What the poll told us
In his first article in the Herald, Marr outlines the key findings as follows:
68% of people say they believe in GodDavid Marr's second article, "Politics and Religion: crossed paths" can be found here.
53% of people say they believe life after death
56% of people say they believe in heaven
38% of people say they believe in hell
37% of people say they believe in the devil
51% of people day they believe in angels
22% of people say they believe in witches
41% of people say they believe in Astrology
49% of people say they believe in psychic powers like ESP
63% of people say they believe in miracles
34% of people say they believe that the Bible is the word of God
27% of people say that the Bible is literally true
42% of people say they believe in Evolution
84% of people support the separation of Church and State
A diversified search for meaning
While Marr is not seeking to promote Christianity, he manages to put his finger on a number of salient points that I find interesting. While these findings suggest that the number of people who have faith in God has declined over the last century, they also suggest that many people still hold to some form of Christian faith. This is in stark contrast to church attendance. Rather than depressing those of us who still go to church, it should encourage us, as the results demonstrate that there is still much latent interest in God, even if this interest is confused by dabbling with astrology, psychic phenomena, superstition and so on. For many people, while there is some level of acceptance of God, they do not seek a relationship with God. Marr puts it this way:"Belief for most Australians is about values far more than devotion. It's belief without belonging."Marr concludes that while it is a minority of Australians that see the Bible as the word of God, Australian society can hardly be characterised as non-Christian, let alone atheistic. He suggests "Atheism is always about to break through and never does".
The survey results suggest that while some Australians have rejected mainstream Christian faith, they have not simply embraced atheism. In fact, many of those wandering from Christianity, seem to be drifting towards a variety of other religions and more minor belief systems. While they are rejecting God in the form that the Bible teaches, they are grasping for other beliefs that help them to make sense of their world.
One further interesting insight from the survey is the gendered nature of doubt and unbelief. It seems that men outnumber women 2 to 1 in denying the existence of God. As well, age seems to play a part, with 42% of people under the age of 25 years denying that there is a God, compared to only 25% of people over 55 years.
How do we respond to this?
This small survey reinforces what many Christians already know, that while many people reject mainstream Christianity, this does not mean they cease to be interested in matters of faith.
How do I reach out to people in their unbelief as well as to the many people searching after other forms of belief? There are clearly special challenges in reaching men and younger people in particular. How do we respond? We need to personalise this. Not what the Church needs to do, but what do I need to do? I'll give this a try.
For a start, I need to have a deeper desire to love those who don't follow Christ and to want to see them consider his claims in the Bible. I also need to pray for opportunities to share my faith and to invest in relationships with my neighbours, friends and family members. I need to deepen my own faith and to ensure that it translates into an authentic life, that is well lived; a life noticed for the right reasons, not the wrong ones. I also need to sharpen my understanding of the questions that non-Christians ask of me, and to respectfully listen to their claims and questions. I also need to be not only prepared to give a reason for my faith, but to seek opportunities to do so.I need to do more than just offering a defence or reason for the hope that I have in Christ. As I wrote in an earlier post (here), I must do more than simply seeking to win arguments; my life must also commend Christ. David Hohne contributed an excellent essay to Case #20 in 2009 in which he used Peter’s challenge in his first letter (1 Peter 2:10-12) - to live 'beautiful lives' - as a framework for talking about apologetics. He argued that we are to have lives (not just words) that commend God to others.
“Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honourable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.”
Related posts and articles
CASE has offered a variety of publications and blog posts in the last year or so that have attempted to help Christians think about the above questions. Here are a few:
'Apologetics is more than just winning arguments' (here)'Humble Apologetics' (here)
'Apologetics in Family Life' (here)
'Apologetics of the Heart' (here)
'To Give a Reason' (The whole of Issue #20 of Case magazine was devoted to this topic)
'A New Epistemology' (here)
'The Need for truth, not seduction in a pluralistic society' (here)
'Being a church that welcomes children' (here)
'Loving Your Neighbour's Children' (here)
'The Reason for God' (here)
Posts
32 comments:
Hi Trevor,
Hope you had a good Christmas!
I agree with you on one thing - we do seem to have an in-built desire to find "meaning" in our lives (whatever that is), and to understand the world around us. As to the former, I believe that some form of humanism can give your life meaning, but also that you don't have to have your life "mean" anything - it's possible to just live, and be happy. As to the latter, I belive science is the obvious (and currently, only) option.
The really worrying thing about the survey (even more worrying than having half the population believe in angels) is that evolution and astrology seem to be on an equal footing. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity is... think how ridiculous we would look if 60% of the population didn't believe in gravity.
Tim
Hi Tim,
Yes, I did have a lovely Christmas. I hope you had a nice time over the Christmas period too.
It's good that we can agree on at least one point. I also think we almost agree on one other. I'm also surprised that so many people believe in astrology.
