I've found myself thinking recently that 'faith' is more of a kind of package deal than most Christians (and probably most atheists too) actually realise. Christian faith (and I guess this applies to other religions too, but I'm just talking about the belief system I have been part of) contains beliefs about many different things which all seem to come lumped together into the package of faith. Some of the individual beliefs are things for which there is (or may be) evidence. But there is no evidence at all for others, those must be taken 'on faith'. What I have noticed in the various debates, etc., that I have been reading and hearing is that Christians (generally) don't seem to notice that there are different categories of belief within faith. Just because some aspects of faith can be evidence based, it doesn't follow that all aspects of faith can be evidence based.
Here is a list of ten (randomly selected) beliefs that form part of the faith of most Christians that I know (different beliefs are available within what some define as Christianity, but lets not go there just now):
It was only a few decades later that I came to question individual beliefs in isolation and realised that there are no good reasons for believing most of the things that are part of Christian faith.
Looking back at that list, I now realise that, for example, item 2 is a matter of history. Given sufficient historical data it would be possible to confirm this belief. (I'm not going to get into the issue of whether or not there is sufficient data in this post.)
Item 7 is a different matter. This is something which is, or should be, testable in the present day. Experience should provide evidence to support or deny this claim. And I think there is evidence to support this claim (whether the same evidence also supports alternative beliefs is a different question, which I will address in the next post). Item 10 is much like it, although with an unseen causality chain built in. Someone's life being transformed is not necessarily evidence that the transformation was due to some action by Jesus.
But there can be no evidence to allow us to decide on the truth of claims 4, 5, 6, 8 or 9. Not just that there is no evidence, but there actually can be no evidence. These are articles of pure faith. Which have to be either accepted or rejected with no evidence. It is impossible, literally impossible, for us to know what will happen in the future. We have precisely no data on what happens to people after they die (note: Near death experiences don't count; I'll be addressing them in another post soon). You believe this as part of a package deal, or you don't. That's it. Future prophecies are unconfirmed, by their very nature, and thus don't provide evidence for anything. What happens after death must be taken entirely on faith.
What happened at the origin of all things is also something that is forever beyond our reach. There is no contemporary evidence that can prove, one way or another, whether any god was involved in the initiation of our universe, let alone give us any evidence as to which god it was. Again, belief in any creation or creator is a purely faith based position.
For the Christian, the only 'evidence' for the majority of claims made as part of the Christian faith is the words of the bible. "The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" as the saying goes.
I'm afraid that, for me, that doesn't settle it anymore. When I came to realise that some things in the bible were outright fiction and some biblical prophecies have (demonstrably) failed to come true, I had to give up on a bible-based faith. It took a long time (best part of a decade) for me to work through the implications of that realisation. But finally the package deal fell apart and I realised that most of what I had been taught to believe was based on false premises. One by one I have had to reassess and give up on my old beliefs. I'm afraid not much is left.
So where do you go without faith? Well, onward into the unknown. What I found when I lost the certainty that comes with faith, was that the uncertainty left behind leads to all the same places. The same sun shines down, the same rain falls, just as many bad things happen, just as many good things happen, I 'get lucky' just as often, and oddly enough all this is quite comforting. There's a big unknown 'final frontier' out there. Might as well boldly go where no-one has gone before...
Here is a list of ten (randomly selected) beliefs that form part of the faith of most Christians that I know (different beliefs are available within what some define as Christianity, but lets not go there just now):
- Jesus Christ is the Son of God
- Jesus was crucified and died
- Jesus was bodily resurrected
- Jesus is now (physically, in a body) in heaven
- Jesus is part of the everlasting Trinity
- Jesus was the agent through whom the universe was created
- Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to his followers; you can experience the indwelling of the Holy Spirit today
- Followers of Jesus will go to heaven after they die
- Those who don't follow Jesus will go to hell after they die
- Jesus acts in the world today to heal people, transform lives and do other miraculous things
It was only a few decades later that I came to question individual beliefs in isolation and realised that there are no good reasons for believing most of the things that are part of Christian faith.
