This ministry needs your financial support! Donate now!
Posted by Anthony on September 16, 2007
Mrs. Henneman (not her real name) was my first grade teacher. She was awesome. Naturally, my memories faded a long time ago. My best source these days is my mother who assures me that I thought the world of Mrs. Henneman and the reason for this appears to be that Mrs. Henneman thought the world of me.
It is interesting what things we remember. I had some vague recollection as I coursed through elementary and middle school that Mrs. Henneman no longer worked at the school, but it wasn’t actually until high school that I made the connection that she had left just one year after I had her to fight cancer. This was a fight that she lost. I am not sure when it dawned on me that this fabulous teacher that cared so much about me had actually died but I do remember the loss. That’s silly if you think about it. She died young and I’m sure the loss was much more potent to others then it was to me, merely one of her young students who couldn’t even remember what she looked like after a couple of years.
But it is funny the things we remember and don’t remember, the things we think about and the things we don’t. Another crazy memory I have is of going with a friend to a college campus as a High School senior to check it out. The friend had been annoying me quite a bit as it was. I don’t know what it was but he couldn’t stand my younger siblings. He was an only child himself but I have trouble thinking that was the issue. Anyway, he was a general pessimist but he had been my friend for a few years up to that point, and it was he and I checking out this college.
I remember being less then impressed by the college. The grounds were dirty and muddy and the place seemed to be completely vacant. Like, there weren’t any students at all. Initially, we had both talked about going to this place but then the coup d’grace was our sitting with the chief financial advisor. My friend had been making scoffing noises for hours by that point and after the financial counselor informed us both that he couldn’t offer us any kind of grants based on the information he had, my friend turned it up. He turned it up right there in the office with this guy. The thing is, I didn’t really stop him. I sort of smiled and egged it on.
Finally, it was time to go. He gave us each a card and as I looked at the card I saw… “David Henneman.”
My eyes found the picture of a happy couple. Yes, somebody had felt the loss of Mrs. Henneman more than I did. As we walked out my friend began even to attack the man’s appearance and I gave him a not so subtle ‘shutthehellup’ and he gave me a ‘whatthehellisyourproblem’ rejoinder. I would have been more then willing just a short time earlier to share in the derision we were heaping on the man but now something seemed different. How could I think such things about a man whom Mrs. Henneman had thought the world of? Knowing that the man had been the object of affection of a woman of impeccable character, I realized with sudden certainty that I owed him more than the benefit of the doubt.
I did end up going to a different college. I discovered that there were perfectly good reasons for the campus at this college to have been sparse and unkempt. We had visited over spring break, right after the winter thaw. Students were gone. Dirt, when wet, turns to mud. And of course Mr. Henneman couldn’t offer us any financial aid yet- we both had yet to turn in our financial aid forms. How quickly I had seen the worst in a situation without having knowledge… and perhaps in large part because of whom I was associating with.
How many people have I snapped at in the last 20 years were loved ones of people I myself cared about? What if the person I’m debating with online turns out to be the nice guy who delivers my mail? You can drive yourself mad thinking about such things. It was 15 years after having Mrs. Henneman as my teacher and meeting her husband in a college financial aid office. Who knows what interactions will come back to haunt me, or bless me, in the decades to follow? And just because I’ve forgotten them that doesn’t mean they’ll have forgotten me. Because it’s funny what we remember.
Posted by Anthony on September 11, 2007
I had some interesting experiences in college. I went to college intending to become a pastor and practically became an atheist after just a few months. I emerged from this much stronger. I remember well how deeply I threw myself into studying all sorts of things. Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, Christianity, science, quantum physics, evolution, philosophy, and more. Most of what I learned I learned apart from the classroom. I became very knowledgeable about the Bible and I thought I was doing a good job living by its precepts. I considered myself pretty patient and selfless. And spiritual. Let’s not forget spiritual.
More than ten years later I have a different view of myself. I no longer believe I am a patient person. I thought I was selfless, but this version of myself was destroyed within the first year of marriage. Now that I have four kids I can safely say that I am the most impatient and selfish person I have ever met. What I failed to recognize while in college was that I was operating in a setting that made it pretty easy to be a Christian. How you are in that kind of setting is not indicative of how you will be in another setting.
