out of the billions of humans who have lived the answer is none that I know of. The second part was how many zombies got up out of their graves? None that have ever been recorded other than Jesus out of the billions of people who have died.
ReplyDeleteYou write a public blog but seem to be a little bit afraid of a little discussion between you and an atheist who has spent quite a bit of time studying arguments for and against god. Interesting to me as anything I post on this topic I strongly support opinions being given. Not you apparently the slightest sign of someone talking an opposing view and the censorship issue is immediately thrown out there.
The major difference between the 2 beliefs that you have shown and your god is that the other ones actually have evidence for them. They have been demonstrated and layed out so all of us can find this evidence, I am countering your argument by saying that you can't do this for god. The other beliefs would be equally ridiculous if the people who asserted this couldn't point you to the evidence and all you heard was the sound of "crickets." That difference in my opinion makes your post useless as yes its possible god exists but without the actual evidence or the evidence at least being available to us and that evidence being reproducible there is no reason to believe this, just as before the studies were done and repeated over and over there was no reason to believe the earth rotated the sun. That is my point. I am asking you to close the gap in your analogies or a very large whole still exists that makes it a useless point.
ReplyDeleteErik,
ReplyDeleteLet’s both engage in this discussion in a respectful manner. I apologize if my comments towards you seem out of place. However, I must say that I do find your manner of discourse less than polite. Let me explain why I said I think you’re being immature. I was not trying to be hasty in my assertion, but as I mentioned in my last post, I lost an hour’s worth of material this morning, and I did not have the time to repeat everything, including all of my answers to your questions. Before I move on to some of the issues you raise, here is respectful attempt to explain why I object to the way you’re conducting yourself:
1. Your comparisons appear to be attempts to demote Christian claims to the level of the ridiculous (e.g. comparing the resurrection of Jesus to zombies, the Gospel accounts to a horror film) which is not actually the way to conduct this argument. It betrays you inability to engage in a serious discussion without resorting to inflammatory language. Quoting wordnet as an authoritative source to make that assertion is also more of a practical joke than a justification for such language.
2. For the most part, you haven’t actually discussed specific examples, but have simply tried to be overwhelming. You have mentioned things in an off-hand, rapid-fire manner, without taking any time to discuss the issues involved. Again, it betrays an inability to deal with the specific matters at hand. You act in a way that appears as if you are trying to be distracting or ignore the main topic, despite your claim, “I understand what you’re saying.”
3. You don’t seem to be able to read and respond to the actual things I’m saying. You keep trying to address things like “the statistical probability of Jesus” in relation to the virgin birth and the resurrection, when I said I made a judgment of historical probability that I was actually reading the words. I haven’t brought up the supernatural here; I have only brought up the reliability of the Gospels in reporting the words of Jesus. It’s a rather different issue. Perhaps you misunderstood because of my own lack of clarity. If so, I apologize.
Again, I did not mean to offend, but I often get the impression that you’re not being terribly polite. If that was not your intention, then I have crossed a line which I was not trying to cross. I am trying to be gracious here.
Beginning where I left off in my last post, I will address your assertion of “confirmation bias.” You also said that if I grew up in Iran, I would likely read the Bible differently. First, confirmation bias has to do with favoring one’s preconceptions when examining particular evidence or arguments. Your accusation would only make sense if I were raised in a Christian home, a pervasively Christian nation, or wanted to believe God exists. Yet, I was not raised in a Christian home and knew nothing about Christianity. Also, America is hardly a pervasively Christian nation, particularly as compared to Iran as a pervasively Muslim nation (99% Muslim in Iran). Finally, I did not want to believe God exists at the time I began reading the Gospels. In fact, I rather wanted to believe that he didn’t. Asserting “confirmation bias” really doesn’t make sense in my case, as I had no Christian preconceptions to favor and as it would imply that everyone who reads the Gospels, while desiring to believe them will do so.
