Design (Week 25)

I would like to take a momentary break from the Bible and historical evidence. I want to revisit the idea of design, because I think my treatment of this fundamental argument was too brief… we were flying through the arguments early on, but intelligent design (if true) is the characteristic that separates the theistic universe from the deistic (causer would be involved at the inception only) or materialistic (no intelligence necessary) universe models. The arguments I gave previously focused more on cosmological probabilities in sticking with the prior theme, but I’d like to delve into the arena of the theories for first life and the data contained within each life form. Evolutionary theory does not offer an explanation for first life that is accepted by an abundance of scientists. As Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution is True noted, “…we have only a foggy window into the earliest and most interesting developments in evolution, and none at all into the origin of life.”

Intelligent design has a huge hurdle to overcome before the race even begins: the term “Intelligent Design” speaks to the conclusion of the theory and not to the science behind it; as such, it’s easy for someone who is not an ID proponent to scoff at the notion before even seeing the evidence (reactions just from my own audience included “Bwahahahaha!” and “…the entire premise of ID is that there is nothing to study – God did it….”). Evolutionary theory has met similar resistance in religious communities primarily because it is viewed as a sort of no-need-for-God theory. I think the attitudes on both sides (not to say that the theories are necessarily at odds… I get to that momentarily) lead to a sort of intellectual dishonesty. Certainly, many Christians are guilty of dismissing evolutionary theory without knowing the scientific discoveries that have had a profound impact over the past several decades. I would argue, too, that many evolutionary theorists consider ID as being a sort of capitulation by theists who can’t explain certain phenomena and thereby just insert God into the equation. Both parties, I think, are missing out on the opportunity for a good scientific discussion. Evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin, and ID has made huge strides since Paley. There is evidence for both theories, and I think that the scientific approach for both theories is very similar. This is the notion I want to explore over the next few weeks.

There is an understandable predilection for scientists to look for materialistic causes. After all, the explanation “God did it” seems to many tantamount to throwing up one’s hands and giving up on the problem. ID, however, is not necessarily an enterprise that seeks to justify one’s religious convictions; rather, it is a natural extrapolation from the evidence at hand. Evidence for ID has religious implications, but it is not necessary to presume God in order to look for intelligence. Similarly, it is not necessary to posit a materialist universe in order to form the theory of evolution.

Like evolutionary theory, ID seeks to draw on what we know and to extrapolate this to the fundamental properties of earthly beings. In its simplest form, ID theory says simply that the data contained within a living being is indicative of a designer. Often, ID proponents will say something like, “If you look at the Grand Canyon, you will see a beautiful landscape that appears to have been created by the natural forces of wind and water; on the other hand, if you look at Mount Rushmore, you can note clear elements of design. This evidence, to any unbiased onlooker, obviously points to an intelligent sculptor, or designer.” This is a nice notion and one that I have used in the past (maybe even in a previous blog… I don’t recall), but it is not sufficient to a scientist to simply say, “Look at this thing. It sure looks designed to me.” The clearest evidence of design, I think, is not formation, but information.

One thing that I want to make clear is that I don’t believe evolution to be the anti-God argument that some have made it out to be. I do think that, as Richard Dawkins made clear, it enables atheists to have a scientific backing of their own beliefs – that if evolution is indeed a wholly natural process, there is no need for theistic explanations; however, I don’t believe that – even if the general premise of inter-species changes over time is true – this somehow negates God. Even the most devout evolutionist would likely acknowledge that there are holes in our knowledge of how these changes take place in a relatively short amount of time. So, my focus will not be in attacking evolutionary theory; rather, I would prefer to focus on the issue at hand: do we have evidence to indicate that organisms were designed?

If evolutionary theorists like Coyne cannot offer a sufficient explanation for first life, should the scientific community really look upon ID with such disdain? Who is throwing up their hands? It seems to me that by making an assumption that first life could have occurred via natural processes without first formulating a reasonable explanation, scientists are essentially yielding to the notion “…that there is nothing to study.” I personally find it a tad unusual that a group could be so militantly opposed to a theory when attempts to formulate materialistic theories have fallen woefully short of substantive proof. Instead, I propose simply that we take a look at the evidence behind ID, and view the data thoughtfully and with detachment. As Darwin put it, “A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone.” One doesn’t have to presume intelligence to find it, and one shouldn’t disregard intelligence if the evidence is plain. Chance simply does not provide a sufficient explanation for the formation of life, and the idea that natural selection preceded life is incongruous.

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be delving a bit deeper into the principles behind ID theory, but I’ll also be equating the scientific methods to those utilized by proponents of evolutionary theory. I would like to give a special thanks to Skyhook for providing me with materials for comparison. This will give us a good grounding for discussion.

