Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 09.09.2006 /
In the current issue of Newsweek (note: for some reason this takes a long time to load on my computer):
The New Naysayers
In the midst of religious revival, three scholars argue that atheism is smarter.
Here’s an excerpt from the first page:
Dawkins and Harris are not writing polite demurrals to the time-honored beliefs of billions; they are not issuing pleas for tolerance or moderation, but bone-rattling attacks on what they regard as a pernicious and outdated superstition. (In the spirit of scientific evenhandedness, both would call themselves agnostic, although as Dawkins says, he’s agnostic about God the same way he’s agnostic about the existence of fairies.) They ask: where do people get their idea of God? From the Bible or the Qur’an. “Tell a devout Christian … that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible,” Harris writes, “and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.”
Comment by: damannion
1I would respond to Harris by saying I do have evidence. Perhaps I cannot touch it or photograph it, but I feel it and have seen its results, much like I personally cannot touch air or photograph it, but I feel it and have seen its results.
Further, while a follower of Christ, I don’t believe in an invisible deity who punishes with fire for eternity. This brings up a question, there are obviously a range of beliefs for one who identifies as Christian. Is there more than one “way” to be an atheist?
Comment by: Cully
2What struck me as odd about this article is that the author seems so shocked that atheists exist! He also seems to consider it a personal affront that we would deign to publish a book or two questioning Christian belief, going as far as rebutting a couple of the points made in the book. Is it really “news” that there are people out here who don’t want to be a part of an American Theocracy, (which he firmly places himself in with his first paragraph)?
And Damannion, yes there are various ways to be atheistic. Check this link. It takes you to a BBC article outlining various schools of atheism.
Comment by: Cully
3Oh… one more thing… what you are referring to damannion is “anecdotal evidence.” It isn’t generally accepted as evidence in the way that evidence is defined by the scientific community. As someone in a scientific field (neuroscience) Harris probably meant scientific evidence. This come up a lot in discussions like this because scientists say certain words that us laypersons also use, but they mean something else entirely. The word “theory” springs to mind.
Comment by: Ir
4Thanks for your comments, Cully. Welcome back!
I take your point that anecdotal evidence may not meet a scientific definition of ‘evidence’. But a person’s own experience is very powerfully convincing to them, nevertheless.
And although I understand wha’ts wrong with ‘argument by numbers’, in practice when a person who has had a powerful experience finds others with that same experience, it becomes even more convincing to them that it was real.
Comment by: Cully
5Of course. Just like “UFO abductees.” I think that this is exactly the point that Harris is making. In his yogurt example most people would require real, properly defined evidence, not “I-think-I-thought-I feel evidence” or “I-know-a-guy-who-knows-a-guy-evidence.” But because there is a preponderance of anecdotal evidence for this particular occurrence people accept that instead. There are many other things for which there is a large body of anecdotal evidence like Big Foot, UFOs, ghosts, etc. Some of them have a written history that predates the biblical record even but the anecdotal evidence hasn’t reached a tipping point that allows it to be socially acceptable to believe in without real evidence.
Comment by: Mike O
6There are also extra-biblical evidences such as the historical accuracy of the Bible and the sheer volume of manuscripts. Given the volume of manuscripts/portions, the short period of time between events and writing, and corroboration of characters and events outside of the Bible, there is reason to believe that the Bible we hold today is the Bible as it was originally written. I am speaking in particular of the New Testament, but I suspect it holds true for the Old as well, given the Jewish methods for passing down documentation and history (which I don’t know anything about, but do not doubt that they were very precise about it.)
Once it is established that the physial document (Bible) we have today is the same as the original (I can’t prove that here, but it’s been proven to my satisfaction), the question that remains is whether the contents of that document were true/correct when written. In particular, the diety of Christ.
An atheist once accused me of rejecting all evidence to the contrary so I could hold to my belief in Christ. I replied by saying I would reject my faith immediately if there was ever proof that Jesus did not raise from the dead. But there is none. In fact, there is proof that he a) did rise from the dead (documented extra-biblically by Josephus I think) and b) did ascent to heaven. This evidence is circumstantial, but it does exist. The Biblical accounts of these events were written during the lifetime of eyewitnesses (~50-100ad). The authors were neither refuted that I know of, nor allowed to live.
And the fact that virtually all of the authors of the new testament were martyred is one of my favorite proofs. If Jesus did not rise from the dead and ascend to heaven, these disciples/writers were martyred for something they KNEW was a lie. On top of that, they would have been martyred to protect the “man” that betrayed them. I find that particularly good reason to believe the contents of their writings are, in fact, true.
A man will die for a lie if he thinks it is true. But he will not die for a lie he knows is a lie. And even if one psychopath would die for something he knew was a lie, it is not possible for ALL DISCIPLES OF A KNOWN FRAUD to die to protect him.