Next, we will deal with the issues of historical probability. As I mentioned above, I have not spent any time arguing for “the probability of Jesus” in terms of the virgin birth or the resurrection. What I was discussing was my judgment that the traditional Gospel accounts of Jesus actually were the best witnesses to what he did and said as compared to, say, the Gnostic Gospels. Now, since a couple of your statements interact with the issue of the reliability of the Gospels, I will address some of those statements.
ReplyDeleteFirst, your statement concerning the dating of the Gospels is not entirely accurate, and it is tendentious. It is tendentious because you bring up a dating of 65 CE or later as if such a date that would then prove their inaccuracy. Yet, when it comes to historical sources, it is incorrect to assume that a source which is a few years later is always more inaccurate. Quite often, a longer time frame is actually necessary in order to gain the proper historical perspective necessary (say 50 years, as opposed to twenty. Try doing some of your own historical writing about the 1990s, as compared to the sixties). Writings from later on (Luke, John) also make it rather clear that they’re drawing on and assuming other written accounts of Jesus which are earlier. You actually have a mix of earlier and later perspectives in the Gospels. John is almost ought to be placed at the end of the first century. Yet, Mark was likely written in the early 60s and represents oral tradition which goes much further back. We can discuss these issues in more length, but that’s what I will say in brief at this point before moving on.
You go on to claim that the Gospels contradict each other and seem to be implicitly claiming that any sort of inaccuracy or contradiction in their accounts means we must count them out as historical sources. I will address the issue of contradictions first and then your implicit claim second.
As for contradictions, I think you are a little overconfident by claiming that there are so many contradictions in the Gospels that their portrayal of Jesus is somehow analogous to the portrayal/adaptation of Leatherface in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I’ll have to ask you for more specific examples, but I’ll deal with one. You mentioned that there are contradictions concerning what people the women saw at the tomb. Ok, let’s look at the accounts. Matthew 28 mentions an angel sitting on the stone in white apparel, Mark 16:5 mentions a “young man” sitting on the right hand of the tomb in white apparel, Luke 24 mentions two men in “dazzling apparel” inside the tomb, and John 20 mentions that Mary Magdalene, after going to the tomb and leaving and returning, sees two angels in the tomb and, eventually, Jesus out in the garden.
Admittedly, there is a little surface tension if we’re wanting to say, “Either they saw one angel or two angels or Jesus, but not any combination of the three or any harmonization or any explanation.” But when it comes to resolving such historiographical issues, that sort of literalist objection doesn’t work. If we were looking at any other historical account, we wouldn’t immediately dismiss any of the possibilities unless they involved blatant contradictions. Rather, we would have to come up with some sort of explanation that suited all of them. Perhaps they saw one angel outside and several inside. If we’re granting the possibility of the supernatural and the presence of supernatural beings, does it make a great deal of sense to insist that all the women saw all the same things? What if one of them saw one angel and one saw two? What if they heard more than one message? There are about a million ways to resolve this issue, negatively or positively.
But, on a very basic level, it’s a rather unimportant historical detail whether two angels were present or one. Also, if this sort of event (the resurrection of Jesus, angelic visittations, etc.) were to happen, I don’t imagine we would be too worried if the people involved couldn’t remember whether there was one angel or two. You’ll have to excuse me, but I’m failing to see the major problem here which rules out the Gospels as historical sources. Historical sources often have these sorts of difficulties.
ReplyDeleteAnd, it is not only the Gospels which have supernatural elements in them which cause historical difficulties. Nearly any historical source before the modern period is riddled with occurrences, inconsistencies, and descriptions which we want to rule out quickly. For example, in Seutonius’s account of the crossing of the Rubicon in “Divus Julius, 32” of the Lives of the Caesars, Julius Caesar decides to cross the River because he receives a “sign of the gods.” “A being of wondrous stature and beauty” shows up, steals a war-trumpet, and crosses before him. What is our decision concerning this apparition? Did Seutonius invent it? Did Caesar see something? Is it real or false? My point here is not to argue whether this took place or not, but simply to point out that we don’t rule out Seutonius’s accounts as unhistorical simply because he reports supernatural activity which appears improbable to the modern mind. Unless, of course, you want to deny that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. My argument concerning historical probability in my last post, in a similar way, was only referring to the historicity of the sayings of Jesus, without getting into the issues of the supernatural. But, I suppose I shall have to deal with your objections to the supernatural shortly.