Looking back at that list, I now realise that, for example, item 2 is a matter of history. Given sufficient historical data it would be possible to confirm this belief. (I'm not going to get into the issue of whether or not there is sufficient data in this post.)
Item 7 is a different matter. This is something which is, or should be, testable in the present day. Experience should provide evidence to support or deny this claim. And I think there is evidence to support this claim (whether the same evidence also supports alternative beliefs is a different question, which I will address in the next post). Item 10 is much like it, although with an unseen causality chain built in. Someone's life being transformed is not necessarily evidence that the transformation was due to some action by Jesus.
But there can be no evidence to allow us to decide on the truth of claims 4, 5, 6, 8 or 9. Not just that there is no evidence, but there actually can be no evidence. These are articles of pure faith. Which have to be either accepted or rejected with no evidence. It is impossible, literally impossible, for us to know what will happen in the future. We have precisely no data on what happens to people after they die (note: Near death experiences don't count; I'll be addressing them in another post soon). You believe this as part of a package deal, or you don't. That's it. Future prophecies are unconfirmed, by their very nature, and thus don't provide evidence for anything. What happens after death must be taken entirely on faith.
What happened at the origin of all things is also something that is forever beyond our reach. There is no contemporary evidence that can prove, one way or another, whether any god was involved in the initiation of our universe, let alone give us any evidence as to which god it was. Again, belief in any creation or creator is a purely faith based position.
For the Christian, the only 'evidence' for the majority of claims made as part of the Christian faith is the words of the bible. "The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" as the saying goes.
I'm afraid that, for me, that doesn't settle it anymore. When I came to realise that some things in the bible were outright fiction and some biblical prophecies have (demonstrably) failed to come true, I had to give up on a bible-based faith. It took a long time (best part of a decade) for me to work through the implications of that realisation. But finally the package deal fell apart and I realised that most of what I had been taught to believe was based on false premises. One by one I have had to reassess and give up on my old beliefs. I'm afraid not much is left.
So where do you go without faith? Well, onward into the unknown. What I found when I lost the certainty that comes with faith, was that the uncertainty left behind leads to all the same places. The same sun shines down, the same rain falls, just as many bad things happen, just as many good things happen, I 'get lucky' just as often, and oddly enough all this is quite comforting. There's a big unknown 'final frontier' out there. Might as well boldly go where no-one has gone before...
12 comments:
I’m a little confused. You write,
“But there can be no evidence to allow us to decide on the truth of claims 4, 5, 6, 8 or 9. Not just that there is no evidence, but there actually can be no evidence.”
“For the Christian, the only ‘evidence’ for the majority of claims made as part of the Christian faith is the words of the bible. ‘The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it’ as the saying goes.”
Aren’t these two claims incompatible? On the one hand, it seems like you are suggesting that certain claims central to Christianity by their very nature admit of no evidence whatsoever. On the other, it seems like you think they could in principle have an evidential basis. Could you elaborate on what you mean?
You write,
“When I came to realise that some things in the bible were outright fiction and some biblical prophecies have (demonstrably) failed to come true, I had to give up on a bible-based faith.”
It’s hard to respond to this in the absence of particular examples, but let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that there are biblical texts which teach errors. I don’t see how that would defeat (say) robust historical arguments for the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth made particular claims (about himself, the coming judgement, &c.), that God raised him from the dead, and that Jesus’ resurrection serves as sign of divine vindication of his teachings.
Cheers!
"Aren’t these two claims incompatible? On the one hand, it seems like you are suggesting that certain claims central to Christianity by their very nature admit of no evidence whatsoever. On the other, it seems like you think they could in principle have an evidential basis. Could you elaborate on what you mean?"
What I mean is that there can be no hard evidence for future events or events in the distant past. That is, these beliefs are taken purely on faith with no evidence.
Something being written in a book or claimed by an ancient writer is not, in itself, good evidence for anything. Yet Christians commonly accept anything written in the bible as sufficient grounds for belief, which is equivalent (in their eyes) to evidence.
