(Click on the image to display it at full size)
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
10 Non-Biblical Proofs of Christianity
The late Marcello Truzzi (professor of sociology at New College of Florida and Eastern Michigan University) is credited for coining the common phrase: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." He was an investigator of all things paranormal and pseudoscientific. Paul Kurtz (editor in chief of Free Inquiry magazine, published by the Council for Secular Humanism, a.k.a. "the father of modern skepticism.") said of Truzzi that he was the "skeptics skeptic."
When discussing theology in general, and Christianity in specific, the modern proponent faces a contemporary philosophical mindset unknown even a few decades ago. A Christian speaker, debater, apologist, let's say, 50 years ago, could often quote and reference verses or incidents from within the pages of the Bible as supporting evidence to various teachings/events/issues---and most listeners accepted that at face value, at least in America. I am not saying that this situation was either good or bad. One could easily argue both ways. Let's just say that, when it came to what the Bible said, it was generally accepted as authoritative.
We live in a different world, here at the turning of the millennia. The Christian evangelist of the 21st century faces a formidable obstacle. Formidable, not in that it is difficult to overcome, but formidable in the sense that few are being prepared and trained in how to surmount these new obstacles to faith.
50 years ago, in most places in America, the Bible was known as the word of God. Today, it is relegated to a "sacred text," but perhaps only slightly more sacred than other "similar" writings throughout the world. The vast majority, having bought the secularists agenda, are not aware of the remarkable differences between the Bible and any other venerated or "holy" book. They are unaware of the amount of prophecy found in the Bible (nearly one third of the Bible is prophetic---compared to other "holy books", which typically contain less than 1% of prophecy)(here is a nice site about prophecy: http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible), it's authorship, it's historical veracity and verifiability through archaeology (not true of most other "holy books"), it's unity and continuity of message concerning the birth, death, and resurrection of our Savior, Jesus Christ, who is both God and man at the same time.
Most people are unaware of the reliability of the Biblical documents (meaning, how consistent are the copies we have today compared to the originals). To demonstrate how incredible the Bible is in terms of reliability, we have over 5000 Greek and Latin complete manuscripts (the New Testament was written in Greek) and over 14,000 partial manuscripts, with many dating within decades of the original documents. A thorough study of the manuscript evidence shows that the Bible we have today is approximately 99.5% textually accurate, meaning that, in all those multiplied-thousands of copies, they only vary less than one-half of one percent. And many of those differences are in the spelling of proper names and merely word order.
Here are some good links regarding reliability:
http://www.carm.org/manuscript-evidence
http://www.equip.org/articles/bible-reliability
http://www.carm.org/illustration-bible-text-manuscript-tree-and-variant-readings
Many reject the Bible completely, and therefore, a new level of proof, of evidence, of authority must be established to bridge them from agnosticism to conviction of the truth of Christianity.
In this blog I would like to share what I consider to be 10 Compelling Non-Biblical Proofs of Christianity. These are evidences that provide independent confirmation of major teachings of Christianity--the "extraordinary proofs" that professor Truzzi demanded.
Scientific research, especially regarding cosmology (similar to astronomy), has blossomed over the past 80 years. Since the heydays of Hubble, Einstein, and Hoyle, our body of knowledge regarding the universe has expanded nearly as fast as "the big bang" event itself. From our discoveries, what have we really learned? Two of our most important revelations could be summed up as follows:
Consider the first realization: The universe is expanding. Big deal you say? Oh, you're right, it is a very big deal. Since the days of Edwin Hubble, we have demonstrated that all the stars and all the galaxies are moving, and moving at some very high rate of speeds, and all racing outwards. Think about that for a minute. Well, what if you could go back in time? The further back in time you go, the closer together all of those galaxies would have been. Keep going back further in time, and eventually all the stars and all the galaxies would all come back to a single point! So, imagine that---all of the universe must have come into being from a single point, a singular creation event.
Now consider the second point: The universe is running out of usable energy (second law of thermodynamics). Are you reading this, or are you breathing, can you move around? Then guess what? That means there is still USABLE energy around, energy that can be used to drive things like computers, your lungs, or the motor in your refrigerator.
But the second law of thermodynamics has some bad news for us energy users, it states that, over time, the amount of USABLE energy will always go down. In fact, it clearly indicates, that given a certain amount of time, all of the usable energy will one day be used up, and the universe will die (what is called) a "heat death."
Even though the universe has tremendous reserves of energy, it is impossible for it to last forever, or anything even close to "forever." Let me illustrate: Imagine if you had a TRILLION dollars. And everyday you spent $1. Do you know how long it would take you to run out of money? One trillion days (that's just under 3 billion earth years). But guess what, on day one trillion and one, you would be out of money. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
The same thing is true about the amount of usable energy in the universe. Even with all the vast stores of energy found throughout the universe, there will come a day when it will all run out. Game Over.
But (here's the biggie)---we're not there yet.
(silence)
Didn't anyone hear what I just said? Let me rephrase that---We're not there yet. (Ok, I didn't actually rephrase it)
Quit yawning, this is important stuff! Really. Here's why: since there is only a finite amount of energy in the universe, and yet, we still have usable energy, that means the universe cannot be infinitely old. If the universe had always existed (in other words, no need for a "god" or a Creator to make it) then we would have already run out of usable energy an infinite amount of time ago. Those who deny that God made the universe usually say that the universe has "just always existed." In fact, one of the most famous naturalists of the 20th century, Carl Sagan stated, "The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."
But wait, not so fast, science says that that is simply not possible.
Follow me here:
(1) The universe exists and contains a finite amount of usable energy
(2) The universe is constantly consuming usable energy
(3) The universe still contains usable energy
(4) Therefore, the universe cannot be infinitely old, since it would have already run out of usable energy long before now.
The logic and the scientific process underlying this is sound and well-established. So much so that Einstein himself had to add in a fake "fudge factor" to his equations just to try to get around the idea of a finite universe. He wanted to believe the theory (as most cosmologists of his day) that the universe was infinite (eternal), that it had just always existed. Sorry folks, theories must give way to laws, and the second law does not allow for an infinite, eternal universe. Einstein later acknowledged this, he finally came to grips with it and said that his cosmic "fudge factor" was the greatest blunder of his life.
So what have we learned? The universe had to come into being at a single point in time (second law) and space (Hubble). This means that it has not always been here (it is not infinite or eternal). Many religions and philosophies consider the universe to be a part of God, or even, as in pantheism, that the universe itself, and everything in it, is God. But, unlike nearly all other religions, the Bible teaches about a Creator OUTSIDE of the universe, who is independent from it, who created it at a point in time, and gave it energy, and started it's motions.
So, our first bit of non-Biblical evidences pointing to the truth of Christianity stands as:
1. Known Universal Laws require a Creator consistent with the type of God the Bible describes.
To read part 2 of this 10 part series CLICK HERE
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
Sounds logical. Sounds reasonable.When discussing theology in general, and Christianity in specific, the modern proponent faces a contemporary philosophical mindset unknown even a few decades ago. A Christian speaker, debater, apologist, let's say, 50 years ago, could often quote and reference verses or incidents from within the pages of the Bible as supporting evidence to various teachings/events/issues---and most listeners accepted that at face value, at least in America. I am not saying that this situation was either good or bad. One could easily argue both ways. Let's just say that, when it came to what the Bible said, it was generally accepted as authoritative.
We live in a different world, here at the turning of the millennia. The Christian evangelist of the 21st century faces a formidable obstacle. Formidable, not in that it is difficult to overcome, but formidable in the sense that few are being prepared and trained in how to surmount these new obstacles to faith.
50 years ago, in most places in America, the Bible was known as the word of God. Today, it is relegated to a "sacred text," but perhaps only slightly more sacred than other "similar" writings throughout the world. The vast majority, having bought the secularists agenda, are not aware of the remarkable differences between the Bible and any other venerated or "holy" book. They are unaware of the amount of prophecy found in the Bible (nearly one third of the Bible is prophetic---compared to other "holy books", which typically contain less than 1% of prophecy)(here is a nice site about prophecy: http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible), it's authorship, it's historical veracity and verifiability through archaeology (not true of most other "holy books"), it's unity and continuity of message concerning the birth, death, and resurrection of our Savior, Jesus Christ, who is both God and man at the same time.
Most people are unaware of the reliability of the Biblical documents (meaning, how consistent are the copies we have today compared to the originals). To demonstrate how incredible the Bible is in terms of reliability, we have over 5000 Greek and Latin complete manuscripts (the New Testament was written in Greek) and over 14,000 partial manuscripts, with many dating within decades of the original documents. A thorough study of the manuscript evidence shows that the Bible we have today is approximately 99.5% textually accurate, meaning that, in all those multiplied-thousands of copies, they only vary less than one-half of one percent. And many of those differences are in the spelling of proper names and merely word order.
