Corcovado jesus (Photo credit: @Doug88888)
Have you ever wondered what blind faith actually looks like? We use it as a phrase but never really dig into it. Well, how’s about this as an example:
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. (Matthew 28:16-17)
Hang on, some doubted? You’ve just physically seen the risen Lord and still doubt? Sounds like blind faith to me!
Earlier this month a guy took offense at some throwaway comment I made, suggesting that the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection was all fake. We had a bit of a chat but when I asked him what it would take for him to believe, I was met with silence.
In other words, he has already made up his mind about Jesus’ resurrection without having considered any evidence. That’s called blind faith.
Believe it or not I don’t have a problem with people’s blind faith so long as they admit that it is what it is! Someone who says, ‘I haven’t looked at the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection but don’t believe it and will never believe it’ gets my respect because at least they’re grown up enough to take responsibility for their own decisions (even if I think they’re wrong).
But if you say that you’ve looked at the evidence and would be willing to believe but still don’t, I do want to ask you the question: what would you need to be shown to be convinced?
Related articles
- Talking reason at Easter (samisaacson.wordpress.com)
- Doubt vs Faith (musiqdragonfly.wordpress.com)
- Blind Faith? (str.typepad.com)
I would need to personally witness a supernatural occurrence because everything in my knowledge and experience indicates that supernatural stories are the product of human foibles such as superstition, gullibility, wishful thinking, exaggeration, ignorance, and prevarication rather than the product of actual supernatural events. However, if I personally witnessed a supernatural event, it would alter the knowledge and experience against which I evaluate supernatural stories..
With all due respect, I doubt that you would. I’ve seen people healed when they’ve been prayed for; would seeing that convince you, or would you explain it away with a naturalistic explanation?
I would need to see something that changed the mixture of knowledge and experience available to me. Since that knowledge and experience includes people whose health improved for reasons that are unknown to me as well as people whose health did not improve despite prayers offered on their behalf, I cannot say whether the incidents you witnessed would be sufficient to change my assessment of the plausibility of a particular event having occurred two thousand years.ago.
It strikes me as very, very odd that you would approach this particular historical event in a completely different way as you would to any other fact. Perhaps allow me to give three illustrations to show how your approach is nonsensical:
1. The Pyramids
I believe that the pyramids were built by the Ancient Egyptians. I have never personally experienced them, but I still believe – me investing time and money and visiting them does not change whether or not they exist and were built by the Ancient Egyptians. If I were to follow your approach I would have to refuse to visit the pyramids and deny the existence of the Ancient Egyptians until I had personally visited the pyramids, and that’s not only silly, it’s logically incoherent. Perhaps you need to invest some time into investigating the evidence in order to get the experience you’re looking for.
2. ITV4
I really like the channel ITV4, it’s number 24 on my telly. But I hadn’t discovered it until I typed that number in – I was not aware of its existence but that didn’t change its existence, and I feel better off for having found it (live cricket pretty much every day!). Following your approach I would have had to refuse to type in that number until I had watched the channel, again which is logically incoherent. Perhaps you need to read the Bible, visit a church, pray and ask God to reveal himself to you.
3. My wife
My wife exists. I can tell you this for a fact. But the chances are that the vast majority of this earth’s population will never meet my wife – no big deal in the grand scheme of things, although she is lovely. But if meeting her had eternal consequences then saying ‘I refuse to acknowledge what she’s done until I’ve met her’ is a pretty lame excuse; it would be more sensible to ask me to introduce you!
So saying ‘I refuse to investigate the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection until I see words in the sky’ is as daft as saying that you’ll never watch any films made in Hollywood until you’ve met the cast; (1) it does not make any real difference, (2) meeting the cast won’t mean nearly as much before watching the film, it would be better to watch it first, and (3) you could actually be missing out on something wonderful by refusing to watch it! I’d say the same about Jesus; he’s absolutely fantastic and you’re genuinely missing out.
It is not a question of how I approach a particular fact. It is a question of how I go about inferring facts from evidence. The only way I know how to do that is by using the natural processes of cause and effect that are part of my knowledge and experience.
I am quite familiar with the evidence for the resurrection. It consists of ancient supernatural stories of mostly indeterminate authorship based on unknown sources written years after the events they purport to describe. Based on the natural processes of cause and effect that I have observed, the most likely cause of any supernatural story is some combination of the human foibles that I mentioned earlier. Nothing I know about the stories leads me to believe that another cause is more likely.
Ok, just a quick question then if I may: what do you think is the most reasonable explanation for Jesus’ disciples’ willingness to die for what they believed?
I don’t think that I have reliable evidence of the circumstances under which Jesus’ original disciples died, however, I suspect that most early Christian martyrs sincerely believe that they would be rewarded for their faithfulness in the next life.