Just because someone uses something as evidence, doesn't mean that the thing used is actually any good as evidence.
"It’s hard to respond to this in the absence of particular examples, but let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that there are biblical texts which teach errors. I don’t see how that would defeat (say) robust historical arguments for the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth made particular claims (about himself, the coming judgement, &c.), that God raised him from the dead, and that Jesus’ resurrection serves as sign of divine vindication of his teachings."
The bible does claim some things which are demonstrably wrong. Have a look at this post of mine for some examples.
It is clear that the bible has mistakes, errors and outright fiction in it. How can we then sift the fiction out in order to determine what the true stuff (if any) is?
All "robust" historical arguments for the historicity of the resurrection (and for the historical reliability of the teachings of Jesus) are based on the assumption that the gospels are essentially trustworthy and accurate historical sources. When we put that issue to the test, as I have done several times on this blog, we find that there is no good reason to accept the gospels as good history. Therefore there is no good reason to believe in an empty tomb. There are no sources other than the gospels which claim this. It could be pure fiction...
“What I mean is that there can be no hard evidence for future events or events in the distant past. That is, these beliefs are taken purely on faith with no evidence.”
What do you mean by “hard evidence”? How does it differ from simply “evidence”?
“Something being written in a book or claimed by an ancient writer is not, in itself, good evidence for anything.”
I’m not sure why you added the qualified “in itself” here. Clearly many things are relevant to determining the credence we should assign to a particular writer. (For example: What are her credentials? How well do her claims integrate with other sources where we can test them? Are there points of incidental connection between what she has to say and what we know through other means?)
“It is clear that the bible has mistakes, errors and outright fiction in it. How can we then sift the fiction out in order to determine what the true stuff (if any) is?”
Even conceding your initial claim for the sake of argument, don’t professional historians go about this business all the time? Do you think historians should throw out entire texts – entire collections of texts – when they find what prima facie appears to be an error in one of the texts? That would be incongruous with historical practice, and indeed an utterly absurd course of action.
“All ‘robust’ historical arguments for the historicity of the resurrection (and for the historical reliability of the teachings of Jesus) are based on the assumption that the gospels are essentially trustworthy and accurate historical sources.”
Which arguments do you have in mind? So-called “minimal facts” arguments don’t presuppose that the Gospel accounts are essentially trustworthy or accurate historical sources, even though that claim is eminently defensible. (You have listened to Tim McGrew’s debate with Peter Boghossian, I take it. Have you checked out Tim McGrew’s talks on the genuineness and authenticity of the Gospel accounts – e.g. here?
Hi. I haven't listened to those talks by Tim McGrew. I will check them out, thanks.
"Which arguments I have in mind" is every argument I have ever heard for the empty tomb. The "minimal facts" argument included. The 'fact' of the empty tomb is one of the axioms of the minimal facts argument. Yet nobody can provide non-gospel evidence to support this claim. The minimal facts argument relies on gospel testimony, thus we need evidence that the gospels are reliable before we can embark on the minimal facts argument. Without such evidence, all we have is a 'minimal assertions' argument.
The appeal to professional historians doesn't really work. There are many books from antiquity which reveal much about the ancient world. The bible is one such book. But a professional historian uses the principle of analogy among other tools. If something is impossible in the modern world we must assume it was also impossible in antiquity. Therefore when we read of the virgin birth of Caesar Augustus, we have to consider it as fiction not fact. When we read of the post-mortem appearance of Apollonius of Tyana, we have to treat it with suspicion. Thus the historian must treat the claims of the gospels as probably fiction unless other evidence can be found. I'm not aware of other evidence.
As to the difference between 'hard evidence' and 'evidence' I really mean that 'hard evidence' is something that should convince anybody and everybody, where as mere 'evidence' can be subjective and mean different things to me and you.