I'm not too sure about your claim that we can live happy lives without it having any meaning though. Ecclesiastes is a wonderful Old Testament book that helps to think about what I'm getting at in terms of life having meaning. I'm looking at both a short-term and long-term view of our existence and purpose. I think many people want to understand this and don't accept the claims of atheists that we're just matter. It seems to me that the fact that people are prepared to believe (even) in astrology suggests that there is a yearning to make sense of their existence beyond the physical reality.
Anyway, nice to hear from you.
Trevor
Trevor,
I know from personal experience that we can be happy without our lives "meaning" anything. There is no purpose to our life except for the purpose we choose to give it.
As for the "long-term" view of our existence, I think it would be great if there was life after death (Christian notions of hell notwithstanding!). Being reunited with loved ones in perfect health and happiness for all eternity sounds pretty good to me. It's just that it's not particularly likely.
We fear the unknown. Astrologers and religions both exploit this fear.
Tim
Trevor,
I forgot to mention... truth is not a popularity contest. It might make someone feel good to believe that they will meet their life partner this month because Mars and Jupiter are currently at a particular angle, but wishing won't make it so.
It's the same with souls. It might make you feel good, and you may have an in-built need to think that there is more to the universe than "mere" matter, but all the wishing in the world won't make it true. We cling to life because of our evolutionary past, and the fairytale of heaven is just an extension of this.
Tim
Hi Tim,
You're using the same arguments again that this blog has spent lots of time arguing against. You assume that faith in Christ is driven by fear. It isn't! It is driven by hope in the person of Christ. While atheists like to portray Christians as delusional, Christians point to the evidence of the Bible to support their belief that there is more than just this life. And of course, as you know, there are plenty of scientists who believe the same thing. While your early experience of Christianity might have stressed fear and works, that isn't what the Bible teaches.
One final thing, it's more than a little insulting for atheists to keep suggesting that Christians have put their brains into neutral to blindly pursue a false hope - a "fairytale" as you put it. I've still got my faculties and did have when half way through my PhD program at age 31 I turned from atheism to Christ (after reading the Bible). I'd encourage you to go back to the Scriptures and read them with new open eyes - start with a gospel. Faith and reason can co-exist.
Best wishes,
Trevor
Hi Trevor,
"Christians point to the evidence of the Bible to support their belief"
A critical thinker could never point to the bible as the sole source of evidence. Maybe if multiple lines of independent sources pointed to the same answer - life after death - then Critical Thinkers cold be convinced. All you have to do to change a Critical Thinkers mind is provide good solid evidence. But no matter how much evidence you provide a true believer, you can never change their minds.
If life after death, and god existed then it would be called "fact" not "faith"
Trevor,
I sense that you're getting frustrated with me, so thanks for persevering!
I don't presume to know what drives a Christian to place their faith in Christ - I certainly don't assume that Christians in general are driven by fear. Different people would have a multitude of reasons for choosing one religion over another, or no religion at all. Some Christian Churches would emphasise the benefits of following Christ, others would emphasise the punishments in store for not following him (and Jesus himself did both). My Opus Dei religious education seemed to lean towards the latter, but I am well aware that not everyone had (or is having) a similar experience.
All I meant to say was that practically every religion ever invented has had some kind of belief in an afterlife, and this is a natural extension of our intense will to survive, developed over millions of years of evolution.
I apologise if my language was insulting - it was not my intention. Your devotion to Christianity is obvious (and admirable), and I don't for a moment think that you took the decision frivolously or without intelligent consideration.
I probably should have said "belief in an afterlife", rather than "fairytale of heaven". However, when calling atheists insulting I would ask you to bear in mind two things.
1
As a Christian, you believe that all other religions are false, or at the very least misguided. You are, in essence, labelling as "fairytale" all religions that are not your own. Do you think that Muslims and Mormons and Scientologists and pagans "have put their brains into neutral to blindly pursue a false hope"? I suspect that you merely think they are mistaken in their view of Jesus. Your feelings towards the beliefs of Scientology are probably the same as my feelings towards the beliefs of Christianity. So, while the language may sometimes be less respectful than necessary, the underlying argument should be no cause for offence. Should an astrologist be offended because you don't believe in their predictions?
2
Since I have rejected Jesus as my Lord and Savior, and deny the existence of the Holy Spirit, many Christians would believe that there is a very good chance that I will burn in hell for all eternity. Is this not insulting?
Thanks again for taking the time to reply.
Tim
Thanks for your comments Gavin and Tim.
Gavin, I didn't say "the sole source of evidence", I said "Christians point to the evidence of the Bible to support their belief that there is more than just this life". Christians believe that God has revealed himself in the person of Christ and that the Bible records the circumstances of his life, death and resurrection. It also teaches us that there is eternal life and an eternal future. You can choose to reject this but I believe that the Bible is trustworthy and true.
