Academic Fables and Myths: Does Believing Make It So?

BreakPoint with Charles Colson ^ | August 13, 2004 | Mark Earley

[outlawcam]

See post 60. I'm going to have to consolidate these posts. It is daunting enough having to make the argument once. However, I'll make you the same offer about the book I mentioned. It's inexpensive, and your identity will remain unknown to me (I think).

It's a short book that can be read in a single afternoon.

[MHGinTN]

"Whatever is, is. Something cannot both be and not be at the same point in time." You realize, of course, that you have just contradicted one of the fundamental beliefs underlying modern quantum theory, that a cat can be both alive and not alive if sealed in a box with a deadly poison that can be released by random atomic decay and that such a duality must be accepted in order to accept the statistical nature of quantum duality. But such blaise faith is so easily embraced by a physicists, if he or she wants to engage in the game of secular empowerment through scientific endorsement.

[orionblamblam]

> They were liars, lunatics (or so gullible that they could be mistaken for lunatics), or Jesus was Lord. There are only so many options. Given all else we discussed, would you agree with that?


Those are the most likely options, yes. I've seen liars and lunatics and the truly gullible in some abundance; I know they exist. Gods, however....

[orionblamblam]

> the Gospels are clearly such.

Maybe so, but so far as I'ma ware we have no copies earlier than about 130 CE.

> Secondly, Josephus wrote of him in the late first century.

And again... how old are the oldest copies of *that*?

[stuartcr]

That's pretty convenient..if I don't read the book, then I obviously don't care enough to try to learn..you've read it, and others, so why hasn't it convinced everyone? It should be a best seller if it really offers proof.

I have no doubt that a man named Jesus existed, and was probably crucified..for whatever reason. I do not believe that anyone rose from the dead, and no book will convince me of that. As mentioned earlier, how does anyone know if He really died to save us, and how will anyone know?

[-YYZ-]

Actually, I believe that is one of the fundamental paradoxes of classical quantum theory. I don't think anyone really believes that quantum superimpositions of things on the macro scale, like cats, actually exist. Also the need for an "observer" in this type of thinking introduces an element of subjectivity into it which is rather distasteful to the scientific mind. Anyways, this is why the search is still on for some type of "Grand Unified Theory" that will relate the physics of quantum mechanics with those governing things at larger scales. Outside of specially constructed circumstances, it seems that quantum superimpositions do collapse in some mechanistic manner without the need for a human observer. At least that's the way I and much of the scientific community leans, while others hold to other views, such as the "many worlds" hypothesis, some even believing that human conciousness may play a key part. If correct that might actually lend scientific support to the existence of God.

[MHGinTN]

To find a GUT is why I've been hashing a concept of dimensional variable expressions (e.g., spacetime as continuum expressions 'layered', constructed each with an expression/variable of dimensions ... light would be a linear/present in which a discrete energy quanta is locked until intersecting another continuum expression having at least one common variable, such as linear for translation; light from a star arrives as a packet of a little bit of temporal expression, a little bit of spatial expression and energy, to be 'translated' when the packet intersects the spatio-temporal mechanism of the eye or any other receptor with which the limited continuum in which the packet existed prior to intersection may interact due to a common variable expression such as linear spatial). But that's grist for a separate discussion, with the usual ridicule from the peanut gallery.

[BikerNYC]

First: Truth is independent of our will or imaginings. Truth is independent of whether or not we have evidence of it. Whether or not we can prove something to be true is independent of whether or not it is true.

How do you know this?

I will, in turn, grant you that truth, apart from evidence, is impossible to prove, and highly impractical.

If it is impossible to prove, how do you *know* it exists?

[Mr. Silverback]

Ravi Zacharias rocks!

[outlawcam]

Because events happen apart from me. That is an article of faith, but not at all an unreasonable one.

[outlawcam]

if I don't read the book, then I obviously don't care enough to try to learn..

Your ability to learn may have nothing to do with you. I will do my best to give you my perceptions of the arguments presented in the book, as time allows. For tonight, however, I'm operating on about three hours of sleep, and I will have a busy week. I made the offer out of courtesy; I may not be able to give you an argument in the sort of time frame you'd prefer. I will thus leave the offer on the table. You answer as your heart moves you.

I have no doubt that a man named Jesus existed, and was probably crucified..for whatever reason. I do not believe that anyone rose from the dead, and no book will convince me of that.

That's a good a starting point as any. When I have more time, I'll address that.

[stuartcr]

I don't argue, I just ask questions...I have my beliefs, and you have yours. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm just trying to figure out why people believe as they do. Thanks

[outlawcam]

I don't argue, ... I'm just trying to figure out why people believe as they do.