I will sometimes have people come by my Christian discussion forum who will then email me and say that I was not nice to someone. I used to take those comments more personally until I realized that I have a community consisting of members who have been around for years and years, discoursing and debating with each other. When you live with someone it is hard to always be ‘nice’ (even harder, I’ve discovered, if you’re tired). Some of these people I have ‘lived’ with day in and day out for a long time. This person complaining to me… is he speaking from a context of insulated safety or are they the same saint when banging around people 24/7?
Unfortunately for me, of course, the snippy exchange that I had with my wife this morning will soon be forgotten between us and there won’t be a record of it left anywhere except in the Mind of God. My forum posts, however, will last so long as Google lasts, and will appear- out of the context of the years in which the postings occurred- as a mere snapshot.
The older I get the more I see that we are quick to give ourselves a pass and quicker still to stick it to the other guy. The older I get, the more I see that the reasons for my doing the right thing often had to do with the fact that I was not tired, I was not hungry, I did not have four children screaming in my ear, I didn’t have bills to pay, I didn’t just lose a loved one, and so on and so forth. It has also showed me the importance of doing what I can to create a setting around myself that will be more conducive to carrying out the behaviors I approve of.
And with this humility of age, I can look back in history and see that even though some deeds were inexcusable, one cannot simply assert- “If I was there, I would have done other.” Those people were often hungry, or oppressed, or afraid, or exhausted, or tired. I hope that I will do better if I am ever in such circumstances, but I realize now that if I do, it will only be because I have been working on it now. It is no credit to me that I am patient with the stranger in the store whom I will never see again. If I am kind to my wife after we’ve both had a hard day’s work, that is a different story. It is easy to be kind to the person I will never see again. It is much more difficult when you have no hope for escape from your circumstances.
Let us treat the ones we love better then we treat the strangers and so prepare us for the day (if it comes) when our circumstances are so radically shaken, we will have trained ourselves to still behave honorably no matter what life throws at us.
Comments:
Filed Under: Blog
Posted by Anthony on September 10, 2007
Buy the Book, “The Case for the Real Jesus”
Strobel’s newest book was released September 10th, of 2007 and I was pleased to be offered a chance to review it prior to its release. I completely agree with Strobel on the need for such a book. It covers a lot of issues that I deal with on a daily basis in my own apologetics ministries. There is far too much information in the book to expect a comprehensive treatment, and like his other books, he doesn’t pretend to do so. Each chapter has a number of resources that readers can check into to get more information. I give the book nine stars out of ten and recommend it to skeptics and young believers alike who need a primer on the issues. I doubt the more hard core skeptics will be persuaded by anything in it. This is not likely to be Strobel’s fault, but for skeptics like that you may want to suggest some of the more sophisticated references that Strobel provides.
While personally satisfied with much of the argumentation and evidences, I had a more serious objection having to do with his elevation of scholars and his marginalization of ‘popular’ authors. This is ironic since his own book is an admitted popularization, but my concerns go far deeper. However, they are not appropriate for this review, so please go here for elaboration on that point.
Strobel aims to cover six basic challenges facing the traditional and orthodox portrayal of Jesus. These are, in order:
Scholars are Uncovering a Radically Different Jesus in Ancient Documents Just as Credible as the Four Gospels.
The Bible’s Portrait of Jesus can’t be Trusted Because the Church Tampered with the Text.
New Explanations Have Refuted Jesus’ Resurrection.
Christianity’s Beliefs about Jesus Were Copied from Pagan Religions.
Jesus Was an Imposter Who Failed to Fulfill the Messianic Prophecies.
People Should be Free to Pick and Choose What to Believe about Jesus.
Each chapter concludes with additional resources for the reader, and the book itself concludes with one appendix summarizing the Case for Christ and another offering helpful websites.
I found that each of these ‘challenges’ covers pertinent issues that relate to today’s apologetical challenges. Strobel’s approach is to take on the role of the journalist and search out credible scholars to answer his questions about those challenges. Each chapter does a good job of summarizing some of the basic objections and offering solid representations of Christian responses. In my view, this book is better then his previous books like this. It more directly confronts the objections that I actually hear (but of course, experiences may vary).
Every high school Christian religion teacher should put this book in the hands of their students, preferably as early as possible. Ninth grade would not be too early. Students need to be immunized to some of the things that they hear and this book will provide a decent basis to build on for later research. Yet, this book cannot be considered as ultimately sufficient. Strobel himself would probably agree with that. Teachers should take advantage of the sources Strobel gives and expose their students to this material. Once they get to college the students will almost certainly hear the other side- 100% undiluted.