But, allow me to deal with your objection concerning the timing of Jesus’ birth in relation to assertions of chronological difference between the Gospel accounts. First, two of the Gospels don’t even mention Jesus’ birth. You can’t even attempt to make the objection wholesale. Second, you appear to be referring to the possible difference between Luke and Matthew in their accounts of the birth. First, the first couple chapters of Matthew’s Gospel place the birth of Christ as shortly before the death of Herod. We think, due to some evidence from the Jewish historian Josephus, that Herod died around 4 BCE. The complication we have concerns the account in Luke 2:1-2, placing Jesus’ birth at the time of “the first census while Quirinius was governor of Syria.” Corroboration from Josephus puts Quirinius’s time as procurator at 6 CE. Again, there is a surface tension here, possibly of 10 years, but it is not irresolvable.
First, the text does not say that the census was undertaken by Quirinius as governor (which would make it need to be at 6 CE), it simply says that it happened while he was governor. The term “governor,” moreover, is a rather imprecise term in Greek for nearly any governmental or ruling position. Since Quirinius appears to have held various positions of direct, indirect, and supporting governorship off and on in the region for many years, it need not refer to his oversight of a census when he became procurator of Syria in 6 CE (Josephus himself notes that he held various positions before this point). It need only refer to a census which took place while Quirinius was in some form of high government in Syria, which he indeed had as a military commander in the area around 7 BCE. In conjunction with this point, a census took time to complete. The census could have started in 7 BCE, while he was military commander, and been still ongoing at the time of Jesus’ birth, a year or so before Herod’s death at 4 BCE. Again, I don’t really see any irresolvable conflicts here.
However, to finish up this issue, I simply have to point out that, should you find this argument unconvincing, I still have to point out that errors of dating are all too common in both pre-modern and modern historical sources and should not then make us doubt the rest of their contents. Even if Luke “has it wrong” on this issue, it doesn’t invalidate the rest. Unless, of course, you are willing to grant the same standard concerning historical knowledge which you and I possess? I have to admit that I’m a little shaky on the dating of the Battle of Bunker Hill, but I have yet to hear anyone express doubts concerning that point.
ReplyDeleteNow, on to your other objections, which have to do with supernatural phenomena. First, of all your argument concerning the statistical probability of the virgin birth and resurrection is beside the point. They’re supposed to be unique, non-repeatable events to which statistical analysis is completely inappropriate. If it were common for people to rise from the dead or be born of a virgin, there really wouldn’t be any point to mentioning it in relation to Jesus. However, if you brought this up because you thought I was arguing for the statistical probability of the virgin birth or the resurrection, I apologize for my lack of clarity.
However, I wonder if what you’re actually doing throughout much of your post is quietly asserting that supernatural events are impossible because you claim they lie outside the realm of your experience or scientific experience. If that is the case, then we need to discuss that issue separately and rationally, without simply allowing it to cloud of the background of our discussion without being mentioned. Let me know if that’s what lies behind some of this because that issue alone could take up pages.
Now, for your paragraph on Jesus as the son of YHWH. I’ll need you to clarify some of your references because I’m not quite sure what you mean in reference to a genocide in Genesis. I assume, though, that in Numbers you are referring to Numbers 31, which is the “vengeance on Midian.” I don’t deny that this passage has its issues, but calling it a mass genocide ignores the fact that the Israelites are retaliating for Midian’s attempt to wipe them out as a people. Engaging in a campaign of “total war” in retaliation during conflict is not generally considered genocide. Also, in terms of the culture at the time, to destroy your enemy, one had to forever destroy his ability to have descendants. The Israelites wipe out all the male children to ensure that the nation of Midian will no longer exist to trouble them later on. Again, this raises some difficulties in our mind, but I believe that, in context, this sort of action is viewed as the judgment of God upon a people which tried to destroy his chosen nation. In other words, it is a judgment for sin. I suppose the question to ask here might be something like: how ought one to execute justice on one nation which tried to wipe out another? If Midian tried to destroy Israel, how ought Israel to have behaved towards Midian? Allowed it to survive?