And the 'in itself' comment is again an appeal for other confirming evidence. A writing in a book is not necessarily evidence for anything. An unverified claim in a book that contains many verified claims may count as evidence. If, say, some stories in Matthew's gospel can be independently verified, then that might suggest that some other stories are reliable. If, however, we find that Matthew copied large chunks of text from another source (Mark) and modified them to his own purposes in the copying, while overlaying his own theological agenda, then we have suspicions about the motives of Matthew, and reason to doubt that his primary objective was relaying the facts as they happened.
“The ‘fact’ of the empty tomb is one of the axioms of the minimal facts argument. Yet nobody can provide non-gospel evidence to support this claim. minimal facts argument relies on gospel testimony, thus we need evidence that the gospels are reliable before we can embark on the minimal facts argument.”
It’s unclear what you mean by “non-gospel evidence.” For one thing, a very strong argument can be made for the empty tomb based on material in the Gospel accounts without presupposing they are generally reliable.
For example, take Mat. 28:11–15:
“While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, ‘Tell people, “His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.” And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.’ So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.”
Suppose you find this story implausible and ad hoc; suppose you think its main details are generally unreliable. What does it show nonetheless? That people at the time Matthew was writing were spreading the rumour that Jesus’ disciples had stolen the body from the tomb. That, after all, is why Matthew included this claim in his Gospel account.
(Incidentally, in the second century, Justin Martyr wrote, “You have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven” [Dialogue with Trypho 108].)
{continued}
{continued from above}
Moreover, the Gospel accounts agree that the empty tomb was first found by women. Given the status of women in the ancient world, and the reality that their testimony was generally looked down upon, by the criterion of embarrassment it is very, very unlikely that the author of a Gospel account seeking to persuade his audience of the central claims of Christianity as he saw them would make up a fictional story about an empty tomb with women as the first witnesses.
Arguments like these use the Gospel accounts as sources without presupposing their general authenticity – even though there are good reasons to affirm the latter.
“But a professional historian uses the principle of analogy among other tools.”
What reason is there to accept the principle of analogy?
“If something is impossible in the modern world we must assume it was also impossible in antiquity.”
Who says that miracles do not occur today? Craig Keener, in his monumental two-volume work Miracles (Baker Academic, 2011), lays out a vast array of contemporary miracle-claims. Not only do people claim to have witnessed miracles today, supernatural explanations are arguably the most satisfactory explanations in at least some cases. Even the principle of analogy cannot be applied straightfowardly to miracle-claims from antiquity without begging many questions.
“Thus the historian must treat the claims of the gospels as probably fiction unless other evidence can be found. I’m not aware of other evidence.”
What types of “other evidence” would you consider?
“As to the difference between ‘hard evidence’ and ‘evidence’ I really mean that ‘hard evidence’ is something that should convince anybody and everybody, where as mere ‘evidence’ can be subjective and mean different things to me and you.”
“What I mean is that there can be no hard evidence for future events or events in the distant past. That is, these beliefs are taken purely on faith with no evidence.”
So you think there is no evidence for future events or for events in the distant past that should convince anybody and everybody? This is a very strange position to hold. Do you really think there is no evidence that should convince anybody and everybody of the existence of Augustus, the tragedy of the Holocaust, the ancient age of the universe, &c.? I fear I have misunderstood you.
Taking your last point first, I don't consider the Holocaust or even Augustus to be the 'distant' past. But questions of the agent through whom the universe was brought into being are so far back in time that we cannot really know anything about the nature of that agent, based on evidence that exists today. Similarly, no contemporary evidence can prove that the second coming will happen. Jesus as the agent of creation and the future coming king are both articles of pure faith, and no evidence can exist for either.
Events in history, whether the Holocaust or the death and apparent resurrection of Jesus may leave evidence in the historical record. There is plenty of evidence for the Holocaust. There is not much reliable evidence for anything specific in the life of Jesus. Perhaps he lived. If he lived it is possible that he taught some things. If he lived it is physically impossible that he walked on water. Of course, it is plausible that someone thought they saw him walking on water, and plausible that someone else, on hearing this story, wrote it down. People 'see' things that didn't happen on a daily basis. People do not walk on water on a daily basis. Even Craig Keener does not claim that this happens.