Tim thanks for your last clarifying comment (which seems to have been lost by Blogger so I posted it myself). In relation to your second point, I don’t see it quite this way. Disagreeing with someone needn’t be insulting. If I told my Buddhist neighbour that she believes in a fairytale I think she’d be upset. But if I say that I believe that the Bible has a different view of meaning and purpose and our eternal future, hopefully we can discuss why we see the world differently.
Atheists don’t have truth all to themselves under the banner of reason. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. How do you explain one of the world’s leading scientists like Frances Collins, who led the Human Genome project and who was able to stand with President Clinton in the White House to reveal the first DNA sequence and yet at the same time declare, “we have caught a glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God”? For Collins reconciling science, reason and faith is natural.
I don’t think for a minute that the Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus I know (and I know a number) within the university have put their brains in neutral. That doesn’t alter the fact that I'd want them to consider the teachings of the Bible that I see as true and which are at odds with what they believe.
Tim, I can’t see how you or anyone else should be offended because I want them to consider the claims of the Bible that I believe have eternal consequences. Christian concern for others is motivated by their belief that as Christians they are recipients of the love, grace and mercy of God shown in Christ. This compels me to tell others what I believe. Not to earn any favour before God, nor in fear of him, but in obedience and in response to his love and kindness towards me. Why should anyone be offended by me showing this concern for them? By all means tell me that you think I’m wrong, but please don’t interpret my disagreement as offensive if communicated with respect and a preparedness to listen to your alternative views.
Anyway, thanks for your comments and your ongoing willingness to debate these issues.
Regards,
Trevor
Hi Trevor,
You say that you didn't say "the sole source of evidence", but then you elaborated "...and that the Bible records the circumstances of his life, death and resurrection. It also teaches us that there is eternal life and an eternal future...but I believe that the Bible is trustworthy and true".
How is this not just the same as saying "the sole source of evidence". Are there other sources?
As an atheist, I don't care if you/christians think/say I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity for not ascribing to your beliefs. Why should you be insulted if someone suggests that you are silly for ascribing to your beliefs. If you're confident in your beliefs would it matter what other people think of you for thinking as such?
I too rate and value my intelligence (and my PhD), but I also have the confidence in what I think to not be insulted if people disagree. I think the assumed right of the religious to "be offended" is something to be tackled and eradicated, along the path to growing up as a species.
You might suggest this is a mountain out of a mole hill, but the natural extension of your being insulted is the psycho who broke into poor old Kurt Westergaard's house with a knife and an axe, while he was there with his no doubt terrified wife and grand children, for what? For drawing a cartoon. A cartoon that some religious person (persons more likely) feels they are entirely justified to feel offended over.
Well, I'm sorry, but you're not entitled.
Cheers,
funkyd
Trevor,
Perhaps I didn't express myself as clearly as I had intended, but your last post is saying exactly the same thing as mine!
1. You appeared to be insulted that I called heaven a "fairytale", and that atheists in general think that Christians have their "brains in neutral".
2. I admitted that I shouldn't have used the word "fairytale", but I tried to point out that you shouldn't be insulted because (a) you don't think you're being insulting when disagreeing with Scientology, for example; and (b) many Christians rountinely remind us that we are doomed to an eternity of suffering, and that this could be offensive to some. Personally I don't find it offensive because I don't believe it to be true. They may as well be telling me I have a wollen radio on the side of my face - a claim I find non-sensical and easily disproved.
So your statements, "Disagreeing with someone needn’t be insulting", "I can’t see how you or anyone else should be offended", "By all means tell me that you think I’m wrong, but please don’t interpret my disagreement as offensive"... all these statements are exactly what I was trying to say in my previous post. Sorry if I didn't express myself as clearly as I had hoped.
So, at long last, it seems we agree on something. :-)
As for Francis Collins, I can easily throw the question back to you. How do you explain all the brilliant minds that have rejected Christianity?
Tim
Hi Tim,
I'm sure we agree on lots of things, but unfortunately not some of what I see as the most fundamental of things. One consistent area of difference between Christians and atheists is that Christians see a relationship between reason and faith and a way to reconcile faith and science. Atheists deny this. So in answer to your question how would I explain the number of intelligent people who are atheists, I'd say to you that here is a group of people of another faith, but they aren't prepared to recognise it.
While I'm at it, I wouldn't want to imply that there is any relationship between intellect and faith (that was part of my original objection to your comments). I think I've made this clear already but it's worth saying again. You don't have to be smart as the world measures 'smart' to have faith, nor does your rejection of faith imply anything about intelligence.
Cheers,
Trevor
Hi Trevor,
Just like to point out, citing Frances Collins is a Logical Fallacy. Argument from Higher Authority. You can read more about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Also on my previous point, what evidence do you have that the Bible is trustworthy and true?
By the very nature of the word "faith" there is no evidence?
Gavin
Trevor,
I am very keen to discuss reason and faith further, but I am also conscious that I seem to have unwittingly led us away from the topic of your original post (yet again!). So I will try and be brief, and save my longer ramblings for when you (hopefully!) write a post on this topic.