Physical ‘evidence?’ I guess not. You can’t prove anything historical. But ‘evidence?’ Yes, I think there is plenty of evidence.
Prove to me that your mother is your mother. You can’t. All you have is documentation, history and a bunch of people who have convinced you it is true. They could all be lying. There’s no real proof that what you believe is true. Just like there’s no proof the Bible isn’t true.
Comment by: NCxian
7Is it a fact that virtually all the authors of the new testament were martyred? How do we know that? For that matter, how do we know who the authors were?
Comment by: Mike O
8There is scholarly evidence to the authorship of every book of the new testament. I believe there is some question as to the author of Hebrews but it is fairly commonly helt to be Paul. Also, I found that the author of Jude isn’t certain.
All of these come from Wikipedia.
Matthew - Martyred in Hierapolis
Mark - Martyred in Alexandria
Luke - Died of natural causes unmaried and without children at the age of 84
John - Survived an martyrs fate when he was plunged into boiling oil and suffered nothing from it. He was banished to Patmos where he wrote Revelation and apparently died of natural causes.
Paul - Martyred in Rome (beheaded)
James the Just - Martyred (stoned)
Peter - Martyred in Rome (crucified upside down)
Jude - I don’t know for sure.
Comment by: Mike O
9Ir, I tried to post a comment with links to wikipedia, but I don’t see it.
Comment by: Cully
10DNA evidence can very rapidly prove that my mother is my mother without relying on the hearsay of my family (hearsay being the legal term for anecdotal evidence) or on records.
Comment by: Mike O
11But how do you know that? DNA is something that very few people (likely, not yourself) know how to read. So once again, you are merely believing what you reasonably accept to be true. The person who tells you the DNA matches could be “making it fit” and you would know no different. Secondly, unless you actually see the extraction of DNA from both your mother and yourself and follow it through from extraction to final testing, it’s entirely possible that someone switched the samples or perhaps there is some other explanation that we don’t yet scientifically understand that explains the apparent match. Thirdly, you have to accept the assumption that DNA proves exclusive relationship, and that non-matching excludes it. And finally, there is no way you can prove to me that your findings haven’t been twisted to make me believe what you accept as truth.
Of course I don’t really believe what I wrote there. I’m making a point that, by using atheistic approaches to the supernatural argument, there is nothing Chritians can do to prove what they know is true. Atheists will always be able to show some lack, whether in evidence, assumptions made or technique used to draw the conclusion.
Comment by: Cully
12But that’s not the “atheistic approach.” To be an atheist doesn’t mean to put such extreme levels of doubt onto every occurence. DNA evidence is independently falsifiable. Meaning that I can have a DNA matching test done hundreds of times by hundreds of different labs and scientists with the reasonable expectation that the same results would be reached each time. It is HIGHLY unlikely that every single DNA lab that I access is part of a conspiracy to convince me that my mom is my mom. And, no while I can’t read DNA at the moment I could, with effort, learn to do so. If there were some test, equation, process etc. that was falsifiable, that I could perform myself if I wanted, or could at least understand as a falsifiable process in the way that DNA is, that would show me the existence of God then I would have no trouble accepting it, nor would any atheist I’d imagine.
Comment by: Matt Casper
13If it can’t be proven, then they can’t “know” it; they can only believe it to be true.
Proof and the data that creates proof are things human beings require for almost every single undertaking in our lives.
We won’t invest in a company without data and proof that it is a stable investment.
We won’t move into a home without inspecting it and analyzing the data.
We won’t take a new job without ensuring that our skills match their specifications.
Beliefs (a.k.a., “gut feelings”) never enter the equation. And when they do, the results are anybody’s guess.
So I ask Christians and other believers to take “proof” out of the equation of belief and God.
As I mention in my and Jim’s book, Christians and other believers will never be able to use their faith to provided provable answers to the questions of how, when, where, and what of our existence. But they will always be able to provide an answer for why of our existence.
And atheists such as I will always be able to use data to prove the age of the world, provide support for the theory of evolution, and explain the lighting, wind, and stars (which were once credited to Gods as well). But we’ll never be able to answer the why of our existence with anything more than “coincidence.”
Faith and data run on parallel lines. You can go back and forth between them all you want, but you can never make them meet.
Comment by: Mike O
14To Cully: Thanks for the explanation. Yet, that’s how the atheistic approach (my words) comes across.
Regarding “proof,” my point was that nothing historical can be ‘proven.’ That’s why we have conspiracy theories about everything from whether or not Jesus raised from the dead (or even lived, for that matter) to the lunar landings to the Holocaust to JFK to 9/11. Anything historical can be questioned, and ultimately you come to believe whatever you find to be reasonable. I find Christianity to be reasonable, you find it unreasonable.