The premise of the conversation, I believe, is to figure out whether faith exists completely apart from reason. I have asserted that it does not. In order to demonstrate that it doesn't, I am required to present an argument (not to be confused with antagonistic contradiction or anything of that sort). So I don't have a negative perception of arguments. I use the term in order to tell you that the reasoning is logical, given the assumptions I make. This, I hope, will help you understand why I believe what I believe, so that you can observe that faith can be derived through reason. That is not to say that we do not make assumptions; we must make assumptions. The question is whether or not those assumptions are reasonable, and it is fair to examine that at length, as well. It just all takes a lot of time, depending on your starting point.

I am not going to spend a lot of time, for instance, debating whether or not the assumption "I exist in mind and form" is valid. I think it is entirely a reasonable one to make---and entirely useless to deny. That assumption, admittedly, is a form of faith--and so is the assumption that the question needs to be answered definitively in order to obtain any practical benefit.

If you have been convinced from the evidence that we have that Jesus existed on this earth and was probably crucified, that puts us a lot further down the chain. But we need to come to an agreement that--regardless of what you or I have been convinced of--something happened. That event (or non-event) is completely independent of our beliefs.

I will be able to describe to you, I hope, my reasons for believing. Based on my assumptions, you will be able to see that the reasoning is valid, and that I was convinced of the likelihood of resurrection. You will probably--as this is most often the case--just have problems with my assumptions. But hopefully, whatever discussion we have about those assumptions, you will not think that faith and reason are mutually exclusive.

Does that make sense?

[stuartcr]

OK, what do you base your beliefs in the following on;

- resurrection
- forgiveness of mankinds sins through the death of Jesus

[outlawcam]

Well, the last one is easiest, I think, to show. If Jesus was resurrected and performed the miracles that are attributed to Him--if he fulfilled the prophesies that were foretold many, many years before Him--then it gives significant credibility to the notion that He is who He said He is. If that is true, then the very same people that foretold the prophesies--and the words of Jesus Himself--gain significant credibility, because they also told of the forgiveness that Jesus brings. They told why He came. He told why He had come. I believe Him because I believe He was resurrected. Had I watched Him perform those miracles, Had I seen the holes in his hands and feet as He told us of the great Hope He had offered humanity, I would not have argued. I did not see it, so for 28 years, I argued.

I became convinced when I learned a few things that I did not know. For instance, I always assumed that the Bible consisted of just translations of translations that became corrupted over time. I found out later that we have manuscripts of the Gospels that were fairly close to the time that Jesus lived. There is no ambiguity of what the authors were trying to say: Jesus claimed to be the Messiah foretold in Scripture. Ambiguity is not an option to us. However, I must say that I would still be arguing against it today, had God not opened my heart. I am not responsible for believing. He is the one who opened my eyes.

To be the Messiah foretold in Scripture, certain things would have to be true: Born of a woman from the line of David, from the line of Abraham, from the line of Noah...You get the point. He also had to be born in Bethlehem, He had to ride into Jerusalem on a donkey, had to be crucified, His bones could not be broken (they usually were in crucifiction), people would have to cast lots for his garments. There were many prophesies there, and the likelihood of all these things (and many others) coming true in one person by mere chance is so statistically improbable that it is not worth considering. According to the book, a statistician estimated that the likelihood of all of that being true in one person was equivalent to filling Texas up one foot deep with quarters (I think the description is right--at any rate, you'll get the point) and randomly placing a special quarter somewhere within. For all of these things to come true in one person, the likelihood is the same as if you put a person in the middle of the state, and he were to reach out and find that one special quarter in his first try.

So did He fulfill all of those prophesies? I think the question is effectively the same as "did He rise from the dead?"

To that I ask, who would suffer and die for a lie, if they knew it was a lie? Some people have claimed that the apostles got something out of all of this. We forget that the apostles suffered miserably in their journeys. Of the twelve apostles (including James), eleven were executed for what they believed. Only John died of natural causes. Some were crucified. Others were stoned for heresy. Peter was crucified upside down. Paul was shipwrecked and imprisoned several times. They never renounced their faith, and in fact were pictures of generosity, loyalty, and humility--characteristics not commonly associated with liars. Given the suffering they endured, I cannot conclude that they were lying. They had nothing to gain from it, and in fact had every reason to renounce their claims except one: They believed what they said was true.

So--if we can, for the sake of argument, agree on the historical accuracy of this suffering--this means that either they were duped, were crazy, or correct. Are you with me so far?

[stuartcr]

I believe there is a significant difference between being resurrected, and fulfilling prophecies. How does one know that he has been forgiven? You say you believe Him because you belive He was resurrected..please explain.