In my view, Strobel should have started with his sixth challenge. Challenges 1-5 contain a reasonably thorough explanation for why the traditional description of Jesus is supported by solid historical methodologies. However, in my experience (more than ten years now), a historical ‘truth’ carries very little weight with people these days, anyway. In other words, skeptics and seekers alike would view a ‘scientific truth’ as made of gold, and even if they thought that something was ‘historically true’ they would never consider something established on historical methodologies to be as persuasive as what they believe is established on scientific methodologies. Issues like this pop up every now and then in Strobel’s book but it gets the fullest treatment in the sixth challenge. Even then, I don’t think this particular reality of our current situation is addressed head on, but the book certainly covers some of the issues related to the matter. Since so much of the previous portion of the book insists on the superiority of the Christian view of the historical record, dealing with objections that dismiss ‘historical facts’ as of very little weight in the first place would have been a good strategy.
Another quick look at the sixth challenge suggests to me that the Christian teacher could probably start with this part of the book and then go back to the first challenge because I think it was written in such a way that you wouldn’t need the earlier parts of the book to address the concerns in his sixth challenge.
One of the most pertinent ‘challenges’ covered was challenge #4, ‘Christianity’s Beliefs about Jesus Were Copied from Pagan Religions.’ The Internet is filled with assertions that Christianity was completely borrowed from such ‘gods’ like Mithra, Apollonius, etc. Some of the key objections to this notion are refuted. For example, in the case of Mithra, the so-called similarities are found in the historical record after the first century, AD. I.e., after the rise of the Christian religion. It would make more sense to claim that Mithra borrowed from Christianity. Or so one would think, but this is a good example of the hardened skepticism of some in regards to the historical method. The observed fact of these parallels existing after the rise of Christianity is not enough to remove the objection in many people’s minds. Where there is smoke, there is fire.
Still, there are people with some sense of reason, and if you get this book into their hands when they are young enough, I think that the argumentation in this section will do a lot of good. It is certainly better to explore this matter before it is heard spouted from a college professor. Kids will think they’ve been lied to. For people first stretching their legs on these matters, they will be confronted with whether or not they’re going to trust the historical method or not. That is a good thing for them to think about before they have the gall to then criticize the historical evidences.
One argument that I wish I would have heard in this chapter was C.S. Lewis’s assertions that certain pagan stories do not pose a threat at all, but rather are predicted by the Christian worldview. The basic idea is that if Christianity is something completely new on the face of the planet, it would actually undermine the Christian account, which holds that all people are created in God’s image and therefore will resonate with common themes. Strobel appears prepared to accept such reasoning, as he allows Paul Copan, in challenge #6, to say, “I believe there are some truths in other religions,’[Copan] quickly replied. As Scottish writer George MacDonald said, “Truth is truth, whether from the lips of Jesus or Balaam.’ We need to affirm truth where we see it, but we need to remember there are entailments that come with certain beliefs [italics his, pg 240].”
George MacDonald was one of C.S. Lewis’s spiritual fathers, so Lewis’s thoughts on paganism would not only have been appropriate, but apparently acceptable to Strobel. Oh well, you can’t hit everything in a book like this, can you? Maybe I’ll just use this review to guide people into Lewis on this matter (Lewis’s ‘God in the Dock’ collection of essays contains a couple of essays to get you started).
One of the best aspects of the book is his treatment of Messianic prophecies. You will hear skeptics arguing that even if you granted that Jesus performed miracles this would still not be good enough evidence that Jesus was who he says he is, God. Perhaps, they might say, he’s just a very powerfully advanced alien being who is, nonetheless, a finite being. (See this thread at my forum for an example of exactly this.) What the fulfilled prophecies provide, however, is evidence of foreknowledge of future events. If it is the case that there were prophesies thousands and hundreds of years prior to Jesus’ arrival, and he fulfilled them, the plaintive hope that Jesus could ‘possibly’ have just been a finite magician begins to wane. Who left these tantalizing clues in the Jewish documents? Another finite super powerful alien? Can we expect such creatures even to know the future? At what point does our ‘super powerful alien’ match in every respect, God?