…but you don’t think that their sincere belief was based on any facts whatsoever? For example, Paul mentions the 500 that the risen Jesus appeared to ‘at one time…some of whom are still alive [and could be questioned]‘?
I can’t see any reason to think that their sincere belief was based on facts any more than the sincere belief of Muslims or Mormons are based on facts.
When I went to a Catholic grade school in the 1960′s, the nuns would tell us stories about the miraculous appearances of the Virgin Mary to thousands of people at Fatima. It was only later that I discovered that it was only a handful of children who claimed to have seen Mary. There were more people who claimed to have seen the “Miracle of the Sun,” but the details of their stories varied and many people claimed to have seen nothing at all.
At the time the nuns told me these stories, they believed that there were living witnesses who could corroborate them, however I doubt that the nuns who taught me had ever spoken to any of those witnesses. They simply repeated stories they had heard which they sincerely believed to be true. I have no way to determine that Paul’s stories were any more (or less) factual than the ones the nuns told me.
Good question – one I asked before I became a Christian. Let’s compare them.
Muslims and Mormons both started with one man who ‘heard from God’ but in such a way that meant that no-one else could hear from God – they just had to trust Mohammed, Joseph Smith, or whoever. Christians started with multiple witnesses of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, including his family (wow), radical Jewish leaders who converted (like Paul and Gamaliel), Gentiles (like Greeks like Titus and Romans like Cornelius), fishermen, tax collectors, centurions, servants, men, women – pretty much you name it. Very, very different.
Your nuns passed on hearsay that had clearly got changed and blown out of proportion through a complex version of Chinese whispers. Paul’s witnesses mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15 included the 500 but also Cephas (who he had met and who the church in Corinth knew), the twelve (who Paul had met and who the church in Corinth knew), James (Jesus’ own brother, who Paul had met and who the church in Corinth knew), and (wait for it) Paul himself. So the nuns talked about some witnesses they had never met, Paul talked about witnesses not only he had met but who the Corinthians could ask themselves, and he was a witness himself!
Let’s go back to the question you asked me about the early Christian martyrs “…but you don’t think that their sincere belief was based on any facts whatsoever?” My answer would still be that we have plenty of historical evidence of people willingly risking death for sincerely held religious beliefs without having any credible evidence to support those beliefs. Early Mormons endured great risks and hardships based on nothing more then stories they had been told about the Angel Moroni and the Golden Plates.
You are quite correct that there might have been some factual basis for the early Christian’s beliefs. Paul might have communicated factually accurate information in 1 Cor. 15. Nevertheless, my point is that we cannot infer the existence of the facts from their willingness to die for their beliefs because there is nothing uncommon about people being willing to die for religious beliefs without any factual basis. Their willingness to die does nothing to establish the facts.
I would note as well that while Mormonism started with the revelation that Joseph Smith claimed to receive, multiple witnesses claimed to be able to corroborate it. Every copy of the Book of Mormon contains the affidavits of twelve witnesses who claimed also to have seen the Angel Moroni and/or the Golden Plates. For the resurrection, other than Paul’s claim that the risen Christ appeared to him, everything we have is hearsay, much of it removed an unknown number of times from the original witnesses.
My point is not around people’s willingness to die but the circumstances; Peter changed from someone who publicly denied Jesus as Lord to someone who was willing to die.
And when it comes to the witness statements being ‘removed an unknown number of times from the original witnesses’, I don’t know where you’re coming from. We have witness statements originally written by Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, Jude, James, and of course Paul himself. Luke’s contribution came from interviewing eyewitnesses, so was removed one time.
But we return to my original original question
What would it take for you to believe? Eyewitness statements? No, you claim they’re lying or were believing falsely. Changed lives? No, you claim they believed but without any facts. Personal experience? No, you say that even miraculous healing might not convince you.
Do you believe that the planet Saturn exists? If so, why?
On the contrary, I have told you that personal experience might convince me. If I were convinced that a healing were miraculous, I think that I would be convinced that a healing was miraculous.
I’ll tell you where I’m coming from regarding the the reports being removed an unknown number of times from the original witnesses. I find the evidence for the traditional authorship of the gospels unpersuasive.
I believe the planet Saturn exists because I believe that the natural processes of cause and effect are well enough understood that it is reasonable to infer from the objective evidence that there is actually such a planet out there.
Ok, now we’re getting down to brass tacks. You and I both come from a position of faith; our faith is a sort of filter through which we put all the evidence we have access to. But our faith is in different things.
Your faith, as shown in your response, is in human reason. You believe humans understand nature well enough that scientists’ conclusions about the solar system are correct. My faith is in God.
