Hello everyone,
I wanted to thank everyone watching for taking their valuable time to discuss this important issue, and a special thanks to knockemoutt for participating. I especially hope that everyone reading this debate will use this opportunity to once again step back, and in the name of rationality, subject their own beliefs to questioning. One of my greatest fears in engaging in this dialogue would for us to be come a bit like the US political parties—Republicans and Democrats, who tend to focus on their side winning rather than on getting to the truth.
I would also like to clarify the question under debate tonight. The question is, “is belief in the God of Jesus Christ irrational?” The question is not, “does the God of Jesus Christ exist?” While both are important questions, I chose the former because I didn’t want this to become and endless discussion of my burden of proof as a theist or his possible burden of proof as an atheist. I will be defending the statement, “belief in the God of Jesus Christ is not irrational.” I believe this statement will be defended adequately if I can show that…
- There is no inconsistency between believing in the God of Jesus Christ and acting rationally in holding this belief.
- There is no successful argument against the God of Jesus Christ
Before I really get into the meat of my claims, I think it will be helpful to point out something else.
The God of Jesus Christ is not dependant upon biblical inerrancy
Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the bible is without error. Unfortunately, this belief is often confused with the truth of Christianity. I completely understand where you are coming from if you have rejected the God of Jesus Christ because you have found some error in the bible… as I did the same thing earlier in my life. However, it now seems to me that I had been sold a counterfeit religion, as a result of human sinfulness. Consider these propositions,
1. The God of Jesus Christ exists
2. The bible is without error
Certainly, looking at the propositions, it is not clearly irrational to believe 1 and 2. I suspect this point will come up later, so I will leave it for now…
But wouldn’t the God of Jesus Christ, if he existed, not allow difficulties with science such as one finds in the bible? Well, while this may be the first impression of most people, we often find that our first impression, what was taken for granted by those before us, is wrong. This has often happened in the scientific realm, where one finds that the correct scientific theory is highly counter-intuitive. Such is the case with Einstein’s theory of relativity. Likewise, it is with the Christian God. When one takes a closer look at the bible, one finds that it is claimed in its own pages that this God seems to intend His works to appear irrational. So my claim here is this: if Christianity is true, it is not unlikely that it will appear irrational. Since I am quite sure someone may immediately mistake what I am doing here as rejecting logic, I thought it would help to represent my claim in symbolic logic. (though I never learned how to symbolize probabilistic logic, so it is not the perfect representation of my claim which is in italics above)
- C ⊃ CAI – if C (Christianity) is true, it is not unlikely that Christianity will appear irrational (CAI)
The appearance of irrationality seems to me to be a false-positive for one who uses it as a reason to disbelieve, as it is not unlikely that the appearance of irrationality is exactly what one should expect if Christianity is true. Long before Darwin or even modern science, it seems to be claimed by the apostle Paul in the New Testament that Christianity is intended to appear irrational. He writes,
“…Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” (1 Corinthians, 1:17-21, NIV—please note I am not using this letter of Paul from the New Testament as an authority on any topic except for what would be the case if Christianity is true)
But what about the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God? I don’t believe this is the case, but even if it were true, I don’t think it would follow that it is irrational to believe in God. There is likewise no evidence for the reliability of our mind, as any evidence would presuppose that our mind is reliable (since we would perceive it through our mind). However, I do not grant you that there is no evidence for the existence of the God of Jesus Christ. Many people in the world claim experiences of this God, and it would be irrational to simply apriori (assume simply as an unjusitified assumption) say that these people could not possibly be rational in believing in God as their experiences must be false. Regardless of the rationality of non-believers, how does one know that these believers are not rationally trusting a true experience from God which they received? How does knockemoutt know that such people could not have experienced God? Especially since personal experience is by its very nature internal and not external, how can one discount this personal experience as it cannot be externally experienced?—it can only be internally experienced by the person having the experience.
It seems to me that what I have said throughout this post applies directly to knockemoutt’s list of claims, by as this is an opening statement, I wanted to put my claims in my own words before I replied much to his.
To summarize what has been said, and apply it to knockemoutt’s claims, I will simply quote him
“1. There is no evidence for the existence of this god.”
- In my reply I tried to show that even in the absence of evidence it doesn’t follow that we are irrational to believe something. However, I do not grant that there is an absence of evidence, but I defended the belief that the evidence is not sharable as it is personal experience. (it could also be personal intuition) Yet, for the sake of argument, I will grant that the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, the fine-tuning argument (from the initial conditions of the Big Bang), the moral argument (from the existence of objective moral values to God), and the Ressurection argument (from the historical evidence of Jesus to his ressurection), which seem to be defended fairly well in debates by William Lane Craig, are all nothing but foolishness and nonsense. I will grant for the sake of argument that they are entirely false and useless. However, for the reasons already mentioned, it doesn’t follow that one is irrational to believe in God just because one doesn’t have some argument for God.