Reason and faith are nothing more than two methods we use to form our beliefs. Some beliefs are pure reason, some beliefs are pure faith, and some involve an element of both.
Science seeks to form beliefs with reason alone (this is practically the definition of science).
Christianity, while relying on reason to some extent, relies mostly on faith. If the Bible is true, reason would lead you to believe that Jesus is the son of god. The problem is that it takes a very large leap of faith to believe the Bible is true.
The fact that a brilliant scientist like Francis Collins is a Christian merely demonstrates that he has applied different evidential standards to his work and his Christianity. The Human Genome Project, or any other scientific endeavour, would simply not be credible if faith had played any part in its conclusions. On the other hand, he is of course free to believe anything he likes about what will happen to him after he dies – he just can’t claim this belief as “knowledge”, which is the key difference. No one “knows” Christianity is true, lots of people just believe it is. If you knew it was true, then it wouldn’t be faith.
Interestingly, there is an increasing desire by people of faith to employ reason in defence of their beliefs. I find this rather odd, for two reasons. Firstly, in Christianity at least, faith is meant to be a virtue (some would say the highest virtue), and I would have thought that people of faith would think it not only unnecessary, but beneath them, to deploy reason in their defence. Jesus himself said “Blessed are those who have not seen, but believe” (John 20:29, a statement I find quite strange). Secondly, it’s much easier to defend a position of faith if you invoke that faith in your defence. You simply can’t argue with someone who claims knowledge on faith alone. If you don’t believe me, try and convince a Rabbi that Jesus is the Messiah!
There have been lots of studies on the link between intelligence and religiosity. Of course there will be intelligent religious people (such as yourself and Francis Collins), and of course there will be idiotic atheists (you might perhaps put me in that bucket! :-), but it does seem like there is a positive correlation between intelligence and unbelief. Personally, I feel that:
(a) given the myriad of factors that would be influencing the results, and the fact that the results are not unanimous anyway, I wouldn’t dream of inferring causality; and
(b) even if causality could be demonstrated, it says nothing about a particular religion’s truth value, and any self-respecting and intellectually honest atheist wouldn’t use it as an argument against religion. It would be like saying that, since people with higher than average intelligence have fewer babies, having more babies is stupid.
Tim
Hi Gavin,
I didn't use Collins as an appeal to a higher authority (I'd note as an aside that your higher authority seems to be Wikipedia). I mentioned Collins as a counterpoint to the assumption driving Tim's comments and that of any atheist that faith and reason cannot co-exist. My point was that here is (at least) one well-known scientist who doesn't have any problems reconciling faith and reason.
In relation to your request for proof that the Bible is true, the evidence for the reliability of the Bible is well documented. I'd suggest that you read one or two of the many books that discuss how the Bible was written and compiled. A good place to start would be Paul Barnett's book 'Is the New Testament History?'
Thanks for your comment,
Trevor
Trevor,
In response to your answer to Gavin... the evidence for the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Talmud and whatever it is that Scientologists refer to, is also well documented.
Tim
I'll read the book and let you know my thoughts.
I still think you're using Collins as an argument from higher authority.
Here are some other "authorities" regarding Logical Fallacies.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx
I could point you to printed texts if you like.
Hi Tim,
They might be "well documented" (I haven't read much of the evidence for some of these texts) but I was talking about evidence to suggest that the claims they make might be true. Have you read some of the evidence for the claims of the Book of Mormon?
I missed your earlier comment (sorry). I don't accept your point that Collins must have used "different evidential standards".
I've been promising a post on faith and reason again (which I will do - promise), but I don't have the energy (or time) to explore it today.
Finally, flattery will get you nowhere (and no, of course I don't think you're an idiot).
Cheers,
Trevor
Hi Gavin,
Thanks for the last comment.
I'd welcome your thoughts once you've read Barnett. Thanks for the heads up on the other links. I'm aware of the philosophical arguments concerning logical fallacies (and philosophical views on other types of fallacious arguments).
Appreciate your contribution.
Cheers,
Trevor
Trevor,
I was also talking about "evidence to suggest that the claims they make might be true". Islam, Mormonism, Judaism and Scientology can all produce evidence that their religion is the one true religion. It's faith that enables adherents of these religions to make the leap from the evidence to belief, and undoubtedly some require greater leaps of faith than others.
I haven't read any of the evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon written by the Mormons themselves, but I have of course read secular-based critques. The Mormon claim that an angel directed Joseph Smith to a set of golden plates, which no one ever saw and which he alone could translate, is so ridiculous that it doesn't warrant any kind of serious consideration. Of course, it's possible that Mormonism is true... it's just not very likely, and the same can be said for any religion in the world.
Tim
Trevor,
Re: Collins... he must have applied different evidential standards, by definition! No one "knows" Christianity is true, that's why it's called faith!
If he thinks he has as much evidence for Christianity as he does for the results of his genome project, then either he (a) knows something the rest of us don't, or (b) should give up science altogether.
