Board index ‹ Christianity

[Maestro]

I keep hearing Christians say that "Christianity is testable" or that it is "the only verifiable religion". What do you mean by that? How in the world is Christianity testable?

[jimwalton]

1. It is historically defensible. The central claims of the Bible demand historic inquiry, since they are based on public events that can be falsified, and there is an open invitation to question and investigate. Christianity has a significant amount of historically verifiable data, it has historically rooted characters and events within its schema that are identifiable through forensic sciences like archeology and textual criticism.

Michael Patton says, "If I decided to start a religion, deceptively or not, I would not make false claims to recent historic events that did not happen. Why? Because I know that these claims could be tested. More than that, I would not give details about the time, place, and people involved. More than that, I wouldn’t invite contemporaries to investigate these claims. For example, if I were to say today that in 1965 there was a man named Titus who was born in Guthrie, OK and traveled about Oklahoma City doing many miracles and gaining a significant following, this could be easily falsified. I would not say that Mary Fallin, the governor of Oklahoma, along with Tom Coburn, US Senator from Oklahoma, had Titus electrocuted. I would not detail that it was in Bricktown on January 13, 1968 at 9 am. Then, added to this, to claim that Titus rose from the dead and gained a significant following throughout Oklahoma City which has spread across America. Why wouldn’t I make these claims as the foundation of my new religion? Because they can be easily tested and falsified. This religion could not possibly get off the ground. If I were to make up a religion, all the events which support the religion (if any) would be private and beyond testing. This is why you don’t have religions based on historic events. They are all, with the exception of Christianity, based on private encounters which cannot be falsified or subjective ideas which are beyond inquiry. The amazing thing about Christianity is that there is so much historic data to be tested. Christianity is, by far, the most falsifiable worldview there is. Yet, despite this, Christianity flourished in the first century among the very people who could test its claims. And even today, it calls on us to 'come and see' if the claims are true."

2. Jesus' resurrection is subject to historical inquiry.

3. The Christian Bible is subject to historical, cultural, geographical, and archaeological accuracy and reliability.

On another front, however, it is often claimed that the theological (and miraculous) claims of the Bible are unverifiable, and that renders them untrue. Are all things that are true empirically and scientifically verifiable? Not even close. If there is a God, for instance, his existence is not scientifically provable. Some of his actions in history may be, but even then science would be unable to prove a metaphysical source for those actions. In other words, certain actions attributed to God may not be verifiable, but they can't be refuted either. Scientifically, while I may be able to verifiably claim that "all crows I have ever seen are black," as well as "all crows anyone has ever seen are black," that does not close the door to the possibility of a crow somewhere that is not black. Verification can only take us so far, and even less distance theologically.

Other ways Christianity is verifiable:

1. It is consistent with what we see in the world: the existence of good and evil, purpose, meaning, personality, conscience, morality, etc. These are verifiable, though not by science. Christianity squares with the way the world is and the way people are. It tells an honest and accurate story of humanity and life.

2. Christianity has the strongest answers to the questions of evil, suffering, and morality.

That's what comes to mind off the top of my head, but it's enough to dialogue about for now.

[Maestro]

You mentioned the Bible a few times there, so I'm wondering: if you found something in the bible that turned out to be not historically accurate, what would your reaction be? Would that make you move somewhere along the belief scale or would you remain at the 100% confidence?

[jimwalton]

I'd love to have an honest discussion with you, and I perceive that your question is an honest one, so I'll be totally honest from my side. It's the best policy.

"Historically accurate" is probably the wrong phrase for what you're trying to get at, though I understand why you used it. First of all, all historians will tell you that historiography is interpretive work, and "accuracy" is more illusion than the norm. (A) None of us can ever go back and play it again, and (b) we know that every record we have is a selective perspective and editing down of what really happened. No one can write it all, no one tries, and every historian has a perspective, a bias, and has selected things not to include. Just trying to be honest. When we have substantive consensus about certain interpretations of the records we have, we consider something to be "historically accurate". How does the Bible fit into this? We have only a limited amount of extra-biblical corroboration for events. Some of the ancient historians come from a different culture and a different perspective. The biblical writers choose to record and interpret history from a Yahwistic perspective, interpreting events along Yahwistic theological lines. While the events may be confirmable, the theistic interpretation is not, even in the best of situations. Those are some background thoughts.