New Testament historians cannot agree on anything that Jesus said or did. Was Jesus an apocalyptic prophet? Some say he was. Was he a violent revolutionary? Some say he was. Was he a cynic teacher? Some say he was. The more I have read about the 'quest' for the historical Jesus, the more I see that people can create almost any Jesus they want to see there. What I take away from all of this is that there is not sufficiently strong evidence available to claim anything specific about Jesus life, teaching, death or afterlife.
As for the criterion of embarrassment and the "nobody would have fabricated the story of the women at the tomb" argument, that has been debunked and overturned so many times that I can hardly believe that anyone still holds to it.
Women's testimony counted in ancient days, especially in contexts that were considered the remit of women; and this explicitly included preparation of bodies for burial and mourning for the dead. Thus, actually, the testimony of a woman in this instance would count more than that of a man. A man would not have had cause to go to the tomb. A woman would.
Finally, for now, the question of the story in Matthew about grave robbing. What is clear is that once Christianity became established, people believed in an empty tomb. It is also clear (certainly by the 2nd century, possibly before) that there were non-christians who tried to pick apart and disprove the claims of the Christians. This happens now, it happened then. How to explain an empty tomb? Say that someone stole the body. Clearly this story was circulating in the days when Matthew wrote his gospel, clearly he included the 'made up' story to rebut the nay-sayers. Perhaps he retrojected it into history so he could counter it? We can't be sure. Does the observation that Matthew (whoever he was) tried to counter an argument mean that Matthew's opinion was right? No. It might be, it might not be, that is what we're trying to establish. But I don't think you can use text evidence in Matthew to provide support for other text evidence in Matthew.
“Taking your last point first, I don't consider the Holocaust or even Augustus to be the 'distant' past.”
Out of curiosity, then, do you think Jesus lived in the distant past? Augustus was born in 63 BCE and died in 14 CE.
“Jesus as the agent of creation and the future coming king are both articles of pure faith, and no evidence can exist for either.”
To be honest, I think this is a bit disingenuous. That Christ is the Logos incarnate, and that Christ will return, are of course articles of faith, which is to say they are claims that could not be established on philosophical grounds alone and can be known only via divine revelation. But of course Christians do not hold that there is no basis for this divine revelation: on the contrary, these claims are grounded in Jesus’ life and teachings and confirmed by his resurrection as a seal of divine approval on his ministry, and Jesus’ life, teachings, and resurrection are confirmed using the methods of historical investigation.
Suggesting that faith somehow excludes or contradicts evidence is rhetorically powerful, but it is no more than equivocation in this context. As Edward Feser writes in *Aquinas* (Oneworld, 2009, pp. 2–3): “To be sure, a part of theology (what is generally called ‘revealed theology’) is based on what Aquinas regards as truths that have been revealed to us by God. To that extent theology is based on faith. But ‘faith,’ for Aquinas, does not mean an irrational will to believe something for which there is no evidence. It is rather a matter of believing something on the basis of divine authority ([*Summa Theologica* II–II.4.1), where the fact that it really has been revealed by God can be confirmed by the miracles performed by the one through whom God revealed it ([*Summa Theologica* II–II.2.9).”
{continued below}
{continued from above}
“People 'see' things that didn't happen on a daily basis.”
As people who care about evidence, we need to look into the specific details of miracle-claims, to consider how likely it is that (alleged) witnesses lied or were mistaken about what they thought they saw, and so on. General statements (like “People die for what they believe all the time!” and “People fall prey to all kinds of delusions!” and so on) are too vague to be helpful. “Jury, I assure you, criminals frame others for crimes all the time!”
“Women's testimony counted in ancient days, especially in contexts that were considered the remit of women; and this explicitly included preparation of bodies for burial and mourning for the dead. Thus, actually, the testimony of a woman in this instance would count more than that of a man. A man would not have had cause to go to the tomb. A woman would.”