Apart from such considerations, which I personally find to be wild-eyed groping speculation, being able to trace Christ and his ministry back to the Old Testament is a significant aspect of Christianity that young Christians and old should be aware of. Many do not understand the point made by Evans in challenge #1 about just how Jewish Jesus was, nor the fact that the first Christians were Jews. Understanding this context is extremely helpful in understanding some New Testament passages which may be confusing but also has the potential to be an extremely powerful apologetic. This is illustrated by the recent conversion to Christianity by Anne Rice, who addresses this issue in her book ‘Out of Egypt.’ She goes so far as to credit this realization as helpful in bringing about her conversion (pages 310-311). So I think it was a really good idea to include this chapter and again, I hope Christian religion teachers will follow up to more firmly flesh out such issues.
In conclusion, taking into consideration the fact that such a treatment would have to be brief on many points and only a survey, I can think of no more helpful book for establishing some of the parameters of the discussion. I would encourage putting the book into students’ hands as early as possible, but please, please, please be prepared to deepen their knowledge beyond the outlines in this book. The book can only be a good start, and if it is not treated as such, might prove to re-create the depressing scenario I sometimes hear: “Yea, I read Strobel’s book as a senior in high school, so I think I know what I’m talking about. What? What’s that? No, I didn’t see the point of going deeper. My college professors easily answered those objections. I mean I also went to Sunday School and VBS, you know.”
copyright Sept. 2007, Sntjohnny
Posted by Anthony on
As I referenced in my review (located here) of Strobel’s book ‘The Case for the Real Jesus” I found it ironic that Internet writers and popular audience writers would be speared in a book written by a journalist and written for a popular audience. I assume that since Strobel is specifically seeking out scholars that he feels that the book is in a different class even if it was written for a popular audience. That is probably a valid point.
There are a couple of issues I need to raise here. From the perspective of a Christian apologist that depends on using reasonable argument, I can’t help but think that many skeptics will read in this book constant ‘arguments from authority.’ Now, as a logical fallacy, arguing from authority is really only a fallacy when the authority can’t be considered to be a credible spokesperson on the matter. One presumes that well credentialed scholars would meet such a standard. But look at the title of the first challenge: “Scholars are Uncovering a Radically Different Jesus in Ancient Documents Just as Credible as the Four Gospels.”
Thus, the first chapter of the book is actually a hard look at what scholars themselves are perpetrating on the Historical Jesus. The Jesus Seminar is mentioned of course, and then of course some scholars by name, like Karen L. King (pg 25), “Award-winning scholar Morton Smith of Columbia University” (italics mine, pg 26). Elaine Pagels is mentioned, and, of course, Bart Ehrman and Dominic Crossan (pages 27-28). In other words, when Craig Evans- who certainly is a well-credentialed scholar- begins to express his exasperation with his fellow scholars, saying, in response to an inquiry by Strobel as to where these scholars begin to get it wrong,
“Here’s the rub,” [Evans] says, “These scholars can read the Greek in which the New Testament is written, but Jesus didn’t speak Greek, except perhaps occasionally. Most of his teaching was in Aramaic, and his scriptures were in Hebrew or Aramaic paraphrases. Jesus and his world were very Semitic, yet most New Testament scholars lack adequate training in the very languages that reflect his world (pg 30).”
I certainly agree that you need to understand that Jesus and his world were very Semitic, but the astute skeptic might say that a key word here would be ‘most’ as in “Most New Testament scholars.” The skeptic might say, “Well then, I’m sure I can find a scholar who knows their Aramaic who will still entertain the same notions dismissed by Evans.” And the skeptic is probably right. It would basically boil down to a “My scholar can beat up your scholar” scenario.
Strobel’s whole book (indeed, his other books on the same pattern, too) depends on the reader who is not a scholar being able to decide for themselves which scholar is being reasonable or not. But it is just this sort of capability that the scholars in Strobel’s book seem to think does not exist.
For example, if Evans says we need to know Hebrew and Aramaic, does he also think we all need to know Hebrew and Aramaic to reflect on his arguments? I could give a couple of more examples from Evans, but how about the attitude expressed by some of the other scholars?
