The other day I started thinking about what would have happened if I had stopped looking critically at Christianity after reading those articles that first made me question the Bible’s legitimacy. What if I had turned from them and decided to never look at anything else that might cause me to doubt my faith? If I had, I’m sure I’d still be a Christian today.
But would that really be good enough? Obviously, the things my faith were built upon weren’t solid enough to withstand scrutiny. So if I had maintained faith only by refusing to investigate my reasons, would that kind of faith be pleasing to God? I think that’s a question believers should consider. If that level of faith is good enough, we’re essentially saying, “oh, if only you hadn’t taken your faith so seriously!” But that seems crazy.
The alternative is that my faith might have been good enough until the day I ran across things that made me doubt. At that point, the only way to remain pleasing to God would be to investigate the claims and come out the other side with a stronger faith. Of course, that’s not how it worked out for me. If God’s real and Christianity’s true, then I think this view makes the most sense. However, it causes problems for those Christians who have refused to look at any evidence that might call their beliefs into question. I’ve had several tell me that they won’t read anything an atheist has written, or don’t want me to point out the passages that I found problematic because they don’t want to lose their faith. How does that make sense? If their faith is worth keeping — if it’s true — then further investigation should only support their beliefs, not call them into question.
I’m not trying to pick on Christians here, we can all be guilty of this from time to time. It’s essentially an extreme case of confirmation bias — one in which we realize we’re being biased and we even think of it as a good thing. In fact, it’s extremely dangerous, and if we feel ourselves thinking along those lines, it should be a red flag. What’s wrong with our current position if we have to hide from information in order to keep it?
And in the end, I’m glad I didn’t stop looking. The journey out wasn’t easy, but I feel like things make so much more sense with my current worldview. Even if I’m still wrong, I’m closer to the truth than I was before, because I’ve learned new information and corrected some past misunderstandings. That can only be a good thing.
Finding Truth 
Hey Arch-
I’m sorry! I totally overlooked them! I’m not by a computer anymore tonight (typing on my phone). I’ll get back to you tomorrow. Apologies!
LikeLike
“The disciples of rabbis were expected to memorise their master’s teaching, and importance was attached to preserving the exact words.” – Yet interestingly, scribes often couldn’t copy biblical text correctly, when the text to be copied was directly in front of them. There are over 5000 different copies of the New Testament alone, and that doesn’t include the OT, but the oral memorization was perfect!
“Surely, just as you expect christians to accept evolution because the vast majority of scientists tell us it is true, you should accept that mythicism is not true because the even vaster majority of ancient historians reject it?” – You’re saying, with a straight face, that vastly more ancient historians reject mythicism than scientists who accept evolution?
LikeLike
No problem – it seemed like you were dodging them, and that just didn’t seem like you!
LikeLike
Thanks for the info, unkleE.
I appreciate the kind words at the beginning of your statement here. And in many ways, I can see why you would feel this way from my comments. At the same time, I’m not sure it’s completely fair. Either that, or I haven’t been very clear.
First, I don’t think the proper response would be for me to just accept that mythicism isn’t true just because that’s what the majority of scholars say. I don’t even think Christians should accept evolution on those grounds. What people should do, in my opinion, is accept that they don’t know enough to make a complete judgment. I don’t expect Christians to wholly accept evolution — I just think they should accept that mainstream science views evolution as true, and they should be willing to learn about it, not fight its being taught in the classroom. When it comes to mythicism, I can accept that mainstream scholarship rejects it, and I can accept that it may not be true. I’m open to learning as much as possible about the subject and would be happy to read (and have read) from sources that hold to the historicity of Jesus. However, I’m not going to completely write off another explanation when I don’t know enough to do that. I think that would be the wrong approach.
When it comes to oral tradition, this is actually something that I have looked into a bit more. So I wasn’t voicing skepticism unnecessarily — I’m sorry if it seemed like I was. I’m also sorry if it seemed like I was accusing you of making something up. I was really just saying that I’m skeptical of the claim, not you, and I wondered what resources you were aware of that supported it. As I said, I’m familiar with the evidence we have for the memorization employed by rabbis. I also know that we don’t have evidence showing that kind of formal training going on in Christian circles, especially early on. Perhaps it was happening informally — I don’t know.