Here are some good links regarding reliability:
http://www.carm.org/manuscript-evidence
http://www.equip.org/articles/bible-reliability
http://www.carm.org/illustration-bible-text-manuscript-tree-and-variant-readings
But, having said all that...
Many reject the Bible completely, and therefore, a new level of proof, of evidence, of authority must be established to bridge them from agnosticism to conviction of the truth of Christianity.
In this blog I would like to share what I consider to be 10 Compelling Non-Biblical Proofs of Christianity. These are evidences that provide independent confirmation of major teachings of Christianity--the "extraordinary proofs" that professor Truzzi demanded.
1. Known Universal Laws Require a Creator consistent with the type of God the Bible describes.
Scientific research, especially regarding cosmology (similar to astronomy), has blossomed over the past 80 years. Since the heydays of Hubble, Einstein, and Hoyle, our body of knowledge regarding the universe has expanded nearly as fast as "the big bang" event itself. From our discoveries, what have we really learned? Two of our most important revelations could be summed up as follows:
- The universe is expanding
- The universe is running out of usable energy (second law of thermodynamics)
Consider the first realization: The universe is expanding. Big deal you say? Oh, you're right, it is a very big deal. Since the days of Edwin Hubble, we have demonstrated that all the stars and all the galaxies are moving, and moving at some very high rate of speeds, and all racing outwards. Think about that for a minute. Well, what if you could go back in time? The further back in time you go, the closer together all of those galaxies would have been. Keep going back further in time, and eventually all the stars and all the galaxies would all come back to a single point! So, imagine that---all of the universe must have come into being from a single point, a singular creation event.
Now consider the second point: The universe is running out of usable energy (second law of thermodynamics). Are you reading this, or are you breathing, can you move around? Then guess what? That means there is still USABLE energy around, energy that can be used to drive things like computers, your lungs, or the motor in your refrigerator.
But the second law of thermodynamics has some bad news for us energy users, it states that, over time, the amount of USABLE energy will always go down. In fact, it clearly indicates, that given a certain amount of time, all of the usable energy will one day be used up, and the universe will die (what is called) a "heat death."
Even though the universe has tremendous reserves of energy, it is impossible for it to last forever, or anything even close to "forever." Let me illustrate: Imagine if you had a TRILLION dollars. And everyday you spent $1. Do you know how long it would take you to run out of money? One trillion days (that's just under 3 billion earth years). But guess what, on day one trillion and one, you would be out of money. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
The same thing is true about the amount of usable energy in the universe. Even with all the vast stores of energy found throughout the universe, there will come a day when it will all run out. Game Over.
But (here's the biggie)---we're not there yet.
(silence)
Didn't anyone hear what I just said? Let me rephrase that---We're not there yet. (Ok, I didn't actually rephrase it)
Quit yawning, this is important stuff! Really. Here's why: since there is only a finite amount of energy in the universe, and yet, we still have usable energy, that means the universe cannot be infinitely old. If the universe had always existed (in other words, no need for a "god" or a Creator to make it) then we would have already run out of usable energy an infinite amount of time ago. Those who deny that God made the universe usually say that the universe has "just always existed." In fact, one of the most famous naturalists of the 20th century, Carl Sagan stated, "The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."
But wait, not so fast, science says that that is simply not possible.
Follow me here:
(1) The universe exists and contains a finite amount of usable energy
(2) The universe is constantly consuming usable energy
(3) The universe still contains usable energy
(4) Therefore, the universe cannot be infinitely old, since it would have already run out of usable energy long before now.
The logic and the scientific process underlying this is sound and well-established. So much so that Einstein himself had to add in a fake "fudge factor" to his equations just to try to get around the idea of a finite universe. He wanted to believe the theory (as most cosmologists of his day) that the universe was infinite (eternal), that it had just always existed. Sorry folks, theories must give way to laws, and the second law does not allow for an infinite, eternal universe. Einstein later acknowledged this, he finally came to grips with it and said that his cosmic "fudge factor" was the greatest blunder of his life.
So what have we learned? The universe had to come into being at a single point in time (second law) and space (Hubble). This means that it has not always been here (it is not infinite or eternal). Many religions and philosophies consider the universe to be a part of God, or even, as in pantheism, that the universe itself, and everything in it, is God. But, unlike nearly all other religions, the Bible teaches about a Creator OUTSIDE of the universe, who is independent from it, who created it at a point in time, and gave it energy, and started it's motions.
So, our first bit of non-Biblical evidences pointing to the truth of Christianity stands as:
1. Known Universal Laws require a Creator consistent with the type of God the Bible describes.
To read part 2 of this 10 part series CLICK HERE
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Darwin's Dilemmas...again
The headlines are, once again, filled with the premature, yet prevalent news of another "missing link" of supposed human evolution. Let me (maybe) be the first to introduce you to your long lost cousin, five times removed: Australopithecus sediba. It's another in a long line of supposed precursors to --- to --- US.Remember Lucy (that's her on the left), and Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man hoax), Piltdown man (hoax) , Homo neanderthalensis, and the pre-human 'Hobbit' or Homo floresiensis, and who could forget Ida (Darwinius masillae) that scrambled across the headlines of every paper and science mag a few months back. (Ida is the cute little squirrel-like fossil below.)(photo is courtesy of: Jens L. Franzen, Philip D. Gingerich, Jörg Habersetzer1, Jørn H. Hurum, Wighart von Koenigswald, B. Holly Smith)
Ida "pushed back our understanding of human evolution at least 20 times farther back than previously known."
Wow---they make it sound like evolution is completely proven, now we are just sorting out the details.
Really?
Isn't it interesting that humanity is one of the few creatures that inhabit the earth in which all living members are of the same species? Think about that for just a minute. Every person, out of the 7 billion or so who walks this earth, is the exact same species. When you take into account all of the supposed precursors to homo sapiens, where are all of the sub- or near-human relations of mankind? Surely any creature later than any Australo would undoubtedly be the most advanced and evolved mammal, capable of intelligent survival techniques and should be flourishing to this very day. Yet, there aren't ANY, not even one. Hmmmm.
When you take into account that current Darwinian evolution adherents are espousing a 5 million year + range for the progression from near-man to man, the lack of diversity of species around homo sapiens is not only a great mystery---it's a Darwinian deal breaker.
Conclusions?
These finds aren't precursors to the one species of mankind, they are merely primates, extinct primates. Lucy, the center piece of the supposed human evolution drama, is strikingly similar in many ways to living chimpanzees, pygmy chimpanzees specifically. The fossil record is clear, it is not a tree as you often see in high school textbooks, it is demonstrably several bushes.
The order is: large number of species, relative stasis, extinction---not evolution. To say that almost-human ancestors would have died out (as the most developed and intelligent mammals) is ludicrous. It is one of many unanswerable problems for Darwinian evolution to face. To say that we have many thousands of species of other, inferior, mammals who flourished yet early man died out is absurdity of the highest biological order.
When will logic and science actually prevail over the ardent faith of Darwinian dogma? When will real scientists arise who will let the facts speak for themselves instead of forcing a debunked and failed framework upon a conflicted profession? Shame on all of us for allowing a prior commitment of validating a philosophical position, rather than doing the high and noble purpose of real scientific investigation.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Reconciling the Resurrection Accounts in the Gospels
This response is concerning the recent article, Why I don't buy the resurrection story, by Andrew Mangan, posted 4/1/2010 in the Capaha Arrow (http://www.capahaarrow.com/). I will quote Mr. Mangan's text, and then place my comments delineated between triple asterisks (*** and/or in green).
Mangan begins:
"Easter is now a time for children to enjoy painted eggs, fluffy rabbits and delicious candy. How all those things came to do with the holiday of Easter is a total mystery to me. Instead, I want to talk to you about the event the holiday was intended for, the remembrance and celebration of the alleged death and resurrection of the Christian god-man Jesus, and how implausible the resurrection actually is."
*** "...how implausible"? The word implausible refers to a lack of validity or the unlikeliness of an event or concept. Actually, though the thesis statement of the article states that "implausibility" is to be one of the two main points the author wishes to make, the actual implausibility of the resurrection is never discussed by the author. A surface outline of some apparent difficulties is made concerning the order of events and participants, but nothing concerning the "likeliness" or the plausibility of the resurrection is ever raised (no pun intended).