Of course neither (a) nor (b) applies, since the proposition was false - he does not have the same level of evidence for Christianity as he has for the results of his genome project. But since he believes in both, he *must* have applied different evidential standards...?!
On what basis do you disagree?
Tim
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your last two comments. A quick response.
I think your comments show a different understanding of science and religious belief. While there are important differences between science and religious belief, there are also similarities. As I’ve written before on this blog, both science and religion are concerned with a search for truth. John Polkinghorne (a well known scientist and Christian) makes the point that to say that science is concerned with facts and religion with opinion is a double mistake. Even in science, experiment and theory as well fact and opinion are intertwined.
You continue in many of your comments to assume that only through scientific facts can we know anything for sure and that faith or belief is devoid of evidence or facts. Even scientific knowledge can be revised and/or rejected over time as new evidence comes to light. Scientists once thought the earth was flat, this was shown to be incorrect with new evidence. You see, I trust in the Bible as an authoritative and reliable historical account that offers evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. I trust this evidence and accept it, whereas I don’t trust and accept the book of Mormon. You seem to see all religious evidence as equally nonsensical, but I don’t. I weigh the evidence and make a judgement. We can consider the evidence presented in the Book of Mormon and that presented in the Bible and reach conclusions about the relative trustworthiness of the evidence. I see faith as knowing something and believing it, the foundation of my belief is knowledge of an historical person, his teachings and the evidence that he conquered death. My faith is based on evidence that leads to my firm conviction.
Collins has reached conclusions about the human genome and the person of Christ based on evidence and his confidence in the evidence. To continue to characterise science and religious belief as totally unrelated is to misjudge each. We have religious sceptics in this world and climate change sceptics as well. Each sceptic reaches his or her conclusions based on evidence, how he or she interprets it and whether he or she trusts in it.
Returning to the survey that was the starting point for my original blog post. I think we're both surprised by the things that people say they believe. Like you, I want people to consider very carefully the evidence concerning the things that the survey listed as beliefs. I don't see it as legitimate to simply dismiss people's beliefs by saying that if it isn't science then it doesn't have any evidence.
Thanks for your comments.
Regards,
Trevor
Trevor,
I think you may be misunderstanding me, as your last post seems to argue for a lot of statements that I agree with, and against a number of statements that I never made.
1
I agree with absolutely everything in your first paragraph, and I don't believe I have given you any reason to think otherwise.
2
I don't assume that science is the only way we can "know anything for sure". However, its objectivity, and its ability to be verified and modified, means it's the most powerful. Also, we're not talking about facts (aka knowing things for sure), we're talking about beliefs, and by making that distinction I am not for a moment suggesting that the two are unrelated.
3
I certainly do not think, nor have I said, that "faith or belief is devoid of evidence or facts". All I have said is different beliefs have different levels of facts supporting them, and the fewer the supporting facts, the greater is the faith required to believe.
4
I don’t see all “religious evidence as equally nonsensical”.
5
I don’t “continue to characterise science and religious belief as totally unrelated”.
6
I don’t “simply dismiss people's beliefs by saying that if it isn't science then it doesn't have any evidence”.
___
It’s a bit of a stretch to say that “scientists” thought the earth was flat; a more accurate word would be “theologians”, or possibly “natural philosophers”. The earth’s flatness was “known” by simply thinking about it, rather than actually investigating. It’s also a little dangerous to bring this topic up, since it highlights the difference between reason and faith rather well. I’m sure you’re familiar with the story of Galileo. Reason and science told him the earth was not the centre of the solar system, but it was faith that led the Catholic Church to disagree with, and excommunicate, him. Time and again we see religious people ignoring evidence because it contradicts a faith-based belief. “I don’t care what evidence you have – my faith tells me the earth is the centre of the solar system”. The modern equivalent to Galileo and heliocentricity is Darwin and evolution vs creationism. Thankfully, the time when theologians could claim knowledge and repress dissent are largely behind us – and it is science that has made this possible. Thomas Jefferson had it exactly right when he said that “the priests of the different religious sects dread the advance of science as witches to the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live”.
You hit the nail on the head with your use of the word “trust”. You don’t know the Bible is true, but you trust (i.e. have faith) that it is. There is some evidence that a person named Jesus existed (although it’s not particularly convincing), that he worked some miracles, and that he rose from the dead. Are these indisputable facts? Absolutely not. But you, and millions of other people, believe it to be true. How? Faith. Evidence gets you part of the way, but it’s faith that completes the journey.
An interesting thought experience for people of faith – is there any evidence you can think of that would make you stop being a Christian? There are plenty of hypothetical discoveries I can think of that would make me go back to Christianity, but does the reverse apply? What if Jesus’ tomb was discovered and his body was still there? What if a document was found that described how the gospel stories of Jesus’ resurrection was made up? If you are truly a person of faith, you will have to answer “no” – there is no evidence that could ever come to light to make you turn away from Christ.
(continued...)