Secondly, we know there are some transcription errors in the Bible. Thankfully, we are well aware of most of them and know them to be copyist mistakes, so it's not an issue. Christians never claim that every copyist was inspired or that every single manuscript is inerrant. What we claim is that the autographs were God-breathed. It's an odd kind of claim, since we don't have any of the autographs, but it's consistent with our belief in the nature of Scripture. So saying, we know about some of the historical inaccuracies of the text, but because of multiple manuscripts we also often know (reliably certain) what the original said. We are able to reconstruct the ancient texts with an extremely high degree of probability.

I have been doing much and deep study work on the alleged "contradictions of Scripture," often found on websites by the thousands. Most of them actually make me burst out laughing. They are clearly the work of pseudo-academics who didn't do any research and don't have a clue what they're talking about, often simply reading the words without any thought behind it. They're preposterously ridiculous, but unfortunately too many doubters click and skim, and assume it's true. It's absolutely horrible, but people who want to believe it fall for it and believe what they want. Sigh.

If we look at other comparative ancient historiography, such as the life of Alexander the Great, the situation is much the same. Our oldest records come from Plutarch and Arrian, writing 100-200 years after Alexander. Each claims to rely on multiple older written sources, but we don't have copies of those. These two guys contradict each other at points. In their case, historians debate and decide, but when the Bible may have similar kinds of issues, they scoff and throw it out. Double standard.

Julius Caesar. There are four extant accounts of his crossing of the Rubicon River and the consequence civil war, for example, just like we have four Gospels, ironically enough. No one knows for sure the exact date or location of Caesar's crossing. Not all the details square with each other; one even contains a story of something miraculous. Still, historians claim the event is "accurate".

Josephus. 'Nuf said.

So saying, when we approach the Bible, for instance in the historical books of 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles (but plenty of other places), sometimes we have divergent theological agendas, or looking at the historical event from a different vantage point. Harmonization is always a challenge, whether secular or biblical. Oddly, the attacks against the Bible are relentless, the ones against Alexander the Great are academic. Often the excuse is, "Well, you Christians claim it's without error," and that's where the rub comes. The Bible never claims to be inerrant (which is mostly a meaningless word anyway), but it does claim to be God-breathed. Am I saying God would "breathe" some errors? It means sometimes God allows the authors to write from their perspective. There are several intellectually viable perspectives between "inerrant" and "unreliably inaccurate".

What might be more productive is avoiding the generalizations that don't take us anywhere, but instead to discuss the alleged inaccuracies.

As you might guess, to potentially learn of a historical inaccuracy wouldn't even get close to shaking my certainty that my belief in the Christian God is actually 100% true. We don't worship the Bible, we worship God. And while I certainly and deeply believe that all of the Bible is God-breathed, a historical inaccuracy wouldn't cause the Rock of Gibraltar—my belief in God—to collapse into rubble. My faith is based in far wider and deeper realities than that.

Would you care to discuss one of these alleged inaccuracies, or was it a rhetorical question to probe a topic for understanding?

[Maestro]

> Would you care to discuss one of these alleged inaccuracies, or was it a rhetorical question to probe a topic for understanding?

What I really want is understand why people believe what they believe. So I'd rather not go into specifics about possible inaccuracies when they don't truly affect your belief - you mentioned that even if there were inaccuracies in the bible, you would still remain at the 100% mark. That's why I think it would be fair to say that the bible is not necessarily the main reason for your belief. I'd love to know what does get you that high onto the belief scale, if it's not the bible. What kind of "wider and deeper realities" do you mean?

[jimwalton]

There are many reasons I believe in God, the Bible, and in Christianity. I already mentioned some of them.

1. The Bible is historically defensible.

2. God is a reasonable conclusion based on a logical assessment of what we see. When I look at the various cosmological, ontological, teleological, and axiological arguments for the existence of God, they make sense to me, so I firmly believe that theism makes more sense than atheism.

3. Christianity & the Bible present a world that we see. It presents a world where evil is real (as opposed to other religions), and where God lets things take their course but intervenes to keep his plan of redemption on track. It portrays humanity as noble but hopelessly lost, moral but corruptible, both good and evil, torn between self and others, having a conscience, knowing purpose, aware of morality, acknowledging beauty, capable of creativity, but in some ways animalistic and capable of horrific behavior.

4. Christianity has the strongest answers to evil, suffering, morality, purpose, and personality.

5. Jesus' resurrection is subject to historical inquiry and is the most logical conclusion of the data available.

6. Personal experience.

7. YHWH is the kind of God we would expect if a God truly exists, and Jesus is the kind of person we would expect to see if God visited the planet.