When discussing plausibility, one must, out of necessity, look at possibility. When one considers the wonders we have discovered in biology, such as the incredible complexity of DNA or cellular mitosis, or as we look out into the cosmos, we see irrefutable evidence of a powerful and intelligent creator. The late Sir Fred Hoyle, considered one of the greatest astronomers of the modern age, made this observation:
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
So, if we accept that there is an intelligence outside of time and space that could create all that is perceived, and design something as complex as life and DNA (which took humanity decades with super-computers to crack the genetic code), then it follows logically that the idea of resurrection is not implausible. Actually, atheists must accept an absurd form of "resurrection" in nature, namely, abiogenesis: the implausible (and to many biologists- the impossible) transition from dead chemicals to a living, replicating organism. Talk about blind faith or implausibility. If there is a Creator capable of producing the universe and life, then performing a resurrection should surely be mundane, if not passe. ***
Mangan goes on:
"In 110 CE, Pliny the Younger was the first non-Christian to even mention Christianity itself, but yet, he never mentioned the resurrection."
*** This statement makes an incorrect declaration and an unwarranted inference. First, the inaccuracy of his claim. Pliny is predated by Josephus, a respected historian and clearly not a Christian, by many years. Josephus speaks of Christianity in the mid to late first century. Even though one of his two "Jesus" passages has been a subject of rich debate since about the 17th century, no serious doubt has been cast upon his discussion of the beginnings of Christianity, especially in light of the Pine translation from Arabic, which confirms the core information that few scholars debate.
Secondly, the author's unwarranted inference. The author seeks to create a connection between the "first mention" of Christianity and the resurrection account. He implies that, if the resurrection was so important, surely it would be discussed in the "first mention" of Christianity. What about the virgin birth, the miraculous healings, or the feeding of the thousands, or perhaps the innumerable teachings and discourses of Jesus? Shouldn't Pliny have delineated all of those all well?
The inference, though subtle, is invalid. Pliny does not seek to outline all of the bases for the faith, he mentions only that which concerns him of the Roman order and the impact of Christianity upon it. He doesn't even mention the death of Jesus, but only that His followers considered Him to be as God (god). He then goes on to discuss punishments for these Christians.
For further study into early accounts of Christianity, look into the writings of Roman historian, Tacitus, as well as the great second century debates by the early apologists.
Using the author's method and style of argumentation, here is a comparison from science: 'The first mention of abiogenesis (life from the dead--kind of like resurrection) is found in writings over 3.5 billion years after it allegedly transpired, but many scientists disagree over the process, which shows just how implausible abiogenesis really is' (just a little joke there).
***
Mangan continues:
"Therefore, one must rely on the gospels to tell this tale. However, when trying to reconstruct what the gospels say about the resurrection, one reaches something that cannot be surpassed: numerous discrepancies and contradictions."
*** A strawman argument is loosely constructed here. Using phraseology such as "cannot be surpassed" or "numerous...contradictions" is hyperbole and not befitting a supposed investigation. If the supposed difficulties in the gospel narratives "cannot be surpassed", then why have numerous volumes been written showing the harmony of the accounts?
One site that discusses these is found at: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/resur_harmony.html
***
Mangan again:
"When going through the timeline of this event in the four gospels, one of the first disparities we stumble upon is Matthew 28:1-2. In these verses, two women arrive at Jesus' tomb, an earthquake happens and then an angel descends from heaven to roll back a stone from the door for them."
***The earthquake and the stone being rolled away occurs BEFORE the women arrive. Time elapses between the two verses. Consider this line from a history book:
"John F. Kennedy was elected to be the 35th president of the United States and was assassinated."
This statement is absolutely true, yet the election and the assassination are separated by well over two years. Matthew says that the women went to the tomb (a fairly long journey by foot), and while they were on the way, there was an earthquake and the stone was rolled away. This happened prior to their arriving. No contradiction here, not even close, unless someone wants to force one due to earlier assumptions of it's inaccuracy.
***
Mangan continues:
"The trouble here is that this story changes from gospel to gospel. In Mark 16, there is no earthquake, nor any angel rolling back the stone."
*** This is an argument from silence, which is a logical fallacy. For example, if you read an article about on-going relief work in Haiti, would the article be false if it did not mention all the details about the earthquake? Obviously not. One does not have to recount all past events leading up to an event for the account to be valid. The account of the resurrection picks up as the women arrive in Mark 16, it need not give a minute-by-minute description of everything prior to this in order to be valid. At the point in which Mark picks up the narrative, the earthquake and the stone being rolled away have both already occurred.
***
Mangan:
"In fact, the stone is already rolled back when the women arrive. Luke and John agree with Mark on this one-no earthquakes occur and the stone has been rolled away prior to their visit."
*** Luke, John, and Mark just do not mention the earthquake, they do not say that it did not occur. This is no minor point. There would be a contradiction if one of the accounts said that the women rolled the stone away, or if one of them specifically said that "Mary Magdalene did not go to the tomb," or "there was no earthquake." Those would be contradictions, what we find in the narratives is not contradiction, but different aspects of the same event, or at different times. Mangan's main argument is, once again, a logical fallacy, an argument from silence. Actually, all the gospels agree.
The order of events, as combined, is as follows (1) Resurrection occurs (2) Women begin journeying to the tomb (3) Earthquake occurs (4) Stone is rolled away (5) Angel appears to the guards (6) Women continue to journey to the tomb (wondering about such things as the stone, etc) (7) Women arrive (8) Mary Magdalene sees the open tomb and supposes Jesus' body has been taken and runs to tell the apostles (9) Other women go into the tomb and see the angels. The only contradiction in the accounts is the one imagined in the minds of skeptics. Miller, in his investigation of the resurrection accounts, had this to say:
"(Do apparent discrepancies) mean that these are false reports, made-up by dishonest men to deceive us? On the contrary, this is good evidence that these are truthful accounts, because people who conspire to testify to a falsehood rehearse carefully to avoid contradictions. False testimony appears on the surface to be in harmony, but discrepancies appear when you dig deeper. True accounts may appear on the surface to be contradictory, but are found to be in harmony when you dig deeper."
To illustrate the fallacy of taking things only at face value without compositing information, consider the famous story of the four blind men who met an elephant. When interviewed later to recount this strange event, one said "It was like a rope," (having felt only the tail), another declared, "It was like a tree!" (He only felt a leg). The third said, "It was rather like a snake, " for he touched only the nose, and the fourth remarked that "it was rather like an eel," having only felt of the ears. On the surface it all appears contradictory and full of discrepancy, but it is not. It is merely four different aspects of the same event, four different vantage points. The four gospels are four perspectives on the same event.
***
Mangan continues:
"It only gets worse from there. Who were the women that came to the temple that day? Matthew 28:1 says it was Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary"; Mark 16:1: Mary Magdalene, "Mary the mother of James," and Salome; Luke 24:10: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, "Mary the mother of James," and "other women"; and John 20:1 only mentions Mary Magdalene."
***This, once again, is an argument made from silence. Consider this statement:
"President Obama visited the troops in Afghanistan recently."
According to Mangan's reasoning, this news report is false, because there were many dozens of people who traveled with the president to visit the troops. But, the statement still stands as true, "the president did visit the troops" (though not alone), and the statement "Mary Magdalene went to the tomb" (though not alone) also stands as valid and true. Whether in a group, or alone, Mary Magdalene was there, so the statement in the gospel of John stands as factually valid.
All historical statements of fact are similarly hamstrung, because it is impossible to accurately detail every possible fact about a situation, therefore, all statements of historical events are necessarily truncated in some respect. To demand that John give more information is unwarranted, he was focusing on the impact of this event regarding Mary Magdalene (In fact, if you study the gospel of John you will find that there are a great many passages about Jesus dealing with the individual, such as the woman at the well, the night meeting with Nicodemus, etc).
Here's another example: there are many verses in the Bible about Jesus being crucified. But, weren't there also two others crucified at the same time with him? Yes. But, it is still factually true that Jesus was crucified, even without further details about the others. It all depends on the focus of the statement. In John's account of the resurrection, Mary Magdalene is the focus, not the other women.
Another very plausible approach is that Mary Magdalene may have started out with the other women, but could have, as she got closer, moved ahead of the group. She may have been many years younger, and in her love for the Savior was eager to get there. So, she may have arrived slightly ahead, though starting out with the original group, looked at the open tomb, assumed someone took Jesus away and ran to the apostles.
***
Mangan again:
"Who was at the tomb when the women-or woman-arrived and where were they situated? Matthew 28:2-7: one angel sitting on the door stone; Mark 16:5: one young man sitting inside the temple on the right; Luke 24:4: two men standing inside; and John 20:12: two angels sitting on each end of the bed."
*** There, once again, is only a forced, supposed contradiction. The angel initially rolled the stone away and sat upon the stone (this was earlier and it frightened the Roman guards). Later, that same angel appears to the women inviting them to come into the tomb where he was "Come, see". The language indicates he was IN THE TOMB, hence "Come, see". Whether the angel moved from the stone into the tomb in a moment of time, or whether he "walked" into the tomb between the frightening of the guards and the arrival of the women is of no consequence.