(continued...)
Kurt Wise said that “if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate”. Wise has a PhD in geology from Harvard. Think about that for a second. This is what I mean when I say that someone like Wise or Collins has applied difference evidential standards to his work and his religion. Wise has openly admitted it, and Collins would have to do the same. If he doesn’t admit it, he can’t call his Christianity “faith” at all.
So which is it? Do you believe in Jesus because of indisputable evidence, or faith? Yes, faith and evidence are related – but faith and fact are mutually exclusive. By definition faith is believing something on insufficient evidence, so unless you are using a different definition of faith than the one in the dictionary, you have to claim your belief in Jesus as one or the other. If Jesus’ resurrection is a fact, then it’s not faith. You must either (a) admit your belief is not faith-based, or (b) admit that Jesus’ resurrection is not a fact.
Finally, you twice used the expression “even in science”, and in each case the more appropriate phrase is “especially in science”. Experiment and theory as well fact and opinion are intertwined, and knowledge can be revised and/or rejected over time as new evidence comes to light, especially in science. And this is one of the crucial differences between reason and faith, or science and religion.
Tim
Hi Tim,
This is going to get boring if we keep agreeing with each other, so it's good you simply softened me up with the first half of the response, before giving me a serve.
It was good though to see you acknowledging that theologians invented science. Issue #19 of Case Magazine on the theme 'The God of Science' (which I sent you) has a great article on the emergence of science.
I accept that the relationship between science and faith is just as hard for some people of faith to understand as it is for atheists. But not all Christians (in fact I'd say few) adopt the extreme positions that you describe. I'm just as keen for Christians to understand how science is compatible with their faith as I am to see you understand that you can be a scientist and still have faith.
You might be surprised to know that there is evidence that would absolutely blow Christianity out of the water - the remains of Jesus body. The whole Christian faith rests on the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. I think most Bible believing Christians would say the same thing. You sell us short! We do value evidence.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Trevor
Hi Tim,
I’d like to jump in at this point and make a few comments. While a lot of what you say in your last post is valid, there are a number of things I have questions about.
1) I’m not sure it was faith that caused the Catholic Church to persecute Galileo on the question of the solar system. My understanding has always been that it was based on unwarranted credence in Aristotelian cosmology, and a false view that that is what the Bible teaches, not any tenet of faith as such (perhaps I’m mistaken…).
2) In saying that the evidence that Jesus existed is “not particularly convincing”, your view runs counter to that of the vast majority of serious historians – Christian and non-Christian alike. Even most atheist scholars (Michael Grant, to name one) accept the basic narrative of the Gospels as true (while obviously ascribing natural explanations to the supernatural elements). It is no more necessary for me to have “faith” that Jesus existed than it is in order to believe that the Spanish Armada existed.
3) I agree with Trevor that there in theory could be evidence that would make it impossible for me to continue being a Christian. I don’t know whether the notion of finding Jesus’ earthly remains would really be possible, at this point in history. Maybe a document that proved that the resurrection was a fraud and that the first disciples were involved in a conspiracy? Of course, proving the authenticity of such a document would be the problem. I’m not sure how that could possibly be achieved (which is one of the reasons the “Da Vinci Code” theory, and “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”, from which Dan Brown got a lot of his ideas, are simply unprovable).
4) You say there are “hypothetical discoveries that would make you go back to Christianity”. I’d be interested to know what some of those might be.
5) I’m not sure what Kurt Wise meant when he talked of “all the evidence in the universe turning against creationism”. One of the reasons I believe in the God of the Bible is because it explains the fact of the universe itself. The job of science (among other things) is to explain how the universe works. Explaining where the universe came from (what caused the Big Bang, for instance) is unlikely ever to be within the power of science to achieve, for the simple reason that the tools of science can only function within the known universe.
6) You say “Experiment and theory as well fact and opinion are intertwined, and knowledge can be revised and/or rejected over time as new evidence comes to light, especially in science”. Doesn’t this contradict something you said right back at the beginning of this thread: “Evolution is as much a fact as gravity is”?
...continued
...continuation
Re the issue of faith and knowledge, I regard the fact of Jesus’ existence as just that: I don’t think faith is necessary in order to be confident that there was such a person as Jesus, and that he did and said certain kinds of things, including dying on the cross. It is similarly beyond reasonable doubt that his disciples believed that he rose from the dead (the question of whether or not he actually rose from the dead does, I concede, require special treatment). Biblical scholarship gives us every reason to be confident that there never was a time when the church believed anything else: Jesus was not an invention of Paul, or the early church. I realise that there are some who hold contrary opinions, but as mentioned above, they are a very small minority.