But this leads us to two issues. Issue number one is that human reason is demonstrably flawed. If it weren’t, people would never make mistakes. People have even designed little party tricks to play with some of the known flaws in human reason, proving that 1=2, or that two identical images are different colours, or that a sheet of paper is showing a 3D image. I personally would have an issue putting my faith entirely on something that is known to have errors built into it.
Issue number two is a bit more tricky, but it essentially comes down to circular reasoning. If I were to ask you why you trust in human reason I imagine you’d say something like ‘it makes sense to’, or ‘in my experience it’s proved itself to be a good way’ – in other words, you use human reason to justify using human reason, clear circular reasoning.
So are you saying that you don’t believe that scientists are able to draw correct conclusions about the solar system? Do you instead believe in the existence of Saturn due to some sort of divine revelation?
What I generally find in these discussions is that theists draw the same inferences from the same evidence to reach the same conclusions as I do with respect to every aspect of the world in which we live except when it comes to the supernatural claims of their particular religion. I also find that theists will reach the same conclusions as other theists of different religious persuasions in all cases except for those relating to their own particular belief systems. Muslims and Mormons and Catholics see eye to eye on questions of astronomy, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and a wide variety of other fields so long as they don’t impact their religion’s unique faith based claims. This leads me to believe that theists do not in fact have a different filter or different way of looking at the world. If they did, they would not disagree with one another so often. Theists simply choose not to think objectively or critically about their own religious beliefs.
While it is true that people often make mistakes, this doesn’t prove that human reason is flawed. We might just as well claim that mathematics are flawed because sometimes people make mistakes in addition. Human reason might be flawed, but it cannot be demonstrated using human reason for much the same reason that human reason can’t be shown to be valid using human reason. That would be the same kind of circular reasoning of which you accused me, (erroneously I might add).
This is simply a limitation of human reason that we must live with. Think of the rules of chess. They can tell you how the pieces move and how the game ends, but the rules of chess cannot tell whether the rules of chess are the right rules to have for a game. Similarly, human reason cannot validate reason itself, but as long as we recognize that limitation we are not engaged in circular reasoning.
I use human reason for the same reason I use my eyes and my ears, i.e., they are the tools with which I am equipped. I can’t prove that the things I see are really out there in any objective sense or that they really exist independently of my own mind, but I’ve got to start somewhere and I cannot think of any alternative to positing a world that exists which operates according to observable rules.
Well, there are many things I’d like to say in response:
Firstly, the way I judge that believing in Saturn is ok is exactly the same as my approach to Christianity. I trust people who know it best, whether astronomers or historians or Jesus’ own disciples.
Your accusation against all ‘religious people’ is misleading; yes, I am obviously informed by my beliefs, but so are you. The evidence for Jesus’ resurrection should be analysed and not blindly overlooked. Remember that many people including myself and, for example, Lee Strobel and CS Lewis were atheists when we saw the evidence and came to believe as a result of it – your accusation is clearly wrong.
Also, Christianity isn’t just a bunch of facts, it’s a relationship; I’ve not just been intellectually convinced it’s probably true, I’ve met Jesus personally and know it’s true! That’s something you can’t say as an atheist or any other faith group.
“What will it take for you to believe?”
It depends on what “believing” means exactly. What it would take for me to believe that Jesus existed is different to what it would take for me to believe that Jesus did what people claim he did, different to what it would take for me to believe in God, and different for what it would take for me to be a Christian.
I lack a belief in the existence of Jesus, not because I specifically disbelieve but because I don’t confident in coming to a conclusion based on current evidence. There are plenty of people arguing against the historicity of Jesus, some of them seem to have good points. Establishing historicity can be complex and difficult though. Maybe the Bible is adequate evidence of the existence of a historical Jesus. Maybe said historical Jesus made the claims he was said to make. Ultimately I’m less interested in the question of a historical Jesus because his existence or lack thereof actually has little to do with my reasons for not being a Christian (although still interested enough to read about it even if I don’t feel able to draw solid conclusions).
I lack a belief that Jesus, if he existed, did the things that people claimed he did. This is not because I think that the witnesses are liars (although they might have been). It’s possible that they witnessed what they witnessed and reported it accurately, it’s possible they were innocently mistaken, it’s possible that they were fooled by a magician or charlatan. I don’t think I have enough information to personally evaluate that. If I felt more able to evaluate it, I suppose I might be more interested in the question of historical Jesus though.