The only problem is when one forces something that the scriptures do not say, namely, that the angel never left the stone, or that all the events of these two verses had to happen instantly, simultaneously (which it does not say). All that it says is that it is the same angel that rolled away the stone that initially spoke to the visitors, but it never says that he did so while sitting on the stone. In fact, the language indicates an interior position for the statement in question.
The author then takes aim at the exact position of the appearance of the angels. The word used in the Greek in Luke 24 for "standing" is a word that means to "appear," it does not necessarily imply a physical orientation, just nearby. Even in English we use the word in this respect, such as making a plan for something, but having another backup plan "standing by." It doesn't mean an orientation, but that it is near at hand. So, if the angels were sitting in the tomb, they are "appearing nearby." Perhaps they were standing and then sat as they invited the women in for a closer inspection. It makes no difference.
***
Mangan continues:
"Who, after the woman/women at the temple, did Jesus appear to? Matthew 28:16: 11 disciples; Mark 16:12-14: two disciples in the country, then later to 11; Luke 24:13 and 36: two disciples in Emmaus, then later to 11; and John 20:19 and 24: 10 disciples-Judas and Thomas being absent. The detrimental complication implied by these discrepancies is impossible to surmount."
*** "Discrepancies"? "Impossible to surmount?" Here is a perfectly plausible reconstruction of the details: "With further study, the apparent contradictions disappear. For example, all four accounts are in harmony with the following sequence of events: Very early a group of women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, and Joanna set out for the tomb. Meanwhile two angels are sent; there is an earthquake and one angel rolls back the stone and sits upon it. The soldiers faint and then revive and flee into the city. The women arrive and find the tomb opened; without waiting, Mary Magdalene, assuming someone has taken the Lord's body, runs back to the city to tell Peter and John. The other women enter the tomb and see the body is gone. The two angels appear to them and tell them of the resurrection. The women then leave to take the news to the disciples. Peter and John run to the tomb with Mary Magdalene following. Peter and John enter the tomb, see the grave clothes, and then return to the city, but Mary Magdalene remains at the tomb weeping, and Jesus makes His first appearance to her. Jesus next appears to the other women who are on their way to find the disciples. Jesus appears to Peter; He appears to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus; and then appears to a group of disciples including all of the Eleven except Thomas." Casteel, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
Mangan's argument is again from hyperbole. Merely using language that makes a situation seem different than it is ("impossible to surmount"), does not in any way, change the reality of a situation. If it is "impossible to surmount" then why has the order of events of the resurrection been easily demonstrated numerous times over the centuries, even as recently as this rebuttal? Like president Clinton arguing about "what your definition of 'Is' is," I guess it depends upon what your definition of "impossible" is. Apparently impossible means something that requires diligent study, comparison, and research. Why bother researching when it is much easier to dismiss something you have a priori decided to reject?
***
Mangan surmises and closes:
"Thomas Paine discovered the ramifications of these contradictions 200 years ago in "The Age of Reason," in which he wrote: "I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted, first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree, and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true. Now, I could prattle on about the total lack of contemporary accounts regarding Jesus' life and existence or that Jesus isn't really all that great of a guy (he tells you to hate your family and yourself in Luke 14:26 and advocates violence in Matthew 10:34-39), but I haven't the room in this paper to do such things. All I want you to take away from this is: Don't worry about the religious aspects of Easter-they're all bunk. Instead, enjoy the painted eggs, fluffy rabbits and delicious candy. I know I will."
*** "They're all bunk." Wow. When will the inflammatory and pointless hyperbolic language cease? This isn't serious investigation, it's a kangaroo court and the suspect is obviously guilty until proven innocent, which the judge will not allow anyway (how's that for a reverse hyperbole?). Since we're throwing out names and writers of the 19th century (Thomas Paine), how about this one? Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law (Harvard University), is considered to be, possibly, the greatest legal mind of the modern age. He authored the landmark book, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence. Initially, Dr. Simon Greenleaf considered the resurrection of Christ to be a complete fabrication. He set out to completely expose it as a myth. After painstakingly reviewing the evidence concerning the resurrection, Dr. Greenleaf reached a surprising conclusion. He emphatically declared that the resurrection has been absolutely established according to the laws of evidence. Furthermore, Dr. Greenleaf turned from skepticism and became a Christian.
How about someone from the 20th century? Consider the famous former-skeptic-turned-Christian, C.S. Lewis. He said of his conversion (loosely paraphrasing) that he was "dragged kicking and screaming into the faith" because of the evidence. He didn't want to believe, but he couldn't deny the evidence, especially of the resurrection, once investigated.
I believe in freedom of speech and of the press, but I also believe in honest debate and serious inquiry. It is my sincere hope that the paper which printed Mr. Mangan's view of this remarkable event, will allow this balancing rebuttal to stand as well for those same readers to weigh, consider, and investigate.
***
Mangan begins:
"Easter is now a time for children to enjoy painted eggs, fluffy rabbits and delicious candy. How all those things came to do with the holiday of Easter is a total mystery to me. Instead, I want to talk to you about the event the holiday was intended for, the remembrance and celebration of the alleged death and resurrection of the Christian god-man Jesus, and how implausible the resurrection actually is."
*** "...how implausible"? The word implausible refers to a lack of validity or the unlikeliness of an event or concept. Actually, though the thesis statement of the article states that "implausibility" is to be one of the two main points the author wishes to make, the actual implausibility of the resurrection is never discussed by the author. A surface outline of some apparent difficulties is made concerning the order of events and participants, but nothing concerning the "likeliness" or the plausibility of the resurrection is ever raised (no pun intended).
When discussing plausibility, one must, out of necessity, look at possibility. When one considers the wonders we have discovered in biology, such as the incredible complexity of DNA or cellular mitosis, or as we look out into the cosmos, we see irrefutable evidence of a powerful and intelligent creator. The late Sir Fred Hoyle, considered one of the greatest astronomers of the modern age, made this observation:
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
So, if we accept that there is an intelligence outside of time and space that could create all that is perceived, and design something as complex as life and DNA (which took humanity decades with super-computers to crack the genetic code), then it follows logically that the idea of resurrection is not implausible. Actually, atheists must accept an absurd form of "resurrection" in nature, namely, abiogenesis: the implausible (and to many biologists- the impossible) transition from dead chemicals to a living, replicating organism. Talk about blind faith or implausibility. If there is a Creator capable of producing the universe and life, then performing a resurrection should surely be mundane, if not passe. ***
Mangan goes on:
"In 110 CE, Pliny the Younger was the first non-Christian to even mention Christianity itself, but yet, he never mentioned the resurrection."
*** This statement makes an incorrect declaration and an unwarranted inference. First, the inaccuracy of his claim. Pliny is predated by Josephus, a respected historian and clearly not a Christian, by many years. Josephus speaks of Christianity in the mid to late first century. Even though one of his two "Jesus" passages has been a subject of rich debate since about the 17th century, no serious doubt has been cast upon his discussion of the beginnings of Christianity, especially in light of the Pine translation from Arabic, which confirms the core information that few scholars debate.
Secondly, the author's unwarranted inference. The author seeks to create a connection between the "first mention" of Christianity and the resurrection account. He implies that, if the resurrection was so important, surely it would be discussed in the "first mention" of Christianity. What about the virgin birth, the miraculous healings, or the feeding of the thousands, or perhaps the innumerable teachings and discourses of Jesus? Shouldn't Pliny have delineated all of those all well?
The inference, though subtle, is invalid. Pliny does not seek to outline all of the bases for the faith, he mentions only that which concerns him of the Roman order and the impact of Christianity upon it. He doesn't even mention the death of Jesus, but only that His followers considered Him to be as God (god). He then goes on to discuss punishments for these Christians.
For further study into early accounts of Christianity, look into the writings of Roman historian, Tacitus, as well as the great second century debates by the early apologists.
Using the author's method and style of argumentation, here is a comparison from science: 'The first mention of abiogenesis (life from the dead--kind of like resurrection) is found in writings over 3.5 billion years after it allegedly transpired, but many scientists disagree over the process, which shows just how implausible abiogenesis really is' (just a little joke there).
***
Mangan continues:
"Therefore, one must rely on the gospels to tell this tale. However, when trying to reconstruct what the gospels say about the resurrection, one reaches something that cannot be surpassed: numerous discrepancies and contradictions."
*** A strawman argument is loosely constructed here. Using phraseology such as "cannot be surpassed" or "numerous...contradictions" is hyperbole and not befitting a supposed investigation. If the supposed difficulties in the gospel narratives "cannot be surpassed", then why have numerous volumes been written showing the harmony of the accounts?