The other suggestion I’d like to make is that atheists, as a group, seem to demand a kind of certainty in matters pertaining to God that we are never likely to have. If the God of the Bible exists, we have to assume that we are never going to know him in a way that is not consistent with his purposes, in terms of the degree and extent to which he reveals himself. However, the means by which we can know God is through faith: the Bible does not promise that we will ever have a perfect, empirically demonstrable, knowledge of him, this side of eternity – in fact, it explicitly counsels otherwise (1 Corinthians 13:12; 2 Corinthians 5:7, for instance). Thus I regard the atheist’s mantra of “show me the evidence, and I’ll believe in your God” as invalid, based on the above view of God’s existence and purposes. So often atheist epistemology seems to lapse into mere evidentialism (one should never believe anything for which there is insufficient evidence) – a view which is arguably logically inconsistent.
All the best,
Greg
Hi Greg,
I was wondering when you were going to drop in. :-) In response to your numbered points:
1
Given that the evidence for a flat earth was effectively non-existent, the “unwarranted credence” given to the theory was entirely faith based, by definition! And it’s only a “false view” now because of what science has shown us. Either way, the rejection of Galileo’s findings had nothing to do with an honest appraisal of the evidence.
2
(a) You said “most atheist scholars” but you only named one. Would you mind naming some more?
(b) The old “no one questions the existence of ” argument is specious. The Inquisition and the Crusades weren’t driven by a belief in the Spanish Armada, and no one is claiming that the Spanish Armada included some nuclear submarines. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you are going to claim that this alleged person was actually the son of god (no less!), and then use that to discriminate against homosexuals and try and prevent condom use in Africa, access to abortions, and voluntary euthanasia, you need a little more than an empty tomb and a book you essentially wrote yourself. Yes, I know you will say there is more evidence than that, but, as I said, it’s just not enough given the extraordinary nature of Christianity’s claims. Jesus’ existence is barely mentioned in independent pagan and Jewish sources, and at least one (Josephus) has very likely been tampered with by early Christian scholars. I would go so far as to say that he may have existed, but it’s a massive leap from “may have existed” to “son of god, performed miracles, and rose from the dead”.
3
“Proving the authenticity of the document would be the problem”.... exactly.
4
Jesus himself could settle the issue quite easily by coming to earth again. Short of that, several independent, non-Christian, eye-witness accounts of some of the miraculous events described in the Gospels would go a long way. A description of all the dead people that walked around after Jesus died would be a start.
5
If something is beyond the reach of science to know, then it is certainly beyond theologians.
6
No, it doesn’t. Newtonian gravitational theory was expanded by Einstein; Darwinian evolution has been expanded by many. The mountain of evidence that supports each, and the fact that both theories have predictive power that has been verified many times, means they can safely be regarded as facts.
Atheists and theists alike regard the question of god’s existence as of paramount importance. Given that Christians claim that my non-acceptance of the Bible will affect my eternal existence, shouldn’t I apply a higher standard of evidence than other beliefs? Why do you see this as invalid? And how is it logically inconsistent to not believe in things where there is insufficient evidence? Why don’t you believe in Mohammad, or Joseph Smith, or the Flying Spaghetti monster? Would you take a medicine that had only been tested on insects?
Tim
Hello all.
Might I just jump in on the subject of Jesus' historicity?
I too think it is incorrect to say that the evidence for his existence is "not particularly convincing", as it is a grave error to discount completely the value of the gospels as evidence. I believe that the broad concensus amongst serious historians, and amateurs such as myself, is that the evidence is not conclusive. I think the Spanish Armada example is inappropriate as much more direct (key word direct) evidence exists for the Armada, whereas there is practically no direct (contemporary/physical)evidence for Jesus, and what there is is suspect. Having said that, there is much too much indirect evidence for most people, including myself, to doubt his existence. Sorry to split hairs, but this is very different from being able to know that he existed according to the available evidence.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your response. My replies to your points:
1) I might have misunderstood, but you seem to be saying that any view not based on evidence is by definition faith based. Is that really the case? What about, for instance, wilful ignorance based on a desire to preserve the status quo? This seems to have been more the case with the Catholic authorities with respect to Galileo’s views.
2) Of course, there are serious scholars who dispute that Jesus existed. Most of the opinion of that kind, however, is to be found on web sites featuring levels of scholarship that leave something to be desired! Here is a site that debunks a lot of such thinking, if you are interested:
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm
You say ‘I would go so far as to say that (Jesus) may have existed, but it’s a massive leap from “may have existed” to “son of god, performed miracles, and rose from the dead” ‘. Agreed…but that wasn’t my point. I was simply responding to your claim that the evidence that Jesus existed is “not particularly convincing”, and addressing that claim only.
3) I’m not going to bite!
4) I have to say I was hoping for something a little more substantial! Jesus will come to earth again – in the Father’s good time. As for independent, contemporary, eyewitness accounts of some of Jesus’ miracles – I don’t think that’s realistic at this point in history. Can you think of something that could conceivably happen or be discovered now or in the future?
5) To which I’d respond that nothing can be known by anyone unless God wills it.
6) I’m still not convinced. As far as I am aware, no sane person seriously doubts the truth of gravity, but millions (including many scientists) question evolution, or at least aspects of it. Can the two concepts really be put in the same category?
