Pages

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

No Evidence?

From time to time, we get non-Christian posters who make comments like the following from rrlane in a recent thread:

Actually the big issue is that you're teaching kids something that there is no evidence for.


Often, the same people who make such comments rarely or never attempt to interact with our arguments for Christianity. We post on such issues frequently, and people like the non-Christians who have been posting here in recent threads don't participate in those discussions about evidence. That's their choice. But when they do decide to comment on evidential issues, like rrlane did above, shouldn't they attempt to interact with what we've already said about such things? Or if they aren't familiar with our material, why don't they familiarize themselves with some of it or at least interact with arguments they're familiar with from other sources?

Why is it that so many atheists and other critics of Christianity who have so little to say when we're posting about evidence for Christianity find so much more to say when a less substantive topic comes up? They see an opportunity to complain about how Steve Hays is responding to Ken Pulliam's death, so they post. They see an opportunity to issue some vague, common objections to Calvinism, so they post. But they're more silent in other contexts. Why is that? If these people are as concerned about evidence as they claim, then why does their behavior suggest otherwise?

Maybe some of these people are new to the blog. But I've noticed the pattern described above for a long time and with a lot of individuals. People who object to an alleged lack of evidence in one context are often silent in other contexts in which evidence is being discussed.

For those not familiar with our material on the evidence for Christianity, I'll point you to some representative examples. You can also search the site with our search engine above or with Google, for example, if you want to find something else. We've published some ebooks on evidential issues, such as here and here. You can find a topical index of Steve Hays' posts here. We've written many posts about evidence for the paranormal, the infancy narratives, and Jesus' resurrection, for example. We've addressed these kinds of issues many times and in a lot of depth.

As I noted in a recent series of posts (here, here, and here), Christianity has set itself within an evidential framework from the start. Evidential concepts like eyewitness testimony and fulfilled prophecy are prominent in both the Old and New Testaments. Churches like the ones in Smyrna and Rome were prominent in early Christianity largely for reasons related to historical evidence, particularly the churches' historical relationship with one or more of the apostles. Somebody like rrlane could interact with traditional Christian arguments or explain why he finds more recent efforts, like Richard Bauckham's Jesus And The Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006) or Michael Licona's The Resurrection Of Jesus (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2010), unconvincing. But just making vague references to "no evidence", as you avoid so many threads at the same blog in which evidence is discussed, is insufficient.

20 comments:

  1. I would like to hear this man's evidences that hell in fact does not exist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, Jason.

    I'd add it seems to me people like this aren't as reflective with regard to their own position(s) or worldview. They're critical of what we believe without applying the same level of criticism to what they themselves believe. Or often they simply don't even stop to consider whether their own beliefs, values, and so forth are grounded in anything substantial in the first place. It's mainly reactionary, knee-jerk atheism. Often I find their deepest level of thinking about such things is Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or the like. At least that's the impression I get from the many interactions I've had with them.

    Of course, the irony is they criticize Christians for being ignorant when the evidence better points in their direction.

    One last thing. In line with the posts and books Jason has cited above, I think this two part series from Steve is just excellent as well: "Why I Believe: A Positive Apologetic and "Why I Believe: I'm Glad You Asked!."

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree, Patrick, and thanks for the links. There is no worldview that’s easy to defend. Christianity is difficult in some ways, but the nature of life requires a difficult worldview. It seems that many people are overly focused on criticizing Christianity and don’t think in much depth about the difficulties involved in their alternative. They think so highly of their lists of Biblical difficulties, but similar lists of difficulties for the skeptic’s worldview could also be produced. A naturalist, for example, has his own version of inerrancy to defend. He can’t let a single miracle stand. He has to dismiss all of them. His list of 100 or 500 Biblical difficulties could be met with a list of 100 or 500 difficulties for his own worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would like to hear this man's evidences that hell in fact does not exist.

    I'm not making a claim that something exists. You are. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Since no verifiable evidence of the existence of hell has ever been presented, there is no reason to believe in it.

    Simple logic.

    There you go, Darren. Glad I could be of service.

    ReplyDelete
  5. They're critical of what we believe without applying the same level of criticism to what they themselves believe.

    Please tell what you assume I believe.

    What? I didn't present anything that I believe?

    Wow, then that would mean you're talking from utter ignorance in that regard then, wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. His list of 100 or 500 Biblical difficulties could be met with a list of 100 or 500 difficulties for his own worldview.

    I await this list with baited breath.

    ReplyDelete
  7. rrlane said...

    "Please tell what you assume I believe. What? I didn't present anything that I believe? Wow, then that would mean you're talking from utter ignorance in that regard then, wouldn't it?"

    You can try to play coy, but you have a profile in which you tip your hand when your favorite books include The God Delusion, God is Not Great, and The Greatest Show On Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Somebody like rrlane could interact with traditional Christian arguments or explain why he finds more recent efforts, like Richard Bauckham's Jesus And The Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006) or Michael Licona's The Resurrection Of Jesus (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2010), unconvincing. But just making vague references to "no evidence", as you avoid so many threads at the same blog in which evidence is discussed, is insufficient.

    Here's where you can go to for the rebuttal to any and all your accounts: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Arguments_for_the_existence_of_god

    As always, glad to be of service.