In chapter three, when Michael Licona is interviewed, Michael Baigent’s credibility is not-so-subtly attacked, and Richard Carrier is described as having two master’s degrees from Columbia University-and we’re left wondering if that is a point in his favor or not. Shortly after, Licona takes aim at arguments made by Jeffrey Jay Lowder. Lowder and Carrier are bigwigs at Infidels.org. Fortunately, Licona does address the substance of these arguments, but then we are confronted with a statement regarding an argument by James Tabor:
“Second, Tabor gets his information from a sixteenth-century Jewish mystic, [Licona] said, his eyebrows raising. “Think about that! If Christians based their theory on what a sixteenth-century Christian reported, we would laugh at that person- and justifiably so. Now believe me, I’m not laughing at Tabor- he’s certainly a credentialed scholar. But you can’t blame people for rejecting his theory.” (pg 147)
Well, actually I think we should be laughing at Tabor. The fact that he’s a credentialed scholar doesn’t make his argument any less stupid, and I don’t think one needs to wait for another scholar to identify it as stupid before one reaches the same conclusion. One does not want to read into the text, but this bone he throws to Tabor seems to be made in the context of insinuating that Carrier and Lowder, on the other hand, could be laughed at.
Given how many of the claims forcefully mocked by Strobel’s selected scholars were first made or argued by other scholars, one wonders how confident we can be that if we hear an argument by a ‘credentialed scholar’ that we are actually hearing something worthy of consideration. One can easily see how this sort of attitude can be used by skeptics against Strobel’s selected scholars. And if such matters can only be comprehended and evaluated by another scholar, should we suppose our only solution is to defer mindlessly to other scholars until we ourselves are scholars? Skeptics will rightly point out that they have ‘credentialed scholars’ on their side. How do we handle this situation?
Though I could pull from other examples illustrating this issue, a very vivid example occurs on page 161 where we again have Licona being provided an opportunity to speak to the substance of skeptical claims, in this instance the claims that Jesus’ resurrection has the same credibility as other so called ‘pagan stories of dying and rising gods.’ Licona cites T.N.D. Mettinger, adding that Mettinger is a ‘senior Swedish scholar, professor at Lund University, and member of the Royal Academy of Letters, History, and Antiquities of Stockholm.” Licona recaps Mettinger’s argument, and then Strobel continues on.
Mettinger concludes that ‘there is no evidence for the death of the dying and rising gods s vicarious suffering for sins.” [Licona said]
I [Strobel] later obtained Mettinger’s book to double-check Licona’s account of his research. Sure enough, Mettinger caps his study with this stunning statement: “There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world.” (italics his)
In short, this leading scholar’s analysis is a sharp rebuke to popular-level authors and Internet bloggers who make grand claims about the pagan origins of Jesus’ return from the dead.” (page 161)
Now, there is no doubt that such claims are being made by (here unnamed-I wonder who they might be?) Internet bloggers, but Strobel presented this argument by pointing out that it was initiated by scholars themselves! Named are Tom Harpur, Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, and Hugh J. Schonfield! Who exactly is ‘this leading scholar’s analysis’ a sharp rebuke to exactly? It looks to me like the context should suggest Strobel here call out other scholars, but instead he singles out “popular-level authors and Internet bloggers.” Granted, some of these authors were popular level, but these all have some credentials. But what Internet bloggers were referenced exactly? It wouldn’t be-Carrier and Lowder, would it?
Now, I have no great love for Richard Carrier or Jeffrey Jay Lowder. I’ve never found their arguments to be compelling, but having read some of their essays I can see why people find them persuasive. And I certainly don’t have a problem giving scholars their due weight. They’ve worked hard, and it is true, I don’t know Aramaic. I don’t have access in most cases to primary sources. I depend on them to bring me the data. It does not follow though, that I depend on them to interpret the data. No, my real concern here is that the attitude expressed in my quotes (and a handful of others) does two things: 1. It undercuts thoughtful and hard-working Christians striving on the Internet to further the cause of Christ and 2. It does not appreciate the fact that the democratization of the Internet is an asset for us, and even if we preferred that people defer to sober scholars (that we agree with) the fact is that people are going to turn first to sources on the Internet, and only later will they possibly consult some of these more scholarly works.
Now, I personally believe I am such a person undercut in #1. I do not have the credentials, that’s true, but I have been an apologist for more than ten years. I do have a bachelor’s degree at least. In fact, I am currently pursuing my Masters in Philosophy and Apologetics. But I did not need a scholar to tell me that Mithraism post-dates Christianity, nor did I need a scholar to explain to me the significance of that fact. I have thousands of hours of reading, research, and writing behind me. Aware of the problems associated with the “My scholar can beat up your scholar” issue, I have constantly tried to cut through to primary sources whenever possible. And I certainly can thank the scholars in many cases for making those sources available. But why should this be about me?