With the Hosea passage, are you referring to Hosea 9:12? This isn’t quite an example of killing children in genocide, but perhaps it’s what you’re referring to? Either way, we’re again facing the point of God judging a people for their sin.
At this point, I have to wonder if you’re simply trying to set the descriptions that God is loving against descriptions where God is involved in judging people for their sin. I actually don’t find this contradictory, so I’ll have to see where you take it before I launch into a full discussion. So, if you’re inclined, be clear about what you mean because I don’t want to second-guess you.
God isn’t ok “with beating slaves” in some unqualified sense. There are all sorts of issues here. First, you have to recognize that slavery is allowed under certain situations, but there were limits placed which ensured that what we now refer to as “chattel slavery” (similar to African-American experience) would not take place. Slave owners could not kill or maim their slaves, but they could correct them. Beating a slave was within the rights of a property owner. Then again, beating a student was within the rights of schoolteachers before the last several decades.
ReplyDeleteI think we’re now in a culture where corporal punishment has stopped being the norm. I’m glad of this position, but it is a little premature to label everyone who practices, has practiced, or has allowed corporal punishment as unloving. That reveals more about your definition of love than about the God of the Bible.
There is a much larger theme, though, where God is actually in the business of liberating slaves. I refer, of course, to the Exodus, which must factor into any discussion of slavery in the Bible.
Lastly, in this chain of objections, God does not approve of child sacrifice. The story of Jephthah is the story of a man who made a foolish oath. There is no sense in the text that the narrator of Judges approves of his action. And the story of the Aqedah, or binding, of Isaac in Genesis is most emphatically not about God’s approval of child sacrifice, so much as it is about testing Abraham’s obedience. If you’re interested in a book-length discussion of child sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity and particularly the end of child sacrifice, take a look at Jon Levenson’s “The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son.” Your point here strays far from the mark.
To range yet further on, I will respond to a couple things in your posts from the 15th. First, yes you should refer to sources as much as possible on here. I’m not looking for full-on, academic paper, Chicago Manual Style citations, but giving an author, a book, or quoting from a clear, attributable source would be helpful. By not doing this, it frequently looks like you’re simply making assertions from thin air. It would have been helpful if you actually had a discussion of the issues involved in King Herod’s death and the timing of the census, so I could you’re aware that the issues are simple. Also, then I would know how much of the ancient sources you’re actually familiar with (i.e. have you read Josephus, Tacitus, Florus, and others). I’ve been studying Second Temple Judaism and the Greco-Roman world academically for some time, so I need to know how in-depth I can go without losing you or becoming overly technical (e.g. can I cite sources in Greek, discuss grammatical issues, textual variants, and so on? do you know the standard commentaries? do you have access to all this sort of material?). If you don’t reference any of these materials, I can only assume you’re dealing with secondary sources, and you have never spent any time with the primary works.
Second, I didn’t engage in “the fallacy of asserting immaturity” or an ad hominem by labeling your responses immature, and I didn’t say you were immature simply because you disagree with me. I said you were immature because you compare Jesus’ resurrection to a zombie. That’s the sort of thing that gets put on an ironic T-shirt at Hot Topic, not posted in a serious discussion. Now, I would have engaged in a fallacy/ad hominem if I said, “Well, you’re an atheist, and all atheists are stupid. Therefore, you are stupid, and I shouldn’t listen to you.” However, I didn’t do that.
I didn’t do that because I don’t actually believe that. In fact, the majority of your positions are held by many of my friends. I don’t consider them immature because they disagree with me, and I have never said such a thing to them when we discuss the same things you and I are discussing right now. I spent my last two blog discussions (and several conversations outside) considering how being an atheist is an intellectually credible discussion, even if I don’t think it’s true. So, I would never label you immature for simply disagreeing with me.