8. The Bible portrays "religion" not as a way to earn a place in God's graces, but as God reaching out to us, to love his way into our hearts. To me this corresponds to reality, because if we have to earn our way, we are all in hopeless trouble. But if God would just reach out to us, invite us into the kingdom, pay any sacrifices himself, and make a way for us to find him, come to him, and be redeemed, this makes sense as the only possible way someone could ever find salvation, and this is what the Bible teaches.

9. A true religion must engage the whole of the human nature, not just the mind and not just the emotions. It can't possibly just be about swaying to the music, entranced and brainless, caught up in the rhythms, spells, notions and potions. By the same token, it can't possibly just be about deep philosophy, ironing out theological conundrums, connecting intellectually with the mysteries of the universe and transcending humanity to enter the divine. True religion engages the mind and can fulfill the most intellectual queries, but at the same time enjoy expression, joy, uplifting emotions and the pull of our hearts. True religion is for the scholar and the child, the patrician and the plebeian, the civilized and the barbarian, the slave and the free, the man and the woman, the scientist and the poet. Christianity conforms to these categories.

10. A true religion must make sense out of history. It doesn't function above it or without it, compete against it or necessarily endorse it. Christianity is a historical religion where God works in history and among history, accomplishing his purposes, involved in people's lives, bringing out the redemption of all creation.

11. A true religion must makes sense out of science. It doesn't function above it or without it, compete against it or necessarily endorse it. Christianity teaches principles of cause and effect, beauty, regularity, predictability, beauty, purpose, design, and a world in which science is possible.

12. Christianity teaches purpose, significance in humanity, forgiveness for wrongs, life out of death, hope for the hopeless, redemption, fairness, love, beauty, a God who is there, knowledge, conscience, renewal, and meaning. I think it addresses all of these (#s 1-7) with far greater satisfaction than other religions to such a great extent that I consider Christianity to be true.

That's a more complete list than the one I sent the other day (not wanting to write a wall). I hope that helps you to understand why I believe what I believe. I'll look forward to your reply.

[Maestro]

We've talked about #1 for a while and you said that even if #1 would be shown to be wrong, you would still believe 100%. For that reason I think it would be fair to say that #1 isn't really such an important reason for your belief. If I'm saying something you don't agree with here, please let me know - I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Are there reasons, among the ones you listed, that would lower your confidence if they turned out to be mistaken? In other words, if we went past every point on this list and I were able to show, to your satisfaction, that they were mistaken (I'm not going to do this, but just for the sake of argument), would it lower your confidence in the christian God? If so, what percentage on the scale do you think you would find yourself at and which argument would lower your confidence the most? If not, why not?

[jimwalton]

Thanks for considerate dialogue.

Just for point of correction, it's not possible to show #1 to be "wrong". The Bible is easily historically defensible, even if an occasional or isolated error were discovered. That's very different from "shown to be wrong."

> Are there reasons, among the ones you listed, that would lower your confidence if they turned out to be mistaken?

This is an odd question. Millennia of evidences and philosophical and theological arguments/reasoning have shown this items to be true. That's why, when you ask me how confident I am, I can unabashedly say 100%.

So I guess it is very true that if you could show that these "were mistaken", I would definitely have to not only lower my confidence but also altar my beliefs. We have to follow the truth wherever it leads.

> If so, what percentage on the scale do you think you would find yourself at and which argument would lower your confidence the most? If not, why not?

Again, an odd question. It's like asking "What would lower your confidence that the sun is hot or that water is wet?" How can I answer that question without some kind of weird smile on my face?

[Maestro]

> Again, an odd question. It's like asking "What would lower your confidence that the sun is hot or that water is wet?" How can I answer that question without some kind of weird smile on my face?

Well, for example if we sent a spaceship to the sun and they did some measurements that showed the sun is actually really cold, it might convince me. The one for water is a little harder, because liquids are by definition wet, but if suddenly water started feeling all powdery, that might convince me that it was not wet. I know that that last one is kind of a stretch, but you know what I mean right? I try to keep my mind always open to new information.

So, that being said, what would you need to see to lower your confidence in the christian God? I'm not trying to be repetitive, just want to give you another opportunity to explain yourself

[jimwalton]

The evidence for me to lower my confidence in the Christian God would be similar to the scientific evidence you have presented. There's about as much a chance of it as discovering that the sun is not giving off heat or that water is not wet. I also try to keep my mind always open to new information. I love to read and learn. I just wish my brain would retain the stuff I put into it and the input from so many good sources. For me to lower my confidence in the Christian God would take convincing evidence to the level and extent of the evidence that has contributed to my acceptance of Him, just as scientific evidence would have to equal the power of the evidence that first taught me, and continues to convince me, that the sun is hot and water is wet.