The “evidentialist” position is, as mentioned, that we should never believe anything without sufficient evidence. Now, while that position is a sound one from a pragmatic point of view (after all, as you rightly point out, in all kinds of areas no sane person would act differently), it is an epistemically dubious position because it contains a self-referential inconsistency: if it is a true statement, it must, according to its own criterion, itself be based on evidence – and I’m not sure what such evidence could be. This seems to point to a weakness in the position taken by many atheists.
As for the question of a “higher standard of evidence” being required for matters of eternal siginificance: I’m dubious, but am really not sure.
Regards,
Greg
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the comment.
I agree in retrospect that the “Spanish Armada” parallel wasn’t a good one. “Hannibal” might be a more appropriate example (see the link in my previous post).
You say that you believe that the broad consensus, among both professional historians and amateurs, is that the evidence for Jesus is not conclusive, yet that there is “too much indirect evidence…to doubt his existence”. I suppose a moot point is how we define “conclusive”. I’d suggest, in that connection, that legal cases are decided every day of the year on the basis of evidence a lot less compelling than that for the existence of Jesus.
As a Christian, I don’t expect, or even hope for, certainty this side of eternity. Like you, however, I believe there is sufficient evidence to allay doubt concerning Jesus – and, I would say, to inspire faith.
Regards,
Greg
Hi Trevor
Sorry to jump in here, but I noticed that you suggested reading Barnett's book "Is the NT history?" It has been about four years since I read it, but I found it rather unsatisfactory.
At the beginning of the book, Barnett claims that he will simply present the "facts" and let the reader evaluate the evidence (itself a rather naive stance). Yet the whole work is unashamedly apologetic in its nature; Barnett repeatedly draws conclusions that support the beliefs of conservative Christianity. This is (probably unintentionally?) misleading.
In addition, there are numerous difficulties in reconstructing the history of early Christianity that Barnett seems to disengenously overlook. For example, the substantion differences (contradictons?) in the birth narratives are barely mentioned, while only the similarities are highlighted. The minimal reference to the sayings/ministry of the pre-Easter Jesus in the Pauline corpus ought to be seriously addressed, but it is all too quickly settled with a short list of what Paul does actually mention (including "born of a woman"!).
To be fair, Barnett mentions the troublesome census of the time of Quirinius, but his adjudication gives Luke the benefit of the doubt. (How, as an historian, could he justify this bias?)
I am not saying that I disagree with all Barnett's conclusions, or that the book has no merit whatsoever. However, I find the weaknesses glaring enough to wonder why you might recommend this work as a starting place?
Personally, I have not found many books on these issues satisfying. I'm currently reading "Jesus Remembered" (900 pages) by J.D. Dunn, which, so far (after 300 pages), is much more helpful in addressing many of the issues - though not always in the direction that some conservatives would want to head.
Sorry for the rant, but in my own (continuing) journey of doubt and search for truth I found this book mostly unhelpful - all the more so because numerous Christians at UNSW wholeheartedly recommended it.
Best wishes,
Rob
Hi Rob,
It’s nice to hear from you. Thanks for your comments on the Barnett book. I think you’re being a bit tough on Barnett. The book is clearly an apologetic book (as you point out). He makes it clear that the book “attempts to place the evidence before the reader for his examination”, but he also makes it clear what he believes. It’s also a slim book that doesn’t set out to present a comprehensive analysis of all the evidence for Christianity, but it covers many key questions. He also makes the point in chapter 1 that the book doesn’t attempt to offer a theological analysis, and this would be required to deal with any differences in the birth narratives, not simply an historical analysis.
I’m also not sure how you draw the conclusion that he “repeatedly draws conclusions that support the beliefs of conservative Christianity”, I’m sure that he seeks to draw conclusions based on the evidence as he sees it. The reason I recommend this book (as do many others), as a starting point is that it deals with so many basic questions about the historicity of Christianity. For example, what is the evidence outside the Bible to suggest that Jesus even existed? Is there evidence that he was crucified? Do the key elements of the biblical narrative in the gospels match up with other sources in relation to key elements of history? When were key NT documents written? Was the transmission of NT documents over time accurate? And many more basic questions.
Of course there are many other books that have greater breadth and seek to offer a more comprehensive history (e.g. ‘New Testament History’ F.F. Bruce). I haven’t read the book by J.D. Dunn but from what I read of the reviews by others he is similar to a number of other writers who suspect that somehow the New Testament gospels hide the ‘real’ Jesus from our view. I know that Richard Bauckham has something to say about this in his book ‘Jesus and the eyewitnesses: the Gospels as eyewitness testimony’. Anyway, I’ll try to get it and read it.
The discussion on this post ended some time ago but I’d be happy to chat off line with you about this stuff, or maybe you can drop in for a coffee if you’re still in Sydney and near New College. I’d enjoy the chat.
Regards,
Trevor
Post a Comment