Minimal Facts (Week 24)

There are five principle Biblical facts that are agreed upon by a strong majority of secular and Christian scholars, four of which are granted by an overwhelming majority (the fifth – that Jesus’ tomb was empty – is granted by about 75% of scholars, and will be excluded from our analysis). This week, I want to focus not on my own justifications, but on the scholarship of those best suited for understanding the significance of the evidence at hand. I will then present several of the most common “miracles-not-necessary” explanations for Biblical events (most of which have been employed in the Comments section of this blog) and see how they stack up against the “four.”

Quick Lesson: The Conversions of Paul and James (short version)

I’ll discuss both Paul and James in subsequent blogs; however, I think it is important to give a brief synopsis of their respective conversions since we have not yet discussed either of their stories. James was the son of Mary and Joseph (commonly called Jesus’ “half brother”). The Bible records clearly that James did not believe Jesus to be the messiah, but that he came to believe purportedly after Jesus’ appearance to him. Paul was a persecutor of Christians. The Bible recounts specifically that Paul was present during Stephen’s martyrdom. But both Luke and Paul record that a sudden transformation occurred when Paul encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Following this encounter, Paul devoted his life to spreading the gospel and was eventually martyred for these beliefs.

Minimal Facts

As an aside, my normal approach to this blog is to formulate my own ideas and arguments and to reference source material for additional support when I am unable to answer my own challenges. I confess, however, that I thoroughly enjoy the historical studies surrounding early Christianity and have read avidly on this subject. I turned 30 a couple of weeks ago, and one of my gifts was a book on the historicity of the resurrection (thanks, Hon). Included in this book were the “minimal facts” we’ll be examining this week. The book’s material coincided wonderfully with where we are in the blog, so I thought, Why reinvent the wheel?

The criteria for the four minimal facts are as follows. They must:

A. Be remarkably well-attested on many grounds which may comprise authenticity criteria including:
• Multiple, independent sources
• Attestation by neutral sources or enemies
• Details of embarrassment (i.e. details that would serve to weaken one’s position in the eyes of one’s audience)
• Eyewitness testimony (over second- and third-hand sources)
• Early testimony.

B. Be granted by virtually all scholars including scholars whose conclusions differ from Christian scholars.

The four minimal facts we’ll be looking at are as follows:

• Jesus died by crucifixion.
• Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.
• The church persecutor Paul converted to Christianity from a strong anti-Christian position.
• Jesus’ skeptic brother, James, underwent a sudden and dramatic transformation.

I have focused in past weeks upon offering evidence for two of these facts (belief more so than crucifixion), and will in future weeks provide arguments for the conversions of Paul and James.

To reiterate, I have devoted a lot of my blog material on giving evidence for the historicity of the Biblical texts, and will continue to do so in subsequent weeks. This week I want to focus on the possible explanations for the minimal facts and any shortfalls we might encounter with various explanations. So, let’s press on with the premise that the four minimal facts are true. If you take umbrage with any of the four, know that you are among a very small minority. Being in the minority doesn’t necessarily make you wrong, but it is probably worthwhile to reinvestigate the supporting evidence if you find yourself in a lonely place.

Hypothesis # 1: They made it all up

It isn’t so much that this theory doesn’t offer conclusions consistent with the four minimal facts. This directly contradicts two of the minimal facts and provides no explanation for the sudden conversions of Paul or James.

Hypothesis # 2: They made some of it up

Again, we see that this idea is in direct conflict with one of the minimal facts. We don’t even need to delve into why it doesn’t explain the conversions of Paul and James.

Hypothesis #3: Visions and Delusions

This is sort of the “old-time revival” theory. People gather together in a little church and all of the sudden one becomes possessed by the Holy Spirit. Before too long, they’re all possessed by the Spirit, writhing on the floor in a collective blissful state as the Spirit overwhelms them. Sometimes the preacher does things from a compulsion “by the Spirit” that are incredibly un-Christ-like. So, I think it’s fair to conclude that – certainly in some of these scenarios – they experienced a state induced by their own emotions and not one induced by the Spirit. Following logically, we can conclude that masses of people can be coerced by the actions and beliefs of others into feeling things that aren’t really there.

Generally, when this is equated to the disciples, it’s assumed that in their grief-stricken state, one or more began to reflect on Jesus’ prediction and began to see Jesus in visions or hallucinations brought about by mental trauma. The trouble here is three-fold. First, while masses of people may be duped by illusions or may be incited to feel as though they have been possessed by spirits, it’s quite a leap from either of these recorded instances to interacting and eating with a risen messiah. That type of delusion is simply unequaled. Second, though you could make the argument that James was grief-stricken, he did not believe Jesus to be the messiah and would not, therefore, have been in the same boat as the disciples. Last, it’s a wild stretch to presume that Saul of Tarsus was so affected. That would be a far-reaching case of mass delusion… I think we’re one step removed from assuming that a hallucination-inducing cloud (a la Star Trek) was sweeping across the hills causing people to see Jesus.