One site that discusses these is found at: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/resur_harmony.html
***
Mangan again:
"When going through the timeline of this event in the four gospels, one of the first disparities we stumble upon is Matthew 28:1-2. In these verses, two women arrive at Jesus' tomb, an earthquake happens and then an angel descends from heaven to roll back a stone from the door for them."
***The earthquake and the stone being rolled away occurs BEFORE the women arrive. Time elapses between the two verses. Consider this line from a history book:
"John F. Kennedy was elected to be the 35th president of the United States and was assassinated."
This statement is absolutely true, yet the election and the assassination are separated by well over two years. Matthew says that the women went to the tomb (a fairly long journey by foot), and while they were on the way, there was an earthquake and the stone was rolled away. This happened prior to their arriving. No contradiction here, not even close, unless someone wants to force one due to earlier assumptions of it's inaccuracy.
***
Mangan continues:
"The trouble here is that this story changes from gospel to gospel. In Mark 16, there is no earthquake, nor any angel rolling back the stone."
*** This is an argument from silence, which is a logical fallacy. For example, if you read an article about on-going relief work in Haiti, would the article be false if it did not mention all the details about the earthquake? Obviously not. One does not have to recount all past events leading up to an event for the account to be valid. The account of the resurrection picks up as the women arrive in Mark 16, it need not give a minute-by-minute description of everything prior to this in order to be valid. At the point in which Mark picks up the narrative, the earthquake and the stone being rolled away have both already occurred.
***
Mangan:
"In fact, the stone is already rolled back when the women arrive. Luke and John agree with Mark on this one-no earthquakes occur and the stone has been rolled away prior to their visit."
*** Luke, John, and Mark just do not mention the earthquake, they do not say that it did not occur. This is no minor point. There would be a contradiction if one of the accounts said that the women rolled the stone away, or if one of them specifically said that "Mary Magdalene did not go to the tomb," or "there was no earthquake." Those would be contradictions, what we find in the narratives is not contradiction, but different aspects of the same event, or at different times. Mangan's main argument is, once again, a logical fallacy, an argument from silence. Actually, all the gospels agree.
The order of events, as combined, is as follows (1) Resurrection occurs (2) Women begin journeying to the tomb (3) Earthquake occurs (4) Stone is rolled away (5) Angel appears to the guards (6) Women continue to journey to the tomb (wondering about such things as the stone, etc) (7) Women arrive (8) Mary Magdalene sees the open tomb and supposes Jesus' body has been taken and runs to tell the apostles (9) Other women go into the tomb and see the angels. The only contradiction in the accounts is the one imagined in the minds of skeptics. Miller, in his investigation of the resurrection accounts, had this to say:
"(Do apparent discrepancies) mean that these are false reports, made-up by dishonest men to deceive us? On the contrary, this is good evidence that these are truthful accounts, because people who conspire to testify to a falsehood rehearse carefully to avoid contradictions. False testimony appears on the surface to be in harmony, but discrepancies appear when you dig deeper. True accounts may appear on the surface to be contradictory, but are found to be in harmony when you dig deeper."
To illustrate the fallacy of taking things only at face value without compositing information, consider the famous story of the four blind men who met an elephant. When interviewed later to recount this strange event, one said "It was like a rope," (having felt only the tail), another declared, "It was like a tree!" (He only felt a leg). The third said, "It was rather like a snake, " for he touched only the nose, and the fourth remarked that "it was rather like an eel," having only felt of the ears. On the surface it all appears contradictory and full of discrepancy, but it is not. It is merely four different aspects of the same event, four different vantage points. The four gospels are four perspectives on the same event.
***
Mangan continues:
"It only gets worse from there. Who were the women that came to the temple that day? Matthew 28:1 says it was Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary"; Mark 16:1: Mary Magdalene, "Mary the mother of James," and Salome; Luke 24:10: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, "Mary the mother of James," and "other women"; and John 20:1 only mentions Mary Magdalene."
***This, once again, is an argument made from silence. Consider this statement:
"President Obama visited the troops in Afghanistan recently."
According to Mangan's reasoning, this news report is false, because there were many dozens of people who traveled with the president to visit the troops. But, the statement still stands as true, "the president did visit the troops" (though not alone), and the statement "Mary Magdalene went to the tomb" (though not alone) also stands as valid and true. Whether in a group, or alone, Mary Magdalene was there, so the statement in the gospel of John stands as factually valid.
All historical statements of fact are similarly hamstrung, because it is impossible to accurately detail every possible fact about a situation, therefore, all statements of historical events are necessarily truncated in some respect. To demand that John give more information is unwarranted, he was focusing on the impact of this event regarding Mary Magdalene (In fact, if you study the gospel of John you will find that there are a great many passages about Jesus dealing with the individual, such as the woman at the well, the night meeting with Nicodemus, etc).
Here's another example: there are many verses in the Bible about Jesus being crucified. But, weren't there also two others crucified at the same time with him? Yes. But, it is still factually true that Jesus was crucified, even without further details about the others. It all depends on the focus of the statement. In John's account of the resurrection, Mary Magdalene is the focus, not the other women.
Another very plausible approach is that Mary Magdalene may have started out with the other women, but could have, as she got closer, moved ahead of the group. She may have been many years younger, and in her love for the Savior was eager to get there. So, she may have arrived slightly ahead, though starting out with the original group, looked at the open tomb, assumed someone took Jesus away and ran to the apostles.
***
Mangan again:
"Who was at the tomb when the women-or woman-arrived and where were they situated? Matthew 28:2-7: one angel sitting on the door stone; Mark 16:5: one young man sitting inside the temple on the right; Luke 24:4: two men standing inside; and John 20:12: two angels sitting on each end of the bed."
*** There, once again, is only a forced, supposed contradiction. The angel initially rolled the stone away and sat upon the stone (this was earlier and it frightened the Roman guards). Later, that same angel appears to the women inviting them to come into the tomb where he was "Come, see". The language indicates he was IN THE TOMB, hence "Come, see". Whether the angel moved from the stone into the tomb in a moment of time, or whether he "walked" into the tomb between the frightening of the guards and the arrival of the women is of no consequence.
The only problem is when one forces something that the scriptures do not say, namely, that the angel never left the stone, or that all the events of these two verses had to happen instantly, simultaneously (which it does not say). All that it says is that it is the same angel that rolled away the stone that initially spoke to the visitors, but it never says that he did so while sitting on the stone. In fact, the language indicates an interior position for the statement in question.
The author then takes aim at the exact position of the appearance of the angels. The word used in the Greek in Luke 24 for "standing" is a word that means to "appear," it does not necessarily imply a physical orientation, just nearby. Even in English we use the word in this respect, such as making a plan for something, but having another backup plan "standing by." It doesn't mean an orientation, but that it is near at hand. So, if the angels were sitting in the tomb, they are "appearing nearby." Perhaps they were standing and then sat as they invited the women in for a closer inspection. It makes no difference.
***
Mangan continues:
"Who, after the woman/women at the temple, did Jesus appear to? Matthew 28:16: 11 disciples; Mark 16:12-14: two disciples in the country, then later to 11; Luke 24:13 and 36: two disciples in Emmaus, then later to 11; and John 20:19 and 24: 10 disciples-Judas and Thomas being absent. The detrimental complication implied by these discrepancies is impossible to surmount."
*** "Discrepancies"? "Impossible to surmount?" Here is a perfectly plausible reconstruction of the details: "With further study, the apparent contradictions disappear. For example, all four accounts are in harmony with the following sequence of events: Very early a group of women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, and Joanna set out for the tomb. Meanwhile two angels are sent; there is an earthquake and one angel rolls back the stone and sits upon it. The soldiers faint and then revive and flee into the city. The women arrive and find the tomb opened; without waiting, Mary Magdalene, assuming someone has taken the Lord's body, runs back to the city to tell Peter and John. The other women enter the tomb and see the body is gone. The two angels appear to them and tell them of the resurrection. The women then leave to take the news to the disciples. Peter and John run to the tomb with Mary Magdalene following. Peter and John enter the tomb, see the grave clothes, and then return to the city, but Mary Magdalene remains at the tomb weeping, and Jesus makes His first appearance to her. Jesus next appears to the other women who are on their way to find the disciples. Jesus appears to Peter; He appears to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus; and then appears to a group of disciples including all of the Eleven except Thomas." Casteel, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
Mangan's argument is again from hyperbole. Merely using language that makes a situation seem different than it is ("impossible to surmount"), does not in any way, change the reality of a situation. If it is "impossible to surmount" then why has the order of events of the resurrection been easily demonstrated numerous times over the centuries, even as recently as this rebuttal? Like president Clinton arguing about "what your definition of 'Is' is," I guess it depends upon what your definition of "impossible" is. Apparently impossible means something that requires diligent study, comparison, and research. Why bother researching when it is much easier to dismiss something you have a priori decided to reject?