ReplyDeleteAs for your charge that I’m afraid to talk to you, I actually laughed out loud at work today when I read that statement. I am far from being afraid to engage in such issues because I’ve been where you’re sitting. I simply wasn’t interested in the ‘apologetical’ task on this blog or making my blog about that sort of thing. That’s not what it’s for. Also, writing such lengthy responses to you takes a very long time, and I would rather spend that time exploring other issues, like the one this blog post is supposed to be about: how we gain knowledge.
I didn’t move towards “censorship” because you disagree or because you’re an atheist or anything like that. I said I would moderate your comments because it seemed fairly clear to me that you were being disrespectful and weren’t actually reading my statements very carefully. If that was not your intent, I’m sorry. I meant no offense. Rather, I think that you can get your point across without being so inflammatory. Take that as a small suggestion, and not something to get upset about.
Finally, to your last paragraph. Despite the fact that you suggest my post is “useless,” I think we have yet to discuss the substantive parts of it. We’ve been moving along the periphery. I’ll answer what you have to say here, though.
First, I’ve said repeatedly that you can’t press the analogy in every way. No analogy functions in that way, so I actually don’t have to close every hole in the analogy in order for me to use it as I did. I simply chose the example of the earth rotating around the sun for several obvious reasons:
1. The fact of the heliocentric model is not obvious to the average person.
2. It took a great deal of investigation to uncover the model.
3. The average person, despite the discovery, simply accepts the heliocentric model as true, without actually being able to reproduce the results.
4. The heliocentric model has become an assumption, rather than something which must be proved.
Obviously, I applied this analogically to the existence of God in several ways and could do so in more ways, as I will do here.
1. The existence of God is not immediately obvious to every person today.
2. It takes a great deal of investigation to show God exists.
3. The average believer simply accepts God’s existence, without being able to prove it.
4. God’s existence is an assumption, rather than something which must be proved.
My main issue here is that I am trying to show how much of our knowledge, even knowledge that is established, reproducible, and so on, is actually something which we take on trust or on faith. We believe in its truth without verifying the facts. I actually think this situation is ok, though. I didn’t choose the example of the heliocentric model because its perfect. I actually had several other examples I thought about using. I simply used it because it’s sufficient for what I’m trying to accomplish, and I knew it would be easier than trying to introduce the example of a law court. Many of my readers already think my discussions are overly technical, and I attempted to offer up something which wouldn’t be entirely opaque. If my discussion doesn’t accomplish what you want it to, that’s another issue. I’m not simply writing for you; I’m writing for many people.
Second, in terms of the way you continue to press the analogy: I find it interesting that you continue to ask for evidence for God. Repeatedly, you have said that you want the evidence for God to be “actual,” “available,” and “reproducible.” This wish doesn’t strike you as a little odd? What sort of evidence would you expect or are you looking for?
ReplyDeleteIf God were to exist, why would you think that you would have some sort of clear evidence of the fact? That there would be evidence which is actual, available, and reproducible in any simple way?
Let us do a thought-experiment. Assume for one instance that God does exist. What sort of evidence would there be which could lead you to accept his existence? You see, I raise this question because I think it points to something rather important. Even if you do not believe in God, I think you can concede that, were God to exist, he wouldn’t necessarily leave behind any evidence different from what you can assess and nothing any different from the types of arguments I assume you’ve heard while debating theists.
And that’s the problem, I believe. There is no unequivocal evidence for God. There are many arguments. Like I’ve said, we could trot out several right now and consider them. I don’t think many of them are immediately compelling; they are not some sort of “one-size fits all” argument which will convince everyone. But they do constitute evidence in that they take stock of various situations or facts in the world, taking an interpretation of them which his logically coherent and consistent. There is, indeed, evidence, even if it’s not the kind that suits you. Now, if you want to discuss these arguments, perhaps I will do so on another post. Again, my main point is simply that the evidence is not easy.
Instead, I think that we have to spend time evaluating a great deal of material which potentially admits several different interpretations. As I said in my original post, coming to believe in God is not like coming to believe that the sky is blue. One is primarily a matter of simple perception, and the other involves dealing with a lot of slippery material which could be taken in many ways.
Now, this post has run to 7 pages (14 double-spaced), and I have spent a good three hours thinking and writing about what you have to say. I hope this demonstrates to you that I take your conversation seriously.
