January 6, 2007
-
"what would convince you that you're wrong?"
I came across this cool list of questions today... thirty-seven questions from atheists toward theists/Christians... with some excellent answers by Rob Bowman.
I especially like the question "What would convince you that you're wrong?" I've asked this question before to atheist friends of mine, and they've had a hard time answering it. One guy said, "If a ten-foot-tall angel were to appear to me right now, with flaming sword, and tell me that I'm wrong, then I'd believe it." Then I pressed him a bit on it, and he admitted that he could still think of some reasons to disbelieve it (it might be a elaborate special-effects hoax, etc). Atheism turns out to be rather "unfalsifiable." On the contrary, as Bowman says, just a few simple things would be enough to "falsify" Christianity. Such as... a plausible explanation for the origin of the resurrection stories, the New Testament documents, and the origin of the Christian church in Jerusalem around 30 AD.
Comments (10)
Excellent questions. I'll have to memorize some of them and not be thinking, "Oh, what WERE those great ideas?"
-shrug- That doesn't really make Christianity falsifiable. God could be working through natural means. Few things are falsifiable if you want to break them down that much, because EVERYTHING could be a hoax.
~Sol
On the contrary, Sol...
For many "religions", you're correct - the historical details don't / wouldn't matter. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, some liberal Christians would shrug and say, "So what? At least his teachings are still helpful."
But that's not Biblical / true Christianity. For biblical Christianity, if Christ was not raised, our faith is "worthless" (1 Corinthians 15). So it turns out that Christianity really is falsifiable... unlike atheism.
No, what I'm saying is that you could deny the usefulness of evidence, just like you claim the atheists do. If someone came up with proof that Jesus was not raised from the dead, then people could say "Well, your proof is wrong," just like the guy would with the giant angel. Just as the giant angel could be a hoax, so too could be the information disproving Jesus' resurrection.
~Sol
Ok, I see what you're saying. Hmmm... interesting point.
I wonder if there is still a bit of difference, though, because Biblical Christianity is so intrinsically tied to historical events. Atheism seems more philosophical, from what I've seen / the atheists I've known.
For example, if somehow an atheist became convinced that Jesus really did rise from the dead, if he were a staunch believer in philosophical naturalism it's still possible that he would disbelieve in God. He might think to himself that Jesus "may have known about advanced scientific knowledge" or "self-resuscitation techniques" or something. Perhaps I'm wrong - perhaps even one documented "miracle" (event that seems to violate known scientific laws / ways-things-usually-work) would be enough to convince an atheist that the supernatural does exist.
For the biblical Christian, if he became convinced that Jesus had NOT risen from the dead, his faith/religion/worldview is automatically shattered. You're right that it would be difficult to strongly support that historical claim (that He didn't rise)... but IF it could be documented (in the same way as vice-versa for the atheist as above), that would be the end of his faith... because Christianity is very "historically-based"... more so, I think, than atheism or any other religion except perhaps Islam.
You may be right, actually. I believe that we know little enough about the way the world works that prophecy and even miracles could be related to natural causes. It would be difficult for me to tell, especially given how many new things we've discovered about the world in, say, the last century. I am hoping that this next century will bring new discoveries about human capacity.
~Sol
But wouldn't you think that whoever was producing the prophecy ought to know how it worked? So, for example, when the Old Testament prophets claimed to be receiving revelation from God, and their prophecies came true, wouldn't that then be a pretty good indication that God really does exist?
Similarly when Jesus claimed things like: (John 8:28) - "I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me."... and then subsequently he predicted his own resurrection from the dead (Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, Luke 9:22, 18:33, 24:7, etc) and then he rose exactly as he had predicted, then it would seem reasonable that He really is who He claimed to be.
The only other option (if Jesus really did predict and then fulfill his own resurrection) is that He was lying or deluded when He was teaching about God. But neither of these hypotheses seem very likely to me based on the other information we have about the character of Jesus...
So it would seem that He really is the Son of God as He claimed. What are your thoughts on this? Have you ever studied the resurrection accounts yourself?
If it were prophecy, which I'm not sure of, I wouldn't necessarily believe that the person making the prophecy knew how it worked. And while I agree with much of the philosophies attributed to Jesus, I wouldn't be terribly surprised by his being a bit delusional. If I believe in prophecy, maybe I believe that "witch doctors" and the like could see the future, and I think more than a few of them were delusional. It's not hard for me to believe that there are fundamental things about the universe and ourselves that we don't understand; this would be why I'm agnostic instead of an atheist. Also, it seems the least arrogant path to take: both atheism and theism frequently claim an absolute certainty that I do not believe is attainable.
~Sol
Indeed! Thank you for the encouragement. I hope the arrangement is working well for you... even though I'm sure it's been an adjustment. More experiences from which the Lord can draw, eh?
Sol, you wrote: "If it were prophecy, which I'm not sure of, I wouldn't necessarily believe that the person making the prophecy knew how it worked."
Hmmm... why not? No human can predict the future, but God claims to be able to, in the Bible. If His messages through His prophets about the future come dramatically true (e.g. Tyre vs. Sidon, Cyrus and the Diaspora, Daniel's 4 kingdoms, the Messiah prophecies about Jesus, Jesus' own prediction of his death and resurrection), that seems to me to be an excellent demonstration of His veracity (not to mention His existence). To hold that fulfilled prophecy "might still be accomplished by some natural means" risks disbelieving in God in spite of the evidence, as in "I will not believe no matter what evidence is shown me." This is dogmatic atheism, not agnosticism.
Again, I do not claim certainty, but what I do claim is asymptotic knowledge - gradually approaching the truth more and more closely, as I learn more and see more evidence over the course of my life. There are definitely things about the universe that I/we don't understand (cosmic structure/dark-energy/gravity, for example), etc. But the truth of the Bible and the existence of God seem to me to be based solidly on what we DO understand... on verifiable evidence, etc, not on what we don't understand.
Have you ever read the four gospel accounts for yourself? How about reading them this semester, to examine more exactly the claims of Jesus about God and about himself? Read a chapter a day and it will only take ~3 months or less...
?
Comments are closed.