Hypothesis #4: The Bias of the Disciples

There are a number of problems with this theory. First and foremost, if Jesus was not a miracle-working messiah, what in the world did the disciples have to be biased toward? I gave a fuller argument to this notion in another blog post, so I won’t rehash the entire thing here, but sufficed to say this notion is circular. Secondly, if anything, Paul and James both had a bias against Jesus. Paul was merrily hunting Christians in the name of God and James thought his dear brother was a few sandwiches short of a picnic. The bias theory does nothing to account for the conversion of either Paul or James since neither of them believed in Jesus’ divinity until after His death; rather, both purport to have witnessed the risen Christ and to have turned to Christ following this interaction.

Hypothesis #5: The Stuff of Legends

The principle fallacy with this theory is that Paul’s accounts and the gospel accounts are dated to within a very short time of Jesus’ death. Paul makes it clear that he and the disciples met only a few years after Jesus’ death. Both Paul and Luke make clear allusions to pre-existing oral accounts that bear the same message. To go, in a few short years, from nice guy to messiah in the minds of so many witnesses is just unfathomable. Legend just doesn’t develop this way.

Further, this theory necessitates that the disciples indeed did not preach Jesus’ resurrection after His death. It also fails to explain the conversions of Paul and James. Both of them were around to hear the story when Jesus was alive and didn’t buy it. It also doesn’t make sense that Paul would attest to his role in the death of one of Jesus’ followers (before his conversion) because Stephen was sharing the story of a nice guy who wasn’t the messiah or who didn’t rise from the dead. Nor would it make sense that Paul and the other Christians were persecuted so vigorously unless they were already attesting to the risen Christ.

Hypothesis #6: Just another Dying and Rising God

This particular theory can be rather infuriating because it’s simply incoherent at all levels. Somehow or another, a popular author or internet blogger latched onto this one and it spread like wildfire. The only truth here is that it acknowledges that Jesus did indeed die. The similarities between the resurrection story and stories like those of Osiris and Adonis have been woefully embellished. And the kicker? The ones most often referenced occurred after Jesus. Who’s borrowing from whom?

Hypothesis #7: The Stolen Body of Jesus

The disciples attested to seeing the risen Christ, not to assuming the risen Christ. This theory offers absolutely no evidence for the conversions of Paul and James. It’s really just another explanation for the empty tomb, which I excluded from the minimal facts.

Hypothesis #8: Jesus Did Not Really Die

If He didn’t die, He certainly didn’t die by crucifixion, and without death, resurrection makes no sense. So, this claim directly counters two of the minimal facts. The lack of evidence for the conversions is secondary.

Conclusion

The evidence for the minimal facts is almost universally recognized as true, and the structure of these facts is such that any attempt to explain away one of these extraordinary events falls woefully short of explaining another. I’m not trying simply to dismiss explanations with no grounds. It feels as though the only reason to dismiss the gospel claims is an a priori assumption that they cannot be true.

Belief (Week 23)

Last week, we focused on the idea of eyewitness testimony and two key objections surfaced as a result of this discussion:

1. Any individual testimony is generally insufficient in the eyes of the law and should be seen as insufficient in relation to the gospels as well.
2. Even if we presume the testimony is true, it only serves to illustrate that the early witnesses believed. Similar beliefs have been documented throughout history and the beliefs should, therefore, be taken with a grain of salt.

The first point is certainly valid to the nature of eyewitnesses in general; however, I would say that select eyewitnesses are certainly more estimable than others, and I doubt this statement would be hotly contested. In court rooms today, witnesses remain an integral piece of the puzzle. Are some untrustworthy? Absolutely! It’s up to the advocates on either side to ask the appropriate questions in order to ascertain the validity of witness testimony. Certain strategies discussed last week can be employed to discredit witnesses; however, each testimony should be reviewed upon its own merits. There are cases where each of us could sit on a jury and render a verdict based on the testimony of eyewitnesses. As I outlined last week, I think there is little reason to believe that the disciples did not truly deem their discourses to be true. As such, I think it less crucial to try to denigrate the validity of the witnesses and much more important to view the claims of the witnesses.

2. Even if we presume the testimony is true, it only serves to illustrate that the early witnesses believed. Similar beliefs have been documented throughout history and the beliefs should, therefore, be taken with a grain of salt.

Certainly Christians did not invent martyrdom; nor did they invent the idea of deism. Christianity remains one religion among many that claims to know the truth. In recent years, martyrdom is more closely associated with Islam than with Christianity. Mormons are more closely associated with evangelism. Yet, in many cases the teachings of each of these religions are diametrically opposed to one another. It’s abundantly clear, therefore, that mere belief does not amount to truth. Furthermore, even in modern times we can see millions of people who are willing to follow “miracle workers” – some of whom have been thoroughly discredited. These people are willing to share this “truth” with others resulting in the massive and rapid expansion of a new faith that can easily be shown to be false. The issue, then, is whether something exists to set Christianity apart.