***
Mangan surmises and closes:
"Thomas Paine discovered the ramifications of these contradictions 200 years ago in "The Age of Reason," in which he wrote: "I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted, first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree, and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true. Now, I could prattle on about the total lack of contemporary accounts regarding Jesus' life and existence or that Jesus isn't really all that great of a guy (he tells you to hate your family and yourself in Luke 14:26 and advocates violence in Matthew 10:34-39), but I haven't the room in this paper to do such things. All I want you to take away from this is: Don't worry about the religious aspects of Easter-they're all bunk. Instead, enjoy the painted eggs, fluffy rabbits and delicious candy. I know I will."
*** "They're all bunk." Wow. When will the inflammatory and pointless hyperbolic language cease? This isn't serious investigation, it's a kangaroo court and the suspect is obviously guilty until proven innocent, which the judge will not allow anyway (how's that for a reverse hyperbole?). Since we're throwing out names and writers of the 19th century (Thomas Paine), how about this one? Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law (Harvard University), is considered to be, possibly, the greatest legal mind of the modern age. He authored the landmark book, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence. Initially, Dr. Simon Greenleaf considered the resurrection of Christ to be a complete fabrication. He set out to completely expose it as a myth. After painstakingly reviewing the evidence concerning the resurrection, Dr. Greenleaf reached a surprising conclusion. He emphatically declared that the resurrection has been absolutely established according to the laws of evidence. Furthermore, Dr. Greenleaf turned from skepticism and became a Christian.
How about someone from the 20th century? Consider the famous former-skeptic-turned-Christian, C.S. Lewis. He said of his conversion (loosely paraphrasing) that he was "dragged kicking and screaming into the faith" because of the evidence. He didn't want to believe, but he couldn't deny the evidence, especially of the resurrection, once investigated.
I believe in freedom of speech and of the press, but I also believe in honest debate and serious inquiry. It is my sincere hope that the paper which printed Mr. Mangan's view of this remarkable event, will allow this balancing rebuttal to stand as well for those same readers to weigh, consider, and investigate.
***
Thursday, April 1, 2010
The Founding Fathers: Faith or Fiction?
Even a casual perusal of recent articles and blogs reveal an increasingly slippery-slope trend towards historical revisionism, especially concerning the issue of the faith of the "founding fathers," or, should I say, the secularism of the "founding fathers."
Consider this quote from an article entitled: The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians:
"One of the most common statements from the "Religious Right" is that they want this country to "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded". However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States had little use for Christianity..."
Another recent article lamented that a well-educated "Christian" pastor told the congregation: “Our founding fathers were not Christians. They were deists, atheists, and agnostics.”
The real issue at stake is two-fold:
(1) Who were the "founding fathers"?
(2) Were these founders:
(A) men of faith (those who acknowledge the Creator of the universe, as revealed in the Bible)
(B) deists (God exists but has no daily interest in the affairs of mankind, general disbelief in the supernatural and sacred texts/revelation)
(C) secularists/agnostics/atheists (no faith in God, a general disbelief in a personal God)
Before I get too far into this, let me clarify a few personal points:
(1) A nation cannot be "Christian." Only individual people can become Christians.
(2) I realize that there can be a great disconnect between church attendance and true inward belief (which no one can see but God). The following information is only an indication of the philosophy of these men. It is based upon their words, letters, and other pieces of historial information that can be verified.
(3) I am not at all interested in establishing any semblance or form of a "theocracy" in America. I do not want the government legislating matters of worship. That is a denial of the Lord's teaching that faith is a personal matter, and the Bible says "let every person be fully persuaded in their own mind." In other words, you can't force faith--and I wouldn't want to.
(4) But I do believe that one of the most important functions of government is to maintain moral and socially acceptable behaviors, and it should penalize destructive actions (murder, theft, perjury, etc.)
Also, before we get too far into this discussion, a simple statement will clear up volumes of confusion. Here we go:
NOTE: Deists from this era are usually labeled as Unitarians, and some deists maintained regular church attendance and never publicly denounced their denominational affiliation, and therefore were included within those denominations. Additionally, some of the founders changed denominations in their lifetime.
(3) PARTICIPANTS IN THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
(4) PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
Once the numbers are in black in white, this whole revisionist notion of America being founded by secularists, or primarily by deists, is not only a distortion, if it were a boxing match, then the contest was decided in the first round, and it wasn't even close.
I am not saying that 95% of the founding fathers walked around carrying a Bible everyday and that they went door to door sharing Jesus every weekend. Rather, I am saying that the contemporary notions that America's founders were generally secularists is factually incorrect, and destructive to a sound investigation into our history as a young nation.
When you finally consider that the deism of the late 18th and early 19th century had substantial Christian roots, the imaginary agnosticism and secularism of this amazing group of visionary men vanishes into the very thin air that those baseless charges must have originated from.
Consider this quote from an article entitled: The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians:
"One of the most common statements from the "Religious Right" is that they want this country to "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded". However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States had little use for Christianity..."
Another recent article lamented that a well-educated "Christian" pastor told the congregation: “Our founding fathers were not Christians. They were deists, atheists, and agnostics.”
The real issue at stake is two-fold:
(1) Who were the "founding fathers"?
(2) Were these founders:
(A) men of faith (those who acknowledge the Creator of the universe, as revealed in the Bible)
(B) deists (God exists but has no daily interest in the affairs of mankind, general disbelief in the supernatural and sacred texts/revelation)
(C) secularists/agnostics/atheists (no faith in God, a general disbelief in a personal God)
Before I get too far into this, let me clarify a few personal points:
(1) A nation cannot be "Christian." Only individual people can become Christians.
(2) I realize that there can be a great disconnect between church attendance and true inward belief (which no one can see but God). The following information is only an indication of the philosophy of these men. It is based upon their words, letters, and other pieces of historial information that can be verified.
(3) I am not at all interested in establishing any semblance or form of a "theocracy" in America. I do not want the government legislating matters of worship. That is a denial of the Lord's teaching that faith is a personal matter, and the Bible says "let every person be fully persuaded in their own mind." In other words, you can't force faith--and I wouldn't want to.
(4) But I do believe that one of the most important functions of government is to maintain moral and socially acceptable behaviors, and it should penalize destructive actions (murder, theft, perjury, etc.)
Also, before we get too far into this discussion, a simple statement will clear up volumes of confusion. Here we go:
A few of the most notable of the founding fathers were deists.
There, I said it. And it doesn't bother me in the least. For those who are scratching their heads, let me clarify. Most of the websites, books, articles, and diatribes about how "most of the founding fathers were not Christians," revolve almost exclusively around a handful of high-profile men, namely Thomas Jefferson (liberal-deist, though he identified himself as Unitarian), John Adams (Christian-deist), Benjamin Franklin (Christian/liberal deist), and Thomas Paine (deist).
Some try to include George Washington in the list of deists (he did use deist language at times), but the jury is still out on our first president. Also James Madison and James Monroe are often labeled deist, as well as Alexander Hamilton (though less so) but this is based on very scant evidence, and their lives contradicted that identification in many ways.
The way the secularists use this small, handful of men and extrapolate that out to somehow be the overwhelming majority of the founding fathers, would be like saying that "the overwhelming majority of US Presidents have been assassinated." (There have only been four presidents assassinated). You see, that kind of mathematics doesn't work when people see an analogy they can get a grasp on (faith is hard to pin down, but assassination is a bit more concrete).
Once you accept that fact that there were about 4 confirmed deists (though even some of those had mixed Christian-deist views) out of roughly 204 men (more on that later), you can get on to the truth about this emotionally-charged issue. Let's be generous and say there were 10 deists (double the confirmed number just to be safe)---mathematically that works out to be less than 5%. By the way, there were no atheists (or at least ostentatious atheists) among any of the founding fathers.
Now, how many "founding fathers" are there?
This is somewhat difficult to answer, because many of the men who were involved in the revolution, were also involved in the founding documents, and there are many who are involved in the revolution, but do not impact the future political landscape of the new America. I will consider anyone to be a "founding father" if they had substantial involvement in any of the following founding documents of our nation (this is usually an accepted standard for inclusion):
(1) Declaration of Independence (2) Articles of Confederation (3) US Constitution,
or they were involved in the first US Congress as Senators or Representatives.
If you count those who are involved in multiple documents as still just one founding father (the way it should be) then there are about 204 men in the camp of "founding father."