    ReplyDelete
  9. rrlane said...

    "Since no verifiable evidence of the existence of hell has ever been presented, there is no reason to believe in it."

    That itself is a factual claim for which you provide no supporting evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  10. rrlane said...

    "I'm not making a claim that something exists. You are. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim."

    That's just a semantic gimmick. If I say Barack Obama does not exist, that involves the same burden of proof as if I say Barack Obama does exist.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve Hays writes:

    when your favorite books include The God Delusion, God is Not Great, and The Greatest Show On Earth.

    The God Delusion as a favorite? Ouch, the arguments in that book are just philosophically embarrassing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm not making a claim that something exists. You are. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim."

    I claim that the physical world exists. You deny it, and say that it is an illusion. Gosh, it looks like I've got the burden of proof. What am I going to do? Kick a stone?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wow

    http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Resurrection

    This site is garbage.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What did you expect? Look at the URL. It's obviously referencing Judges 1:19, where Judah could not rout the inhabitants of the plain because of their iron chariots. A verse traditionally taken by atheists, who can't read, as meaning that God couldn't rout the inhabitants of the plain because of their iron chariots.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yeah, I noticed that. Priceless.

    ReplyDelete
  16. rrlane wrote:

    "The burden of proof is on the person making the claim."

    Then why haven't you been supporting the claims you've been making? Above I cited one of the claims you made, and you made other claims elsewhere.

    You write:

    "Please tell what you assume I believe. What? I didn't present anything that I believe? Wow, then that would mean you're talking from utter ignorance in that regard then, wouldn't it?"

    You've mentioned some of your beliefs in the threads I've linked above, and you have a Blogger profile that lists books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens among your favorites. You're not a blank slate.

    You write:

    "I await this list with baited breath."

    You can start with what I've already provided. Do you accept paranormal phenomena such as those discussed by Stephen Braude and Michael Sudduth in the material I cited? What about our material on the infancy narratives and Jesus' resurrection? Are you saying that these things have to be in the form of a list before you can accept the idea that a list could be produced?

    You write:

    "Here's where you can go to for the rebuttal to any and all your accounts: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Arguments_for_the_existence_of_god"

    Let's test your claim about "any and all your accounts".

    I've cited Stephen Braude and Michael Sudduth's work on paranormal phenomena. Give me a link to a page at that site that refutes Braude and Sudduth's material.

    Concerning the infancy narratives, I've argued for Jesus' Davidic ancestry and birth in Bethlehem, for example. Where, specifically, does your site refute my arguments?

    On the resurrection, I've provided arguments for the empty tomb and for the credibility of the accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts, for example. Where does your site refute my arguments on those issues?

    (continued below)

    ReplyDelete
  17. (continued from above)

    The site you've linked is absurd. There's this page, which doesn't interact with what I've argued on the subject it addresses, but instead mentions a series of inconsistent possibilities without supporting any of them. Then there's this page, which is of a similarly low quality, though it sometimes cites sources. Many of the claims go unsupported, and we get a lot of absurdities that suggest a high level of ignorance. For example:

    "The standard objection to the fraud theory is that the disciples would not have died for a lie. However, documentation of their martyrdoms is weak. The earliest comes at the end of the 2nd century and is only for Peter and Paul. Also, it has been suggested that the disciples may have lied for what they believed was a higher cause."

    We're not given any documentation. The highly inaccurate "end of the 2nd century" claim is refuted in my article here. The idea of "lying for a higher cause" is addressed in Appendix VIII of The Infidel Delusion.

    We get vague, noncommittal comments like:

    "Even assuming that a person named Jesus existed, there is no reason to believe that the Bible provides an accurate account of events in his life. The resurrection and the accompanying details may have been invented at a later date."

    It's not as though we have no evidence to go by. Does the author think his suggestion is probable or not? Saying that something "may" have happened, and giving us a vague reference to "a later date", doesn't accomplish much. Either the author is ignorant of the arguments for early belief in the resurrection or he knows of the arguments, but isn't interacting with them. Neither of those possibilities is impressive.

    Did you read much of the material I linked before posting your response? Did you read any of it? Did you even read much of the site you linked? Since your site ignores so much of my material, offers so little support for its claims, and gets so many things wrong, would you explain why we're supposed to think it provides "the rebuttal to any and all [our] accounts"?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Victor Reppert said:
    ---
    I claim that the physical world exists. You deny it, and say that it is an illusion. Gosh, it looks like I've got the burden of proof. What am I going to do? Kick a stone?
    ---

    Yes, there's a reason Victor Reppert is one of my favorite people-who-are-cool-even-though-they-often-disagree-with-me. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  19. "I await this list with baited breath."

    Well, satisfying explanations for the origin of the Universe and life are kinda biggies. The origin of the gene expression system and biological information: DNA--thousands of encyclopedias wound up in a molecule; why there is an objective sense of right and wrong since it plainly exists, how evolution is suppose to 'jive' with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, evidence that the blind forces of natural selection can produce hearts, brains and lungs...; a foolhearty rejection of Pascal's Wager in the face of evidence for the Resurrection...

    ReplyDelete
  20. oo, and the Cambrian explosion...

    ReplyDelete