There is much written, both ancient and modern, that is fiction. I believe ambiguity IS an option when speaking of things that happened so long ago.

- To be born in a certain lineage...is believable.
- To be born in Bethelehem...is believable
- To ride a donkey in those times...believable
- To be crucified and have no bones broken...rare maybe, but believable
- People casting lots for a persons clothing...believable
- The statistics do not say any of this is impossible...just not likely.

Fulfilling all these prophecies is NOT effectively the same as coming back from the dead...what are the statistics on that?

I have no idea why people do what they do, especially if they believe in something very strongly...die for a lie? Quite possible. Youre conclusions are not fact.

I agree, they were either duped, crazy, correct, incorrect, or lying. You, of course, have every right to make the assumptions you make...but as you say, you are not responsible for believing...we all have our beliefs...many differ, none can be proven.

[outlawcam]

Youre conclusions are not fact.

Well...they may be, but as you pointed out, you may not come to the same conclusion. That doesn't change the event. We can agree on this: Either He was or he wasn't resurrected. Logic in the legalistic-historical sense isn't just about proving something without any doubt; it is also about removing reasonable doubt. It is about coming to reasonable and likely conclusions, not the only possible conclusions. For instance, after we're done with the process of talking about the reasoning that lead me to my conclusions, you could come out and say, "Well I think none of us exist anyway. We're plugged into this big matrix and are slaves to machines." Is that possible? Yes. Is it likely? No. Statistics do not rule out all possible conclusions. They can be used to narrow down the probably conclusions. After all, is it not POSSIBLE that I flip a regular coin 1000 times each day and ALWAYS get heads? Yes. But is it LIKELY? Not even remotely. The possibility of always getting heads, in fact, is so remote that it is not even worth considering. That is the point of using statistics in an instance like this.

So utilizing the reason I described, it is not likely that the Messiah would fulfill ALL of those prophesies described HUNDREDS of years before His birth. The reason I said the question is the same as "did he rise from the dead" is because the question is really about whether or not the possibility is open that the people who wrote that He did fulfill those prophesies lied about it. Based on what I wrote in the previous post, it is not LIKELY. Possible? Yes. But given theier suffering and the good character they displayed, it is not likely. It is so unlikely, in fact, that it is not even worth considering.

Having ruled out LYING as a likely possibility, that leaves us with the other options.

[outlawcam]

Fulfilling all these prophecies is NOT effectively the same as coming back from the dead...what are the statistics on that?

One more thing.... This is partially the point. These things are EXTREMELY unlikely, statistically. So if they did happen, they must have happened because of some kind of Outside Intervention by Someone Who has influence over events that span across thousands of years. The possibility that the events that occured were due to random chance is so remote that it is not worth considering.

[stuartcr]

I'll re-phrase it...anyones conclusions MAY be fact.

We do agree that He either was or wasn't resurrected.

Using statistics is fine. But by saying an event is likely, don't you have to admit that it is at least possible? I ask again, what are the statistics on resurrection, not something like flipping a coin?

With God, I believe anything, including resurrection, may be possible...but I will add that I do not believe in magic, ghosts, elves, fairies, etc, either...all of which, may be possible. What are the statistics on these things existing?

I do not think we can accurately apply our logic, in any sense, to God. Is an entity that is all-powerful, all-knowing, creator of all, can transcend time, even comprehensible..much less logical? How can one logically explain the Trinity? Besides, God created what we call logic.

You have ruled out lying...not everyone else has.

I do not believe in random events.

It still just comes down to what people believe, and as you said, we are not in control of that.

[outlawcam]

But by saying an event is likely, don't you have to admit that it is at least possible?

I'll assume you meant "But by saying an event is UNlikely, don't you have to admit that it is at least possible?"

As I said, yes, but you have to determine whether or not the possibilities are reasonable. As I described, it is not reasonable to conclude that these things are the result of random chance. Something else is at work.

I think there have been instances where people have been mistaken for dead because their heartbeats were weak or slow, only to have seemingly "come back from the dead." That is statistically improbable, but possible. We haven't explored that possibility yet. To answer the question directly, it is statistically IMPOSSIBLE to come back from the dead without outside intervention.

Now, you said something interesting that I'd like you to expound on... because I don't understand what it means. You said that you don't believe in random events. However, you will likely freely admit that if I flip a normal coin or roll a normal die, what I get will be a result of random chance. That's what I'm talking about here.

How can one logically explain the Trinity?

Slow down. We can't chase down every rabbit hole or else I'll never be able to explain the reasonable basis for faith. We can address that later, if you want.