Why be good?

[Randy Carson]

Here's the thing: 

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reported what they saw and experienced just as you did.

They endured threats, torture, imprisonment and death rather than deny what they knew to be true. 

Maybe they would have been just as insulted if someone had denied that what they said or wrote was true.

And the Early Church Fathers such as Clement, Polycarp and Papias vouched for their character.

It's reasonable for us to conclude that what the gospels tell us about Jesus is true - at least it is more likely than not.

That's what the historical reliability of the gospels tells us - that the authors were generally reliable in reporting what they saw and experienced.

We had to spend a day contorting ourselves through these ridiculous games for this? Really?

Are we going to get an apology for the insane overreach with which you began this stillbirth of an argument? Or are you going to stick to your dishonesty guns to the last?

I don't think you fully appreciate what has happened here today.

When CD, Parkers and Steel took exception to my "atheists in foxholes" comment, they wanted to counter my comments with their own personal experiences (CD and Parkers) and the experiences of others (in Steel's case). When they put them into writing in an online forum, they had every expectation that what they wrote would be accepted and believed as true. 

Now, they may counter after the fact that they don't give a hoot whether I believe it or not...but that isn't consistent with their motivation at the time they first posted. At that point, it was their expectation that their anecdotal evidence would be demonstrate that I was in the wrong about "atheists in foxholes". IOW, it was their expectation that their personal eyewitness testimony would be sufficient to overcome my previous comments.

And why wouldn't they think so? People would normally expect to be believed about things they say. Philosopher Richard Swineburne speaks of the "principle of testimony" - in the absence of counter evidence, we should believe what others tell us they have done or seen. Without this principle, Swineburne tells us we would have very little knowledge of anything. Most of our beliefs are based on what others have told us about geography, science or history. Most of what we know is not based upon our own direct experience but upon the testimony of reliable and knowledgeable people.

So, I have no reason to doubt what our three writers said earlier today about their personal experiences (Steel's data gathering from the many servicemen he interviewed may not have been very methodical - dunno 'bout that, but I'll grant that he has accurately related the facts as he saw them). Sure, the three of them might have made it all up...I can't know with certainty...but I can reason that it is more probable than not that they were telling the truth about what they saw, heard and experienced. Why would they lie? To win an Internet-based argument with someone they don't even know?

But that is my point about the four writers of the Gospels. I can't know it with certainty, but I can reason with some confidence that it is more probable than not that they were telling the truth. All things considered, it is probably more likely that the authors of gospels told the truth than did our three authors today (who actually did want to win an argument). Why would the gospel writers lie? Money? Power? Sex? To start a fraternity prank that grew out of control but they went ahead and died for it anyway?

I don't think so.