Here is the breakdown of the known religious affiliation of these men based upon the different groupings (some of the men we do not have any information about their religious affiliation):
(1) FOUNDING FATHERS (any of the 3 documents or a first US Congressman)
Some try to include George Washington in the list of deists (he did use deist language at times), but the jury is still out on our first president. Also James Madison and James Monroe are often labeled deist, as well as Alexander Hamilton (though less so) but this is based on very scant evidence, and their lives contradicted that identification in many ways.
The way the secularists use this small, handful of men and extrapolate that out to somehow be the overwhelming majority of the founding fathers, would be like saying that "the overwhelming majority of US Presidents have been assassinated." (There have only been four presidents assassinated). You see, that kind of mathematics doesn't work when people see an analogy they can get a grasp on (faith is hard to pin down, but assassination is a bit more concrete).
Once you accept that fact that there were about 4 confirmed deists (though even some of those had mixed Christian-deist views) out of roughly 204 men (more on that later), you can get on to the truth about this emotionally-charged issue. Let's be generous and say there were 10 deists (double the confirmed number just to be safe)---mathematically that works out to be less than 5%. By the way, there were no atheists (or at least ostentatious atheists) among any of the founding fathers.
Now, how many "founding fathers" are there?
This is somewhat difficult to answer, because many of the men who were involved in the revolution, were also involved in the founding documents, and there are many who are involved in the revolution, but do not impact the future political landscape of the new America. I will consider anyone to be a "founding father" if they had substantial involvement in any of the following founding documents of our nation (this is usually an accepted standard for inclusion):
(1) Declaration of Independence (2) Articles of Confederation (3) US Constitution,
or they were involved in the first US Congress as Senators or Representatives.
If you count those who are involved in multiple documents as still just one founding father (the way it should be) then there are about 204 men in the camp of "founding father."
Here is the breakdown of the known religious affiliation of these men based upon the different groupings (some of the men we do not have any information about their religious affiliation):
(1) FOUNDING FATHERS (any of the 3 documents or a first US Congressman)
NOTE: Deists from this era are usually labeled as Unitarians, and some deists maintained regular church attendance and never publicly denounced their denominational affiliation, and therefore were included within those denominations. Additionally, some of the founders changed denominations in their lifetime.
(2) SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
(3) PARTICIPANTS IN THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
(4) PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
Once the numbers are in black in white, this whole revisionist notion of America being founded by secularists, or primarily by deists, is not only a distortion, if it were a boxing match, then the contest was decided in the first round, and it wasn't even close.
I am not saying that 95% of the founding fathers walked around carrying a Bible everyday and that they went door to door sharing Jesus every weekend. Rather, I am saying that the contemporary notions that America's founders were generally secularists is factually incorrect, and destructive to a sound investigation into our history as a young nation.
When you finally consider that the deism of the late 18th and early 19th century had substantial Christian roots, the imaginary agnosticism and secularism of this amazing group of visionary men vanishes into the very thin air that those baseless charges must have originated from.
***Charts from http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
SUBMIT A CHALLENGE
Often when discussing different issues of theology, logic, and reasoning, someone will say, "I wish you would put what you just said in writing online, I could use it for such-and-such."
Since the primary objective of this blog is to demonstrate the validity of the Christian faith through sound reasoning involving logic, history, science, and Biblical discussion, I thought it would be wise to ask for future blog entry topics.
Maybe someone at work has asked you a "good question" that you didn't have a quick answer for, or a professor made some anti-Christian salvos in the middle of class and you would like some of your own logical-ammo to (lovingly) lob back towards the podium. Whatever the case, we all experience those moments that we wish we were better prepared to do as the apostle Peter encouraged: "Be ready to give a reasoned defense to everyone who asks you..."
We know that the answers are out there, we know that the evidence and the rational responses are available, but we can't seem to enumerate them as smoothly or as succinctly as we would like to be able to.
Use the comments section directly below to submit questions, problems, and challenges. We will do our best to find the resources, the reasoned responses, and the evidence you need. It is our goal to do this in a new blog entry for those questions we have time to answer.
This blog is here to help, and now, by submitting questions, you can help it help others. (Yes, we said help three times...we just wanted to see if anyone was paying attention)
Since the primary objective of this blog is to demonstrate the validity of the Christian faith through sound reasoning involving logic, history, science, and Biblical discussion, I thought it would be wise to ask for future blog entry topics.
Maybe someone at work has asked you a "good question" that you didn't have a quick answer for, or a professor made some anti-Christian salvos in the middle of class and you would like some of your own logical-ammo to (lovingly) lob back towards the podium. Whatever the case, we all experience those moments that we wish we were better prepared to do as the apostle Peter encouraged: "Be ready to give a reasoned defense to everyone who asks you..."
We know that the answers are out there, we know that the evidence and the rational responses are available, but we can't seem to enumerate them as smoothly or as succinctly as we would like to be able to.
Use the comments section directly below to submit questions, problems, and challenges. We will do our best to find the resources, the reasoned responses, and the evidence you need. It is our goal to do this in a new blog entry for those questions we have time to answer.
This blog is here to help, and now, by submitting questions, you can help it help others. (Yes, we said help three times...we just wanted to see if anyone was paying attention)
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Hypocrisy in High Places
As I was perusing blogosphere I ran across an interesting post on the TED site by a blogger who identified himself as a "militant atheist." Many aren't familiar with that term, but don't worry, we all will be very soon.
Atheism and it's offspring (strong/weak agnosticism/skepticism/rationalism) were content for centuries to merely be amused by the intellectually-inferior ramblings of people of faith. But something is changing. A new, almost evangelical breed of anti-dogmatism is becoming increasingly dogmatic.
When the doorbell rings, don't look for a Latter Day Saint, or even those who call themselves "Witnesses of Jehovah." Rather, look for the young and eager faces of a new army of proselytizers, from the most unlikely of camps. They now go by a variety of names, sometimes the really arrogant ones will favor Brights, or others Rationalists, some delineate themselves as the New Atheists.
This new movement is calling for the end of all things "religious or superstitious." Modern writers have even mockingly identified the leading spokesmen of the movement as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. This increasingly vocal group is trumpeted by Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins (author, The God Delusion), Sam Harris (author, Letter to a Christian Nation), Christopher Hitchens (author, God is Not Great--he, by the way, identifies himself an an anti-theist), and finally, Daniel Dennett, professor at Tufts University (author, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon).
Of course, atheism is hardly the new kid on the block. The ancient writer of the Psalms declared over three millennia ago, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" But the ideology has taken on a new boldness and a surprising intolerance, the type usually attributed only to "ignorant people of faith."
Recently Sam Harris has made an international call for the end of all religion, everywhere. He relegates any concept of God as only a primitive superstition, to be cast aside as a hindrance to the true progress of human evolution. Instead of the Biblical declaration that God created man in His image, Harris and his cohorts say that man created God in his own image. Dawkins calls the concept of God a "delusion."
Harris belittles Christians specifically in his indictment, Letter to a Christian Nation. He touts: "The fact that my continuous and public rejection of Christianity does not worry me in the least should suggest to you just how inadequate I think your reasons for being a Christian are." Wow.
Not to be outdone in his criticism of those who acknowledge an intelligence behind the complexities of the universe, Richard Dawkins makes this false conclusion: "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Astounding. What would the great scientific (and gasp! Christian) minds of the last few centuries make of such pronouncements?
Try to imagine Newton (considered the greatest scientist to have ever lived) listening to such drivel and not responding (though he did not like crowds or a big social fuss). Imagine the famous former atheist-turned born-again Christian and philosopher C.S. Lewis, if he were to encounter these types of intolerant and defamatory proclamations?
Most, if not all, of this new type of evangelical atheism are fundamentalists along certain tenets. Most are Darwinian evolutionists. Science (which really means just knowledge) is the new deity. Their Trinity is Darwin, Freud, and Hubble, or perhaps Russell. They worship at the altar of human potential; in their minds, the thought of a Creator being a tad bit too constricting for the type of freedoms they wish to indulge (as Aldous Huxley admitted). Their ultimate hope is the grave, their passion, self- and universal-awareness, and their newest vocation is to spread this Christ-less gospel to the ends of the earth.
I am a firm believer (gasp) in freedom OF religion. As the scripture says: "Let each one be fully persuaded in his own mind." Religion is really about philosophy, it is about worldview. Everyone is religious in that sense. Atheism is a religion, a worldview that seeks to understand all of life and the universe without an intelligent Creator. I am firmly ensconced in the mindset that people should be free to study and choose their belief system.
I sat on a plane several years back, next to a maritime businessman from the former Soviet Union. We were flying over the Ukraine within a short time after Perestroika (openness) had led to the collapse of Soviet Communism. Our conversation turned to philosophy and worldviews, and discovering that I was a Christian, he sadly lamented that he did not have the mental capability to even think about God. He said that he had been told how to think and what to think for so long, that even the idea of God was difficult to contemplate.