Let’s take an example right from the book. Near the end, Strobel highlights a number of recommended websites and mentions Tektonics.org. Well, what is interesting about this is that Tektonics, though a very successful apologetics site (Alexa Rank: 280,000-Lee Strobel’s site’s Alexa Rank: 344,000), is maintained by a gentlemen who ‘only’ has a Masters-and the Masters is in Library Science.
What do subtle shots at ‘Internet Bloggers’ and what can be found on the Internet do to JP Holding’s credibility? What is to keep the skeptic from reading this book, getting the distinct impression that only the views of credible scholars should be considered- and by credible is it really meant ‘they agree with me’?- and seeing Holding’s site referenced, from learning Holding’s credentials and applying the very same attitude to Holding as Strobel’s book holds against other ‘Internet Bloggers’?
One doesn’t have to be a credentialed scholar to see that these comments are a kick in the shins of folks like Holding who have been investing tons of time and resources into their ministries and are doing a good job. The fact is that the scholars are doing important work but you are going to need competent Christians on the Internet who, despite not being credentialed in the same sense as the scholars, apply the findings of the scholars to the individualized circumstances that arise when you sit down and converse with the average skeptic. We need these people, and Strobel and his scholars generally concede the need for a more well-informed population (of Christians, too). But don’t pull the rug out from underneath them at the same time.
Now, my second point was that people are going to the Internet for information long before they consult the works of scholars. This is just a fact of life, and it isn’t going to change. Kids start getting interested in these issues as early as 16, 17, and 18. They aren’t going to drop $40.00 for a copy of Metzger’s “The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance” or “The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration.” It just isn’t going to happen. So, besides the need for having individuals who have made the investment (I’m looking right at my copy of the Canon of the New Testament as we speak) to apply that material for seekers entering the Internet Highway, we need a general change in our tactics and strategies in our modern setting, and simply dismissing what is found on the Internet isn’t going to cut it.
In the first place, while I know this is a problem to the bottom line, one thing I would suggest is that scholars put more of their own work right on the net. Take all of the innards of all the journals and just spill them for all to see. If you don’t like the quality of what is on the Internet, work to improve the quality of what is on the Internet. Another thing that scholars can do is to personally engage skeptics and seekers on the Internet. I know how much time is involved and I know they have a lot on their plate. But look at a person like Peter Kreeft who has awesome material, some of which is even online already, but who posts on the site that he just can’t respond to emails. No doubt, he can’t keep up-perhaps we could better structure how we go about our business so that he can.
I have put these concerns in an article separate from my review of Strobel’s book because I didn’t want the review to become clouded. Strobel has produced a fine book and it will make a great primer and resource for those exploring these issues. Nonetheless, I think we need to better address the changes in how people are getting their truth. We can’t just personally express that we don’t like how they are getting their truth and hope that folks will turn to our own methods.
We shouldn’t forget that it is scholars themselves that have initiated and instigated all of the crazy claims that we hear on the Internet. The Internet, after all, has only been around for less than 20 years and all of the issues addressed in Strobel’s book existed- in the mouths of scholars themselves- long before the Internet came about. What we need to do is equip the Christian population so that they can effectively filter what they hear and pass on these tools to our youngsters. We should also realize that while we should respect what scholars can give us, they can also deceive us, and if we are unable to figure out for ourselves when we are being deceived, God help us.
In conclusion, we must remember that what makes one a credible and credentialed scholar can vary widely on the subject. For example, Michael Licona (chapters 3-4) is described as being mentored by Gary Habermas, the head of Liberty University’s apologetics department. But what did Richard Dawkins say about Liberty University? In his journal recounting a presentation he did attended by a number of such students, he said, “I said that my advice to all Liberty students was to resign immediately and apply to a proper university instead.” Source.
Dawkins does not apparently think very highly of the credentials of those associated with Liberty U, which would include Licona and Habermas, referenced by Strobel. What’s a gent to do? Where can we go to find credentials that will matter to everyone, or will assure us that we can be quite certain that the person is not stating something ‘laughable’? The answer obviously is nowhere. Wherever the solution to this problem lies, it isn’t simply to knock those without credentials or give undue weight to those with them. All sides of this debate believe that there are scholars on the other side that are nuts. In light of this fact, I propose that focusing on credentials will get us to exactly the same place we’re already at.