“2. The accounts of Jesus Christ's life and deeds are Biblical anecdotes written many years after they were claimed to have occurred, and their truth as historical record is questionable.”
- In response to this, I would say two things. First, as I have defended earlier, (I refer you to those comments for a fuller explanation) this could be explained as the appearance of irrationality that one should expect if Christianity is true. Secondly, though many historians accept that there are discrepancies between different New Testament books, it doesn’t follow that they are not reliable accounts of Jesus any more than if one will find an error in the first-century historian Josephus, it will mean that he will no longer be trusted as an historian. Also, the claim that the written accounts of Jesus are found “many years” after he lived does not reconcile itself to the historical method, as the distance between the written accounts of what Jesus did and said, and his actual life are quite close by historical standards. Ignoring the fact that we have Paul’s epistle to the Galatians written about 51 A.D., the earliest gospel, Mark, is dated by most all scholars in the relevant fields to have been written from 60 to 80 A.D. That is only 27 to 47 years after Jesus lived, (many of those who saw Jesus preach were still alive) while many ancient sources we rely upon are written a century or more after the events that they purport to describe.
“3. The Christian god is far smaller in concept than the universe he purportedly created.”
I don’t understand how this is the case as you have left this point without explanation. I would appreciate a longer and more in-depth post in the future, as one of the points of a formal debate is to be a more in-depth discussion of the issues than a normal forum post.
“4. There is evidence for things which contradict Biblical history (such as evolution and the Big Bang).”
As I have defended in this post in much greater detail, Christianity, if it is true, is not unlikely to appear irrational. And if this is the case, the discrepancies between evolution and the big bang and some statements in the bible are consistent with Christianity being true. Likewise I have defended the view that errors in the bible do not preclude the God of Jesus Christ existing.
As I stated at the beginning of this post, I am defending the view that it is not irrational to believe in God, and that this view will be adequately defended if there is no inconsistency shown between believing in God and acting rationally in holding to that belief. I have argued for this by arguing that to disbelieve biblical inerrancy and still believe in the existence of the God of Jesus Christ need not be irrational. I have also defended this by arguing that rather than being evidence against the existence of the Christian God, it is not unlikely that the difficulties reconciling certain statements in the collection of books in the bible with science is what one should expect to happen if Christianity is true. I have also responded to each one of knockemoutt’s points.
Thank you,
- Jeff
I wanted to thank everyone watching for taking their valuable time to discuss this important issue, and a special thanks to knockemoutt for participating. I especially hope that everyone reading this debate will use this opportunity to once again step back, and in the name of rationality, subject their own beliefs to questioning. One of my greatest fears in engaging in this dialogue would for us to be come a bit like the US political parties—Republicans and Democrats, who tend to focus on their side winning rather than on getting to the truth.
I would also like to clarify the question under debate tonight. The question is, “is belief in the God of Jesus Christ irrational?” The question is not, “does the God of Jesus Christ exist?” While both are important questions, I chose the former because I didn’t want this to become and endless discussion of my burden of proof as a theist or his possible burden of proof as an atheist. I will be defending the statement, “belief in the God of Jesus Christ is not irrational.” I believe this statement will be defended adequately if I can show that…
- There is no inconsistency between believing in the God of Jesus Christ and acting rationally in holding this belief.
- There is no successful argument against the God of Jesus Christ
Before I really get into the meat of my claims, I think it will be helpful to point out something else.