Comment by: Mike O
15To Matt: Thanks for the insight. It never occurred to me that atheists don’t struggle with the lack of a ‘why.’ So thanks for that. That helps me understand you. And I understand what you mean by “faith and data run on parallel lines.” I hadn’t considered that.
Regarding this statement and the 3 examples that preceded it: Beliefs (a.k.a., “gut feelings”) never enter the equation. And when they do, the results are anybody’s guess. So I ask Christians and other believers to take “proof” out of the equation of belief and God.
Have you ever done your research (inspect the home, consider a job, etc) and made the wrong move? Those examples don’t provide “proof” of the truth, but rather “evidence” to the truth. We’ve all made bad moves … taken the wrong job, invested in a stinker of a company, whatever.
In my case, when I bought my house 8 years ago, I did my due-diligence with inspections, 2nd opinions, etc. But that didn’t reveal that my septic system had been grandfathered in and was currently illegal. The previous owner didn’t know and the owner before him didn’t know. But I found out when I had to do repairs 6 years later. When we did our septic inspection, it came out clean (so to speak :)) Everything that left the house left according to code (many pipes). And everything that entered the septic tank (1 pipe) entered according to code. But what nobody realized was that not everything that left the house entered the septic tank. Apparently it never occurred to anyone to check that - and they were professionals. The way it was done, there was no way to know that my ‘gray water’ (sinks, tubs, everything but the toilets) was diverted straight to the woods 30+ years ago, which is now considered an environmental hazard. My point is that I thought I had ‘proof’ of a good septic system, but I only had ‘evidence.’ And now I can’t sell my house until I remedy the problem.
Same thing with Christianity. I can’t ‘prove’ there is a God, but I see evidence. I can’t ‘prove’ that Jesus lived or died and rose again, but there is ‘evidence.’ And I can’t ‘prove’ that the bible is a collection of inspired writings, but I have ‘evidence.’ Stronger evidence, I might add, than you would need for your three examples you called ‘proof.’
Comment by: cautiousmaniac
16“I replied by saying I would reject my faith immediately if there was ever proof that Jesus did not raise from the dead. But there is none. In fact, there is proof that he a) did rise from the dead (documented extra-biblically by Josephus I think) and b) did ascent to heaven.”
…ok then. This alone, regardless of the “you can’t prove your mother is your mother” statement, shows that your idea of proof is somehow in a different universe than mine. Maybe this is why some people are religious and some people ain’t. :)
Your only source of knowledge that says Jesus (an unproven historical figure) went to heaven (a metaphysical concept) is a religious tome pieced together from various different sources. Written by people who never met said possibly unreal historical figure. Who reference historical events that no one else “remembers,” eg Herod’s slaughter of the innocents, Mat 2:16-18.
Think about it: the same skepticism that religious people use to dismiss other religion’s narratives? Us irreligious just use it to its full power. You don’t think that Krishna had historical interactions with people? You don’t think Mohammed talked to an angel? You don’t think Athena and Hermes fought alongside Achilles and Hector at Troy? Cool, neither do atheists. We just realize that referring to those as “stories” and the New Testament as “truth” is myopic.
Comment by: NCxian
17Mike O: I’ve sort of lost track of this blog in the host of other threads going on here, but I appreciate your response to me from earlier in the week about authorship of the NT, and the martyrdom of the apostles. I think, though, that your views on these questions are not necessarily majority views. Most of the scholars I read, including devout Christians, are unsure of many of these things–for instance, there are only 6 or so letters of Paul that are universally held to be written by Paul. The wikipedia site uses the term “traditionally held to be . . .”, which is absolutely correct. However, what is traditionally held to be true is not necessarily actually true.
Comment by: Eliza
18damannion in #1 above said:
You can touch air; we are all essentially swimming in it, moving through it all the time. You can feel air - just move your hand quickly through an area of “nothing” near you - you’ll feel its resistance. Air was named “air” before anyone could prove what it was; now we can do mass spectrometry & document that it’s made up of oxygen, nitrogen, & smaller amounts of other gases (& water vapor, etc).
But the important thing is, each of us can wave our hands in ‘nothingness’ and feel the air, and we’ll all basically agree on the experience. We can repeat the maneuver any time we want (on earth, & not in a vacuum chamber ;) ) and we’ll feel the same thing. It’s reproducible and predictable. The specific experiential evidence to which you refer is not cannot be experienced by other people.
damannion added:
Do you believe people who do believe in such a deity, based on the evidence which they cannot photograph or touch but which they report they have felt or seen?