@Erik:
ReplyDeleteYou began by stating that you understand where Zach is coming from. Excellent. Please confirm this by providing both of the following: (1) the question which Zach was trying to answer in your own words & (2) a brief outline of the answer which Zach provided for this question (or the question which he posed to the question).
This would be very much appreciated for the benefit of all; for how can we debate each others' answers until we have understood what single question we are trying to answer? Cheers
Erik,
ReplyDeleteYou appear to be incapable of engaging in this level of discourse, while remaining unaware of the fact.
I believe I've shown you a great deal of patience, and I spent much time laying out an argument for how we actually use proper historical method while deciding questions concerning historical probability, but you simply ignored these issues in your responses.
Also, if you actually want to discuss issues in the biblical text, I think you have a lot more study to do. You are making so many questionable assumptions that it is difficult to even know where to start in responding to you. I think you need to spend a little more time looking at the complexity of the issues involved in interpreting ancient texts. Finally, the fact that your actually think saying "zombie Jesus" is intellectually superior shows how much growing up you need to do before airing your comments in the public square.
I could go on, but I'm not spending any more time on this issue with you because, as I said above, you have proved yourself incapable of engaging the topic. Not only do you lack basic respect, but you also seem only interested in airing your views without engaging in anything remotely resembling a conversation.
On top of that, you seem to have a problem stringing together coherent English sentences. It's a little difficult to comprehend you when you lack decent language skills.
Erik, I'm sorry, but I will be removing your final posts and your ability to add anything further to this blog. I won't spend all my time fielding comments from you which are incoherent and conceptually ridiculous, all delivered in a tone of authority which is completely off the mark.
For my other readers, I apologize, but I will be moderating comments for a time. Please forgive the inconvenience this adds to our discusions.
Everyone, I have removed Erik's last posts, and he will no longer have the ability to make comments on this blog. His posts are no longer visible.
ReplyDelete@Zack (sorry for before, I don't know why I always confuse 'Zach's and 'Zack's and hope that slippage of mind does not offend: it does not reflect my estimation of your person):
ReplyDeleteThanks for an insightful post. I have yet to fully settle on an answer to the question you sought to answer (can there be a good reason that God's existence should be not obvious?). However, I believe I would formulate something similar, if less systematic.
First, your analogy captures adequately a situation by which we apprehend facts through indirect experience - largely based upon the authority of others' demonstrations. Having attempted to read Ptolemy's "Almagest", I realize that I could not disprove the geocentric model (and don't feel the need to do so). Interestingly, Ptolemy relied on previous calculations from prior astronomers. Simply because we are taught something in grade school does not mean that we have collectively have the ability to produce similar demonstrations (heck, Pluto used to be a planet). It is the nature of observation that a better theory may always come along to provide more accurate results - still that theory must account for all previous data.
(Sorry to rant there - too many discussions turn into polemics against the illusion that we are smarter now than in previous generations: a discussion which is off the mark of this discussion) The example is a good one: don't we still speak of 'sunrises' and 'sunsets' in our everyday speech?
Second, I agree with Justo Gonzalez: a God whose existence you can irrefutably prove is an idol. In such a case, God's existence is subject to Reason. The classical proofs of Aquinas and Anselm are tools which may prove helpful for some, but on the whole they are hypotheses to be affirmed or denied based on experience. God's existence or nonexistence are a set of hypotheses which seek to explain the same phenomena. This is why two rationally capable people can come to vastly different conclusions. You are right to question why we should expect obviousness. The fact is that most truth is difficult to prove. Beyond the law of non-contradiction, the interrelatedness of numbers, and potentially a few other items the apprehension of truth requires an approach through observations (our own and those of others) which we then can apply probabilities to. I'm glad that you avoided getting bogged down by this end of the discussion, but it is a fascinating aspect. The fact is that there is very little that we can be absolutely sure of but this generally doesn't hinder us: we go about our days assuming that the essential laws of nature will continue on their merry way whether we could demonstrate Newton's theory of gravity or not.