The God of Jesus Christ is not dependant upon biblical inerrancy
Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the bible is without error. Unfortunately, this belief is often confused with the truth of Christianity. I completely understand where you are coming from if you have rejected the God of Jesus Christ because you have found some error in the bible… as I did the same thing earlier in my life. However, it now seems to me that I had been sold a counterfeit religion, as a result of human sinfulness. Consider these propositions,
1. The God of Jesus Christ exists
2. The bible is without error
Certainly, looking at the propositions, it is not clearly irrational to believe 1 and 2. I suspect this point will come up later, so I will leave it for now…
But wouldn’t the God of Jesus Christ, if he existed, not allow difficulties with science such as one finds in the bible? Well, while this may be the first impression of most people, we often find that our first impression, what was taken for granted by those before us, is wrong. This has often happened in the scientific realm, where one finds that the correct scientific theory is highly counter-intuitive. Such is the case with Einstein’s theory of relativity. Likewise, it is with the Christian God. When one takes a closer look at the bible, one finds that it is claimed in its own pages that this God seems to intend His works to appear irrational. So my claim here is this: if Christianity is true, it is not unlikely that it will appear irrational. Since I am quite sure someone may immediately mistake what I am doing here as rejecting logic, I thought it would help to represent my claim in symbolic logic. (though I never learned how to symbolize probabilistic logic, so it is not the perfect representation of my claim which is in italics above)
- C ⊃ CAI – if C (Christianity) is true, it is not unlikely that Christianity will appear irrational (CAI)
The appearance of irrationality seems to me to be a false-positive for one who uses it as a reason to disbelieve, as it is not unlikely that the appearance of irrationality is exactly what one should expect if Christianity is true. Long before Darwin or even modern science, it seems to be claimed by the apostle Paul in the New Testament that Christianity is intended to appear irrational. He writes,
“…Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” (1 Corinthians, 1:17-21, NIV—please note I am not using this letter of Paul from the New Testament as an authority on any topic except for what would be the case if Christianity is true)
But what about the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God? I don’t believe this is the case, but even if it were true, I don’t think it would follow that it is irrational to believe in God. There is likewise no evidence for the reliability of our mind, as any evidence would presuppose that our mind is reliable (since we would perceive it through our mind). However, I do not grant you that there is no evidence for the existence of the God of Jesus Christ. Many people in the world claim experiences of this God, and it would be irrational to simply apriori (assume simply as an unjusitified assumption) say that these people could not possibly be rational in believing in God as their experiences must be false. Regardless of the rationality of non-believers, how does one know that these believers are not rationally trusting a true experience from God which they received? How does knockemoutt know that such people could not have experienced God? Especially since personal experience is by its very nature internal and not external, how can one discount this personal experience as it cannot be externally experienced?—it can only be internally experienced by the person having the experience.
It seems to me that what I have said throughout this post applies directly to knockemoutt’s list of claims, by as this is an opening statement, I wanted to put my claims in my own words before I replied much to his.
To summarize what has been said, and apply it to knockemoutt’s claims, I will simply quote him
“1. There is no evidence for the existence of this god.”
- In my reply I tried to show that even in the absence of evidence it doesn’t follow that we are irrational to believe something. However, I do not grant that there is an absence of evidence, but I defended the belief that the evidence is not sharable as it is personal experience. (it could also be personal intuition) Yet, for the sake of argument, I will grant that the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, the fine-tuning argument (from the initial conditions of the Big Bang), the moral argument (from the existence of objective moral values to God), and the Ressurection argument (from the historical evidence of Jesus to his ressurection), which seem to be defended fairly well in debates by William Lane Craig, are all nothing but foolishness and nonsense. I will grant for the sake of argument that they are entirely false and useless. However, for the reasons already mentioned, it doesn’t follow that one is irrational to believe in God just because one doesn’t have some argument for God.
“2. The accounts of Jesus Christ's life and deeds are Biblical anecdotes written many years after they were claimed to have occurred, and their truth as historical record is questionable.”
- In response to this, I would say two things. First, as I have defended earlier, (I refer you to those comments for a fuller explanation) this could be explained as the appearance of irrationality that one should expect if Christianity is true. Secondly, though many historians accept that there are discrepancies between different New Testament books, it doesn’t follow that they are not reliable accounts of Jesus any more than if one will find an error in the first-century historian Josephus, it will mean that he will no longer be trusted as an historian. Also, the claim that the written accounts of Jesus are found “many years” after he lived does not reconcile itself to the historical method, as the distance between the written accounts of what Jesus did and said, and his actual life are quite close by historical standards. Ignoring the fact that we have Paul’s epistle to the Galatians written about 51 A.D., the earliest gospel, Mark, is dated by most all scholars in the relevant fields to have been written from 60 to 80 A.D. That is only 27 to 47 years after Jesus lived, (many of those who saw Jesus preach were still alive) while many ancient sources we rely upon are written a century or more after the events that they purport to describe.
“3. The Christian god is far smaller in concept than the universe he purportedly created.”
I don’t understand how this is the case as you have left this point without explanation. I would appreciate a longer and more in-depth post in the future, as one of the points of a formal debate is to be a more in-depth discussion of the issues than a normal forum post.
“4. There is evidence for things which contradict Biblical history (such as evolution and the Big Bang).”
As I have defended in this post in much greater detail, Christianity, if it is true, is not unlikely to appear irrational. And if this is the case, the discrepancies between evolution and the big bang and some statements in the bible are consistent with Christianity being true. Likewise I have defended the view that errors in the bible do not preclude the God of Jesus Christ existing.
As I stated at the beginning of this post, I am defending the view that it is not irrational to believe in God, and that this view will be adequately defended if there is no inconsistency shown between believing in God and acting rationally in holding to that belief. I have argued for this by arguing that to disbelieve biblical inerrancy and still believe in the existence of the God of Jesus Christ need not be irrational. I have also defended this by arguing that rather than being evidence against the existence of the Christian God, it is not unlikely that the difficulties reconciling certain statements in the collection of books in the bible with science is what one should expect to happen if Christianity is true. I have also responded to each one of knockemoutt’s points.
Thank you,
- Jeff
"the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate" (1 Cor. 1:19)