If the new atheists have their way, it would be the abolition of any concept of God. They have even advocated the removal of any faith concepts from education, to rewrite much of Western history to remove the contributions of men of faith, or to deny the faith of the founders altogether. Dawkins has even proposed that it may be tantamount to a crime to allow parents to pass on their faith to their children. He says that "(Sexual molestation of a child) is disgusting. But it may be less harmful in the long run than (Christian) subversion of child minds." Are we at a crossroads? Maybe.
The title of this blog has yet to bear fruit on these pages. Hypocrisy in high places? It is interesting that in the marketplace of ideas or ideologies, it would appear that equal rights and an equal voice should be given to all concepts....except for any that involve an intelligent designer or God, of course. These preachers of godlessness make fun of the concept of absolutes, and then, ironically, claim that there is absolutely no God. Or, in a strange twist, they decry the "god of the old testament" as evil and immoral because people died in various judgments, but then try to assert that there really is no absolute morality, and that evil doesn't really exist. They claim that there is absolutely no evidence for an intelligent Creator. In the name of being open-minded and intellectually honest, they make the most narrow-minded statements imaginable, such as verbalized by Carl Sagan: "The cosmos: all there is, ever was, or ever shall be."
They say that we should be tolerant of all ideas, yet they are completely intolerant of the concept of God or of simple trust in Him. They would mock a Christian who says that Jesus is the only way of salvation, by saying that atheism is the only hope for mankind. Perhaps hypocrisy is not strong enough of a term for this type of duplicity.
If you are reading this, and for whatever reasons, you are skeptical, or an atheist/agnostic, I would encourage you to actually read materials that present the evidence for the Bible and Christianity, instead of re-reading websites that only cater to the masses ready to be confirmed in their unbelief.
I would offer: A Challenge for Atheists and Skeptics as a good starting read (and a short one)
Or read Mere Christianity by former atheist, C.S. Lewis
Or The Case for Christ or The Case for a Creator, by former skeptic and newspaper journalist, Lee Strobel.
Do some reading on the website of Ravi Zacharias.
Read about the dramatic conversion of former skeptic Josh McDowell, especially described in the book, More Than a Carpenter.
Read about the scientific discoveries that have led many scientists to acknowledge God, such as Hoyle, Jastrow, Davies, O'Keefe, Greenstein, Kistiakowsky, Tipler, and others.
The scientific community is coming to the realization of a powerful Creator through branches as diverse as physics, biology, and cosmology. The wonders of DNA, the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion, and the fine-tuning of multitudes of chemical and physical constants has led to intellectual honesty of many to admit the necessity of God.
How about the rest of us?
Atheism and it's offspring (strong/weak agnosticism/skepticism/rationalism) were content for centuries to merely be amused by the intellectually-inferior ramblings of people of faith. But something is changing. A new, almost evangelical breed of anti-dogmatism is becoming increasingly dogmatic.
When the doorbell rings, don't look for a Latter Day Saint, or even those who call themselves "Witnesses of Jehovah." Rather, look for the young and eager faces of a new army of proselytizers, from the most unlikely of camps. They now go by a variety of names, sometimes the really arrogant ones will favor Brights, or others Rationalists, some delineate themselves as the New Atheists.
This new movement is calling for the end of all things "religious or superstitious." Modern writers have even mockingly identified the leading spokesmen of the movement as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. This increasingly vocal group is trumpeted by Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins (author, The God Delusion), Sam Harris (author, Letter to a Christian Nation), Christopher Hitchens (author, God is Not Great--he, by the way, identifies himself an an anti-theist), and finally, Daniel Dennett, professor at Tufts University (author, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon).
Of course, atheism is hardly the new kid on the block. The ancient writer of the Psalms declared over three millennia ago, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" But the ideology has taken on a new boldness and a surprising intolerance, the type usually attributed only to "ignorant people of faith."
Recently Sam Harris has made an international call for the end of all religion, everywhere. He relegates any concept of God as only a primitive superstition, to be cast aside as a hindrance to the true progress of human evolution. Instead of the Biblical declaration that God created man in His image, Harris and his cohorts say that man created God in his own image. Dawkins calls the concept of God a "delusion."
Harris belittles Christians specifically in his indictment, Letter to a Christian Nation. He touts: "The fact that my continuous and public rejection of Christianity does not worry me in the least should suggest to you just how inadequate I think your reasons for being a Christian are." Wow.
Not to be outdone in his criticism of those who acknowledge an intelligence behind the complexities of the universe, Richard Dawkins makes this false conclusion: "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Astounding. What would the great scientific (and gasp! Christian) minds of the last few centuries make of such pronouncements?
Try to imagine Newton (considered the greatest scientist to have ever lived) listening to such drivel and not responding (though he did not like crowds or a big social fuss). Imagine the famous former atheist-turned born-again Christian and philosopher C.S. Lewis, if he were to encounter these types of intolerant and defamatory proclamations?
Most, if not all, of this new type of evangelical atheism are fundamentalists along certain tenets. Most are Darwinian evolutionists. Science (which really means just knowledge) is the new deity. Their Trinity is Darwin, Freud, and Hubble, or perhaps Russell. They worship at the altar of human potential; in their minds, the thought of a Creator being a tad bit too constricting for the type of freedoms they wish to indulge (as Aldous Huxley admitted). Their ultimate hope is the grave, their passion, self- and universal-awareness, and their newest vocation is to spread this Christ-less gospel to the ends of the earth.
I am a firm believer (gasp) in freedom OF religion. As the scripture says: "Let each one be fully persuaded in his own mind." Religion is really about philosophy, it is about worldview. Everyone is religious in that sense. Atheism is a religion, a worldview that seeks to understand all of life and the universe without an intelligent Creator. I am firmly ensconced in the mindset that people should be free to study and choose their belief system.
I sat on a plane several years back, next to a maritime businessman from the former Soviet Union. We were flying over the Ukraine within a short time after Perestroika (openness) had led to the collapse of Soviet Communism. Our conversation turned to philosophy and worldviews, and discovering that I was a Christian, he sadly lamented that he did not have the mental capability to even think about God. He said that he had been told how to think and what to think for so long, that even the idea of God was difficult to contemplate.
If the new atheists have their way, it would be the abolition of any concept of God. They have even advocated the removal of any faith concepts from education, to rewrite much of Western history to remove the contributions of men of faith, or to deny the faith of the founders altogether. Dawkins has even proposed that it may be tantamount to a crime to allow parents to pass on their faith to their children. He says that "(Sexual molestation of a child) is disgusting. But it may be less harmful in the long run than (Christian) subversion of child minds." Are we at a crossroads? Maybe.
The title of this blog has yet to bear fruit on these pages. Hypocrisy in high places? It is interesting that in the marketplace of ideas or ideologies, it would appear that equal rights and an equal voice should be given to all concepts....except for any that involve an intelligent designer or God, of course. These preachers of godlessness make fun of the concept of absolutes, and then, ironically, claim that there is absolutely no God. Or, in a strange twist, they decry the "god of the old testament" as evil and immoral because people died in various judgments, but then try to assert that there really is no absolute morality, and that evil doesn't really exist. They claim that there is absolutely no evidence for an intelligent Creator. In the name of being open-minded and intellectually honest, they make the most narrow-minded statements imaginable, such as verbalized by Carl Sagan: "The cosmos: all there is, ever was, or ever shall be."
They say that we should be tolerant of all ideas, yet they are completely intolerant of the concept of God or of simple trust in Him. They would mock a Christian who says that Jesus is the only way of salvation, by saying that atheism is the only hope for mankind. Perhaps hypocrisy is not strong enough of a term for this type of duplicity.
If you are reading this, and for whatever reasons, you are skeptical, or an atheist/agnostic, I would encourage you to actually read materials that present the evidence for the Bible and Christianity, instead of re-reading websites that only cater to the masses ready to be confirmed in their unbelief.
I would offer: A Challenge for Atheists and Skeptics as a good starting read (and a short one)
Or read Mere Christianity by former atheist, C.S. Lewis
Or The Case for Christ or The Case for a Creator, by former skeptic and newspaper journalist, Lee Strobel.
Do some reading on the website of Ravi Zacharias.
Read about the dramatic conversion of former skeptic Josh McDowell, especially described in the book, More Than a Carpenter.
Read about the scientific discoveries that have led many scientists to acknowledge God, such as Hoyle, Jastrow, Davies, O'Keefe, Greenstein, Kistiakowsky, Tipler, and others.
The scientific community is coming to the realization of a powerful Creator through branches as diverse as physics, biology, and cosmology. The wonders of DNA, the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion, and the fine-tuning of multitudes of chemical and physical constants has led to intellectual honesty of many to admit the necessity of God.
How about the rest of us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)