Josephus, in *Antiquities* 4.8.15, wrote, “Let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.” In the Talmud, *b. Mas. Sotah* 31b, we find, “Wherever the Torah accepts the testimony of one witness, it follows the majority of persons, so that two women against one man is identical with two men against one man. But there are some who declare that wherever a competent witness came first, even a hundred women are regarded as equal to one witness ... but when it is a woman who came first, then two women against one man is like half-and-half.” What basis is there for thinking that the Gospel writers would have expected the testimony of women to be respected?
Of course the women *would* have gone to the tomb to anoint the body, &c. (although it is utterly inexplicable why the tomb would not have been venerated as the site where Jesus was buried if his corpse remained there). That does not make it likely that early Christian apologists – as you seem to think the author of the Gospel account according to Matthew was – would have mentioned women as the first witnesses to the empty tomb, let alone the resurrected Christ. (Indeed, in the early creed contained in 1 Cor. 15, women are not even mentioned.)
“What is clear is that once Christianity became established, people believed in an empty tomb.”
Right. So Jesus’ corpse could still have been rotting away in the tomb while his followers trotted around telling everyone (for some reason) that the tomb was empty and the best response that their critics could come up with was, “Well, they must have stolen the body?” My contention is simply that we can take the Gospel accounts to provide strong evidence for particular claims without presupposing that they are generally reliable.
Sorry for the delayed response. I got distracted by Christmas! ;-)
"Out of curiosity, then, do you think Jesus lived in the distant past? "
Nope. In principle, given sufficient surviving evidence, it should be possible to know things, with reasonable confidence, about some people who lived two thousand years ago.
For example, I think we know quite a lot about Flavius Josephus and can say a few things about his life with reasonable certainty. Its a shame, however, that later editors have added to and removed content from his writings, so we have no way of knowing with certainty what, if anything, he originally wrote about Jesus.
"To be honest, I think this is a bit disingenuous."
Do you? That wasn't my intent. As I think I said, the reason for this post is to think about the fact that certain 'articles of faith' are such that there is no evidence for them. But Christians, on the whole, don't really think that they are accepting a package deal. I'm sure many Christians have never really thought through the issues to realise that they have blindly accepted some doctrines because they have (what appears to be) evidence for other doctrines. Certainly, I was like that, and I know others who are still clearly of that way of thinking.
I think I'll pass on the discussion about women's testimony. It is a red herring.
"Right. So Jesus’ corpse could still have been rotting away in the tomb while his followers trotted around telling everyone (for some reason) that the tomb was empty and the best response that their critics could come up with was, “Well, they must have stolen the body?” My contention is simply that we can take the Gospel accounts to provide strong evidence for particular claims without presupposing that they are generally reliable."
The story of the crucifixion is problematic in many ways. Not least the question of why Jesus was buried at all. As far as we can tell from Roman sources, crucified bodies were left on crosses for days, there was no rush to take them down. Romans, and Pilate in particular, certainly wouldn't have cared if bodies were left on crosses on the Sabbath. The story of the quick death and quick removal of the corpse of Jesus does not make historical sense. The body should have been left there for days, then eventually thrown into a pit. It should not have been given an honourable burial. See various writings by John Dominic Crossan.
Next we have the enigma of Joseph of Arimathea. Joseph from a village that never existed. The odd thing about this story is the parallel in the works of Josephus, where Josephus (erm, Joseph Bar Matthias is one way of rendering his name) requests that a friend of his (named Jesus, as it happens), be removed from the cross early. In the Josephus story, this Jesus is not dead, and eventually recovers from his injuries (returns to life, you might say). Is it just me, or is there a massive amount of coincidence in there?
Everything I've read on the subject has brought me to the point of believing that the crucifixion and empty tomb stories were all conceived of shortly before they were written down, some 40 to 70 years after the alleged events would have taken place.
Ricky,
Happy Christmas and New Year!
If you don’t mind me asking, what have you read on the historical Jesus? Robert Price is a fringe figure.
Post a Comment