I lack a belief in God. I think it’s possible that some kind of supernatural being exists, but I don’t think that automatically means it’s possible that the Abrahamic god exists. I feel more able to personally evaluate claims about the existence of God because it involves evidence that exists *now*, can be evaluated *now*, rather than the murkiness of history. (I want to be clear that I don’t think the past is unable to be evaluated, I just think that the specific details of the human aspects of history are harder to evaluate because of the biases and agendas of the people who write history).
When evaluating claims about the existence of some kind of god, these are my guiding questions — what are the properties of the god in question?, is it possible to prove or disprove that a being with those specific properties exists?, what evidence is there?
I think different claims about different gods have a different potential for evaluation. I don’t think it’s possible to prove or disprove the claim that *a* god exists, because “god” could mean so many things, it is not a specific enough claim to be able to evaluate. I also think some conceptions of god are inherently unable to be proven or disproven based on our current knowledge and technology, either because the claims are too vague (many new-age beliefs about “the soul of the universe”, for example) or because “unknowability” is part of the claim (Invisible Pink Unicorn, Russel’s Teapot, some Christian conceptions of God). If I think the existence of a god is unable to be evaluated, or if I feel ill-equipped to evaluate it, then I feel like it would be dishonest to take a *positive* stance of belief or disbelief, the only intellectually honest thing to do would be to say that I “lack belief” until such a time comes that I can evaluate it better.
I think gods with more specific and “tangible” (for lack of a better word) properties are more able to be evaluated adequately and positive stances of belief or disbelief may be able to be fairly made for some of them. I still “lack belief” (rather than specifically disbelieve) in most of them because I have not bothered to systematically evaluate each and every claim. I will be honest and admit that’s partly laziness — there are lots of gods and lots of claims made about them and as interesting as they are I really feel like I have better things to do — but it’s also unnecessary. There aren’t a great deal of gods who it seems to really *matter* whether or not I believe in. For example, if it turns out the Egyptian gods are the real ones, my afterlife will be judged on my deeds rather than my belief so it doesn’t seem as important to get that “right”.
I think evaluating the claim of the existence of the Abrahamic God is complex. There are many Christians who make many claims about God, some of them contradictory, some of them unable to be evaluated. My ability to take a positive stance of belief will depend first of all on the claim itself and then, if it’s able to be evaluated, on the evidence (which evidence is relevant will likely depend on the claim made).
Even if a specific claim about the existence of God did seem likely though, I would not automatically consider it sufficient to actually convert to a religion. George Clooney exists, but not all of the rumours about him are true. In order to convert to Christianity, I would not only need to believe that God exists, but also that what Christians say about him is true. It is certainly not unheard of for people to put words into God’s mouth in order to further their own agendas, for good or ill.
I’d also need to feel that converting would be the *right* thing to do. It would admittedly be based on my *own* conscience (I don’t see how it would make sense to ignore it though), but I even if I believed in the existence of God, I might feel that religion is a bad thing for the world, or even that God was malevolent and something to be stood up to rather than followed.
The reason I left Christianity was, in fact, based on matters of conscience rather than belief, my lack of belief was actually a later development.
Of course you’re right; ‘believing’ is a bit of a vague concept and needs to be in something specific. How about belief in the biblical account of Jesus’ resurrection? If that were true, then I’m sure you agree there would be a lot of connected truths (his deity, miracles, etc).
In terms of Jesus as an actual historical figure we can start with multiple independent witness accounts – because of these the burden of proof must be on those who disbelieve; if I were to say that the Olympics are currently not happening in London the burden of proof would be on me as a disbeliever because of the multiple independent witness accounts.
In terms of Jesus being more than just a man we have to ask what he could have been while going to extraordinary lengths to claim to be God (ultimately being crucified and apparently coming back to life). He could have been an evil man wanting power, intentionally misleading his followers. He could have been clinically insane, genuinely believing he was God when he actually wasn’t. But if he wasn’t either of these I don’t see any alternative other than him actually being God himself (however unlikely that is – I’m sure you wouldn’t believe me if I told you I was God in human form!).
But to even look at one aspect of Jesus’ life, like his teaching on morality, is to actually make that third option the most plausible! In the last 2,000 years there have been extraordinary changes in technology, science, sociology, psychology, medicine, language, travel, you name it…but Jesus’ moral teaching (turning the other cheek, treating others how you’d like to be treated, accepting people as they are and so on) hasn’t been improved on at all! That for me is so unlikely if he was either evil or crazy that I find it more convincing that he was God based on just that…but that’s only one aspect. The resurrection itself can’t really be explained without the intervention of the supernatural – if you’ve not seen it I’d recommend a book called The Jesus Inquest by Charles Foster, which presents evidence on both sides of the debate in (I think!) an unbiased way, to enable you to make your own decision.
If you don’t mind me asking (feel free not to answer!), what were the matters of conscience that led to you leaving Christianity?