Posted by Anthony on September 7, 2007
I am always fascinated how similar themes emerge all at once from different places. Both on my forum and in two separate email correspondences I am dealing with a similar issue. Essentially it is this: just because you have the proposition that there is a supernatural entity, how do you think you know anything about it; and, couldn’t you be mistaken about what you do know and not have anyway to independently verify that knowledge? I cannot share my email correspondence, but you can see here two places on my forum, here and here, where the conversation is bounding on this issue. My contention in many respects is that the things to be known must be learned by the self-revelation of the entity and because of the definition of God (two items in particular, his transcendence and immanence) there is no other way. One can see how this question would arise.
What is interesting in these instances is that the argument emerges even if it seems that God has revealed himself, by miracles or whatever, this is not enough to compel them to Christian theism. In fact, in one email correspondence, it is explicitly agreed in the argument that the miracles really did happen as the Bible described. Now, I’m one who tends to think that people can have legitimate questions about God and his nature, but when faced with individuals who are even willing to concede that Jesus walked on the water, rose from the dead, etc, and yet still think they are rational in withholding their assent to Christianity, one begins to suspect that there is something else going on.
The fact is that the question of how to independently verify God’s self-revelation to be good (or any other aspect of his nature) if he is himself the full sum of all that is real is an entirely different issue then whether or not the historical evidence affirms Jesus and his deeds. What the honest searcher should notice in such approaches is that the truth is that for many mainstream atheists, the evidence is completely irrelevant. One wouldn’t get that impression given how much arguing happens about that evidence, but when skeptics are willing to admit the evidence but still deny the Christian’s conclusion, that should tell you something.
I said that the two issues are different, and one big reason why they are different is because the fact that we are limited in our ability to independently verify God’s claims belongs to a class of concerns that exists whether we are talking about God or not. For example, it is always conceivable that our senses themselves mislead us. How can we verify what our senses generate for us if we are restricted to using our senses to perform the verification? At the universal level, it is always possible that our perception of matter and energy is skewed, ala the Matrix and Men in Black.
You could only know if you were in the Matrix if you could get out of the Matrix, and if you got out of the Matrix you could still wonder if you were in another Matrix, so on and so forth. So you see, these problems do not disappear just because you posit that God is the final regress of the issue. If not God, the universe itself becomes your final regress, and ultimately you can say that your own perception of reality is the final regress. If we cannot solve these problems apart from considerations of God, we certainly can’t hold it against Christian theism that it poses some of the same dilemmas.
And how do we escape from these dilemmas? Well, solipsism is certainly possible but it is possible no matter what. As a common denominator, we just have to allow it to cancel out and take our senses and reason as we find them, more or less posit the existence of an objective world out there and accept that we perceive it, even if sometimes in a hazy fashion. Based on these assumptions, we then begin gathering evidences for what the real nature of that objective world really is. One of the questions we invariably arrive at is whether or not there is more to the world than our senses and reason can perceive, not subjectively but objectively, not naturally, but supernaturally.
For this, the only thing you can do is try to examine the evidence the best you can without assuming in advance that the supernatural is not real, and, perhaps more importantly, crafting the structure of your inquiry so that you tailor your expectations of the evidence to be appropriate to the claim… ie, one does not hope to use the scientific method, bound as it is to methodological naturalism, to directly detect God, who is by Christian definition the sustainer of the natural system we are in, immanent within it but transcendent as well.
If in the course of this investigation the evidence appears to point towards the existence of such an entity and some of its attributes you are led to the same regress where it is yet conceivable that you are being deceived, you have only arrived at the problem that you had to set aside before you launched your exploration of reality in the first place.
Thus, the divide between skeptics and Christians begins to become clear. Christians root their entire basis for faith in evidence of the world as best as it can be sorted, and pin their hope on the resurrection of a man who claimed to be God and did something to prove it that by all available measures is impossible for a mortal. (1 Cor 15) In the final analysis, it is the Christian that cares for evidence, not the skeptic. If you talk to a skeptic long enough or talk to enough skeptics, you learn that in many cases the evidence is completely irrelevant. We who believe, like Antony Flew, that one must follow the evidence wherever it leads, need not be overly concerned with the objections of those who wouldn’t be pleased even if they had their evidence in hand.