I’ll single out Islam and Mormonism because they have two undeniable commonalities with Christianity: a rapid expanse and devout followers. As with the Christian martyrs, there can be little doubt that those Muslims who sacrifice themselves for their beliefs truly carry that belief. It doesn’t take a long discussion with a Mormon evangelist to realize that he truly believes the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.

Both Islam and Mormonism claim millions of devotees and both cannot be true as they teach contradictory ideas (issues of whether God would honor “sincere” belief aside). So, it follows logically that at least one must be false and that therefore millions and millions of people have been duped into believing unfounded claims. If millions of people possess a want to follow, it seems that mere promises and/or attested truths are adequate to sway hoards of people. In fact, I would argue that the populous of each major world religion is undeniable proof that the VAST majority of people do not root their beliefs in facts; rather, the beliefs are founded in desire, tradition, or self-interest. Christianity is no exception to this rule, and that fact alone is enough to cause many to group religions together as one basic belief in a higher power.

How, then, can we possibly say that any number of witnesses or martyrs are sufficient to demonstrate the truth of Christianity when it seems that the same arguments could be made to “prove” Islam and Mormonism to be true? Though this is generally how the question is presented to me, I think the question itself is misleading. Islam and Mormonism both promote certain “truths.” The “truths” themselves, however, are not based on acts or even a revelation to many; rather, they are based on the written testimony of a single person. In both cases, the witness claims no supernatural abilities (aside from the ability to consort supernaturally with God) and hence needs only to convince others of his own revelation.

Central to Islam and to Mormonism are the claims of a single prophet who, in both instances, went to meditate in a secluded are and was granted the Word of God via interaction with an angel (Joseph Smith through Moroni and Muhammad through Gabriel). This knowledge was shared with others along with promises of heaven for those who accepted the ideas. Many of the claims of Mormonism have been directly refuted with verifiable data. Islam is largely based on the refutation of the resurrection of Jesus about 600 years after the fact. In no other historical cases do we accept data submitted 600 years after an event over primary source documentation of witnesses. Mormonism is especially difficult to contest directly because it makes the claim that truth stems from an ambiguous and unfalsifiable “burning in the bosom” one receives when reading the Book of Mormon. In both of these cases, it is necessary to presuppose God’s existence then to appeal to God for substantiation of the believer’s beliefs. After all, the revelation was granted only to one man. As you might imagine, it is often the case that God grants substantiation in the mind of the believer.

The question should not focus on whether the adherents truly believe. After all, each religion claims numerous devotees who believe in a plethora of ideas and history has shown that people will believe any number of self-serving ideas and promises, both religious and non-religious. The question, rather, should focus on what the adherents truly believe. The most notable difference between Christianity and other religions is simply the scope of the claims. As an illustration, I would like to use an antagonistic comment from a few weeks ago. The comment was simply that the circumstances regarding Abraham Lincoln’s assassination are rarely disputed because the claim itself pales in comparison to the claim, for instance, that Lincoln invented a perpetual motion machine. The latter claim would require a great deal more evidence. I agree wholeheartedly and I would imagine that the majority of people would also agree to such a statement.

There is a tendency to write off Christianity as one of many myths perpetuated throughout antiquity. The truth of the matter, though, is that the treatment of the early Christians is proof positive that Christianity was not simply another religion to add to the pile. The early Christians made incredible claims… incredible not only to us, but to those who lived in the first century as well. Resurrections weren’t regular events. People did not regularly walk on water, perform miraculous healings, or grant supernatural powers to others. The claims were… well… unbelievable (obviously, I don’t mean this in the literal sense). To believe Jesus to be the messiah, to have performed great miracles, and to have raised Himself from the dead would have required extraordinary evidence, and the collective gospel accounts are the record of this evidence. The only “evidence” necessary in the other two examples would be the convincing nature of the preacher.

The other undeniable difference is the number of early witnesses. Muhammad and Joseph Smith were individuals who managed to sway the minds of thousands. The disciples, on the other hand, spread the same gospel throughout the Roman Empire under constant threat. To presume that all of Jesus’ disciples shared the same profusion of delusions would be silly. To presume that each misremembered the same life-altering events in the same way would be ludicrous. To presume that the group could be duped into seeing Jesus and interacting with Him for 40 days postmortem (on top of the many miracles already purported) would be completely unfounded. To presume that each chose to perpetuate a lie under the threat of death that would bring them absolutely no personal gain flies in the face of our own human experience. The simple truth is that there is no easy way to refute the gospel claims.

Next week, I’ll discuss the historical evidence in greater detail, focusing on those items that are in general consensus among scholars.