Jesus explains the parable of the good Samaritan (from the BBC’s That Mitchell and Webb Look).
Monthly Archives: September 2011
God Doesn’t Exist: Historians Reject the Bible Story
You’re probably aware that the person making a claim has the burden of proof. In the courtroom, for example, the prosecution has the burden of proof. There are no ties—when neither side makes a convincing case, the side that failed to carry its burden of proof loses.
The same is true for people who claim “God exists”—they have the burden of proof. That makes it easier for atheists. But now I want to make a positive claim: that atheism explains reality better than Christianity.
I plan a series of posts making arguments in support of the claim “God doesn’t exist.” Here’s the first argument: historians reject the Bible story.
You never find the details of the Jesus story in a history book, like you would for Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great. Why is that? Why is the Bible not cataloged in the library in the History section?
Christians correctly point out that the historical grounding for the Jesus story has some compelling points. For example, there are not one but four gospel accounts. The time gap from original manuscripts to our oldest complete copies is relatively small. And the number of Bible manuscripts is far greater than those referring to anyone else of that time.
The enormous difficulty, however, is that historians reject miracles—not just in the Bible but consistently in any book that claims to be history.
Remember the story of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon? The historian Suetonius reported that Julius saw a divine messenger who urged him to cross. This is the same Suetonius that Christians often point to when citing extra-biblical evidence for the historicity of the Jesus story.
Remember Caesar Augustus, the Roman emperor who reportedly ordered the census that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem? He was himself divinely conceived, and he ascended into heaven when he died1—or so the stories went.
Everyone knows about Alexander the Great, but legends about his life grew up in his own time. Did you hear the one about how the sea bowed in submission during his conquest of the Persian Empire?
Strip away the miracle claims from Julius Caesar or Caesar Augustus or Alexander the Great and you’re left with precisely the story of those leaders that we have in history. But strip away the miracle claims from the Jesus story, and you have just the story of an ordinary man—a charismatic rabbi, perhaps, but hardly divine.
Christians argue that we should treat the Gospel story like any other biography of the time, and I agree—but I doubt they will like where that takes them.
Photo credit: Wikipedia
1Charles H. Talbert, What is a Gospel? (Mercer University Press, 1985), p. 32.
Other posts in the God Doesn’t Exist series:
Burden of Proof
Do you believe in unicorns? I’m guessing not. But how do you know that unicorns are fiction? Or leprechauns? How do you know that aliens from distant planets aren’t on earth, dissecting cows and probing humans?
Of course, we don’t know with certainty. But that is where the evidence points, which is our best alternative.
Suppose someone makes a claim. You don’t believe it, but you’re willing to listen to the argument. There are three possible outcomes at the end of this discussion:
- Right. The other person is right, and you change your mind.
- Wrong. Nope—you’re still right. You’ve heard nothing new, and this conversation might as well not even have happened for the effect it had on you.
- Middle Ground. You’re not convinced, but you’ve now heard evidence that you can’t simply dismiss.
Let’s consider another area of argumentation, the courtroom. Legal cases don’t end in ties. There are only two options—guilty or not guilty. The law handles option 3, the domain of some evidence but not enough to be compelling, by giving it to the defendant.
Suppose the prosecuting attorney and defense attorney did nothing more constructive than use their time to talk about favorite movies. The arguments are equally bad. Does the judge declare a tie? No—the prosecution didn’t uphold its burden of proof, so the defense wins.
When someone shows you evidence for unicorns (perhaps references to unicorns in historical documents), you might agree that it is evidence but not sufficient evidence to convince you. The other person didn’t uphold the burden of proof.
On a related issue, if you say, “unicorns exist” and I respond, “No, unicorns don’t exist,” then I have now made a claim that I need to defend. If I make no such claim, the burden of proof remains yours.
Greg Kokul and his Stand to Reason blog say that it’s a “ploy” for the atheist to put the burden of proof on the Christian who claims that God exists. The atheist isn’t playing fair.
Nope, “God exists” is a claim. In fact, the claim that a supernatural being exists and created the universe is about the boldest claim possible. If you make that claim, you shoulder the burden of proof. If the evidence you provide isn’t compelling, I’m logically obliged to reject your claim.
Photo credit: stock.xchng
A National Registry of Atheists? Y’know–Like Sex Offenders.
The Thinking Atheist has created a very polished rebuttal to this proposal from a pastor.
Yeah…he’s a nobody, but Florida “pastor” Michael Stahl has provided a great excuse to remind others just how many atheists and free-thinkers affect our lives and cultures every day. Stahl has suggested that known atheists be categorized on a list he called “The Christian National Registry of Atheists.” Imagine what kind of names, past and present, such a list would provide.
Another resource is W.A. Smith’s Who’s Who in Hell (2000), a 5 pound, 9 ounce tome listing humanists, freethinkers, naturalists, rationalists, and non-theists throughout history.
My only concern is that Stahl might well respond that these intellectuals and changemakers are indeed who he’d like to see marginalized!
We Have an Admirer!
Well, not really an admirer—more like an antagonist. But I say that in a good way.
Matt Slick runs the CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) web site. He interviewed me on his radio show about a dozen times in 2007. We reconnected recently, and he responded to my Science Answers the Big Questions post.
His reply is here.
Unfortunately, there’s not much to respond to. Matt seems mostly concerned about sloppy thinking, making sure we put materialistic thinking into the “science” bin and philosophical thinking into the “philosophy” bin, making sure words are used correctly, and so on. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but I didn’t find anything interesting enough to respond to.
But let me sharpen one point. I said that science answers the Big Questions of Life. It would probably be better to say that what science tells us about reality means that wedon’t need religion’s answers. Science’s natural answers show that looking for a transcendental purpose or an ultimate mind are unnecessary.
Science Answers the Big Questions
In a recent post, I argued that Christianity’s smug claim to be able to answer the Big Questions of Life® is empty. Sure, it can answer these questions, but so can anyone. It’s whether the answers are credible that matters.
For discovering reality, religion comes up short. And I would argue that Science does provide answers to these questions.
For example: Why are we here? We’re here for no more cosmically-significant reason than why deer, jellyfish, and oak trees are here.
For example: Where did we come from? Science has some decent answers (Big Bang, evolution) and still has a lot of work to do in other areas (string theory, abiogenesis). Science never answers anything with certainty, but the scientific consensus, where there is one, is the best explanation that we have at the moment. The retort “Well, if Science can’t answer it, my religion can!” is hardly an argument.
For example: What is my purpose? There is no evidence of a transcendental or supernatural purpose to your life. One great thing about rejecting dogma is that you get to select your own purpose! And who better than you to decide what that is?
And so on. Science has answers; it’s just that religion doesn’t like them.
Science has only one reality to align itself with. By contrast, each religion makes up its own, which is why they can’t agree. Science provides answers and doesn’t demand faith to accept them.
Think about a church steeple with a lightning rod on top. The steeple proclaims that God exists, and the lightning rod says that it can reduce lightning damage. Which claim has the evidence to argue that it’s true? Religion makes truth claims and so does science, but science takes it one step further: it actually delivers on its claims.
Religion … well, not so much.
Photo credit: Wikipedia