Comment by: Eliza
19Mike O said, in #6 above:
Mike O, the documentation by Josephus is called the Testimonium Flavianum and is widely thought to have been altered substantially more than 150 years after Josephus wrote his history in 93 (for example, Origen wrote in 240 A.D. that Josephus did not believe “in Jesus as the Christ”). Eusebius in the 4th century was the one who first cited the section in Josephus that seems to support the divinity (& resurrection) of Jesus. The Wikipedia link above summarizes the Testamonium Flavianum this way:
Mike O had also said:
It certainly is striking, and moving, how many of the early apostles were killed (martyred). I see several problems, however, with using that as evidence for deity of Jesus.
First, Christian martyrdom began but did not end with the apostles. That strength of belief persisted well beyond those who might have experienced Jesus on earth - which, to me, speaks only to the strength of the belief, probably including the belief that they were going to their eternal reward, not to certainty which others can take as proof. Remember the Afghani man who faced execution this spring for being Christian and for refusing to renounce Christianity? He was willing to be martyred for his beliefs - but that’s not proof that God exists, or Jesus was divine. (I don’t think any of us take the willingness of Moslem suicide terrorists to die as proof of the existence/deity of Allah and Mohammed.)
Second, the authorship of the Gospels is not clear. Attributing a text to a famous person who was not the author was apparently not uncommon in the 1st century A.D. From the Wikipedia entry on Gospel of Matthew, “Although the document is internally anonymous, the authorship of this Gospel has been traditionally ascribed to St. Matthew, a tax collector who became an Apostle of Jesus. The surviving testimony of the church fathers is unanimous in this view, and the tradition had been accepted by Christians at least as early as the 2nd century up to modern times. Beginning in the 18th century, however scholars have increasingly questioned that traditional view, and today the majority agree Matthew could not have written the Gospel which bears his name.”
From the Wikipedia entry on Gospel of Mark, “The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a disciple of Peter, who is said to have recorded the Apostle’s discourses. Papias’ authority in this was John the Presbyter. While the text of Papias is no longer extant, it was quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea…” (Eusebius, who was the first to cite quite a number of supportive texts noone had apparently known about before him.) “…some scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark contains mistakes concerning Galilean topography, supporting that the author, or his sources, were unfamiliar with the actual geography of that area, unlike the historical Peter.” (I’d be happy to discuss the geographical errors in Mark, if you’d like.)
From the Wikipedia entry on Gospel of Luke, “Although the author of Luke is generally considered to be anonymous, there is some suggestion that the author of Luke also wrote the book of Acts. The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces are addressed to Theophilus, the author’s patron, and the preface of Acts explicitly references “my former book” about the life of Jesus. Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author. …
Nowhere in Luke or Acts does it explicitly say that the author is Luke, the companion of Paul. The earliest surviving witnesses that place Luke as the author are the Muratorian Canon (c. 170), the writings of Irenaeus (c. 180), and the Anti-Marcionite Prologue (second half of the 2nd century). According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the evidence in favor of Lucan authorship is based on two main things: first, the use of “we” in Acts chapters 16, 20, 21 and 27 suggests the writer traveled with Paul; second, in the opinion of the Roman Catholic writers of the encyclopedia, the “medical language” employed by the writer is “identical with those employed by such medical writers as Hippocrates…Modern scholarship does not unanimously agree on these points, stating that the author of Luke was anonymous.”
I’ll stop there. Since John was not actually martyred, I won’t mention anything about the authorship of the Gospel which bears his name. (Beyond that!) But that gives you a flavor of why I, for one, don’t find these historical approaches to be convincing as evidence.
Comment by: Eliza
20Anyone who wants to find out about the validity of scientific “proofs”, for example DNA testing, can delve into it further. This site is a tutorial on DNA testing for nonscientists, complete with pictures of gels (the final data set). The gels are just a few short dark lines in columns; if the lines match up in column A and column B, the DNA in those 2 samples matches in the short stretch being tested (& those are chosen for having a high degree of variability from person to person). If you are interested enough, or concerned enough about the validity, you can arrange to watch the entire process from start to finish. In forensic testing, the investigators maintain a “chain of evidence” so that the validity of the sample at each step can be attested to in court (wasn’t switched with another sample, etc). From the limited involvement I’ve had, taking samples from rape victims in an ER, this includes having a witness to the collection, having the samples sealed in envelopes with both people’s signatures and names on it, etc.
My point is, you can learn about these things if you want to, & if you are concerned about the validity.
I didn’t know anything about the Bible, its authorship, and the history of early Christianity last year. I’ve read alot, including apologist literature. While I can’t, of course, claim to know the truth, and I don’t read ancient Greek to probe the ancient texts myself, it became clear to me early on in this process that there are enough questions - valid questions - that alot of people have. Also seems to me that a non-divine explanation is possible (and, in my opinion, more probable) - so I can’t see any reason for me to rely on the Bible & tales of early Christianity for proof. Obviously, others feel differently!