But I think the wide variance of Christian beliefs early on indicate that this is unlikely. The four gospels in today’s Bible are fairly similar in their depictions of Jesus, though we know that 2 of them were based on Mark. But other gospels have surfaced that show very different views of Jesus. And we know that there were many divergent schools of thought on who he was, what he represented, and what people should do about it. To me, this doesn’t indicate that the oral versions of these stories were being carefully circulated and kept free of embellishment and alteration.
I’ll try to spend more time on this topic soon, because it’s something I’m interested in — I just haven’t found the time yet to dig into it sufficiently. So thanks for these sources; I’ll definitely check them out. I may have more to say once I’ve spent some more time on the subject, but I at least wanted to try to clarify my positions (and the reasoning behind them) before moving on.
Thanks
LikeLike
Hi Josh,
No, I’m afraid this doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I’m not quite sure what you’re saying…
I agree that I might be convinced of something based on evidence that someone else may not be convinced by. That happens all the time — we all have different thresholds for what we need to be convinced of something. If you believe the gospels, even Jesus’ disciples were that way (Thomas).
But you followed that up with this:
I don’t think that follows at all. If Christianity is true, then this thing God wants us to understand is the most important bit of information ever. We’re not just trying to convince someone that they should buy one type of car over another — while making the wrong choice there can be expensive and painful, it’s nothing compared to missing out on salvation, right? I mean, is that a statement you’d agree with? I’m not sure what you think “salvation” means, so maybe you don’t think it’s that big of a deal if people miss out on it. I always assumed it was the hugest deal imaginable, and that’s why it’s clear to me that a truly loving God would go to any length to make sure everyone understood exactly who he is and exactly what he wants.
I mean, most Christians believe he pulled out all the stops and offered his own son as the ultimate sacrifice for sin. Most Christians would say that is a very big deal.
So wouldn’t he pull out all the stops to let everyone know? What good is that wonderful sacrifice if people don’t think it actually happened? And how can you judge that someone’s rejecting something that they don’t actually believe in?
LikeLike
Hi Nan,
“your “arguments” always go back to what the “historians,” the “scholars,” the “apologists” say. At times it makes me wonder if you have any thoughts of your own “
I’m glad you made this comment, because hopefully I can clear something up. I think I have said it before but it mustn’t have been very memorable. Here is how I approach things here:
1. I think it is important to distinguish between things that are facts (things that are well supported by objective evidence, not necessarily certain, but highly probable) and other things that are opinion (things for which there is less clear evidence and on which we may legitimately differ).
2. It is important to understand the facts before we form opinions, and to change our opinions if our understanding of the facts changes.
3. In complex matters (e.g. science, history, medicine), it is unlikely that non-experts have enough knowledge to make a reasonable judgment on what are the facts. We need to take notice of the experts, who interact with each other at conferences and in peer reviewed literature. We may reasonably disagree with experts on many things, but if a strong or overwhelming consensus exists on certain facts, non-experts have little alternative but to accept the consensus.
4. Once we have determined the facts, we are then free to draw conclusions from those facts and discuss with others. In fact, discussion before the facts are agreed on rarely goes anywhere because there is no shared basis.
5. Therefore, in forums like this, I generally avoid giving my opinions (except when asked) until after the broad facts are agreed on. The problem is, the non-believers on this forum seem very reluctant to accept the overwhelming consensus of experts on the facts (despite claiming to be evidence-driven), so there is little point in expressing opinions.
6. To re-iterate, almost 100% (probably more than 99%, seriously) of NT and ancient history scholars accept that the historical evidence demonstrates that Jesus really lived and died in first century Palestine. Bart Ehrman and many others (including classical historians) all agree on this. He and the late Maurice Casey wrote books to this effect. Unless we have their proficiency in several ancient languages, access to the documents and a good understanding developed over years of study, we can’t really contest this enormous consensus (unless we don’t want to be evidence-based). The mythicists have very few genuine historians among their ranks, and even less that have extensive experience and hold chairs at reputable universities. You and others may not like this, but these are the facts.
7. Further, though not so easy to establish exactly, very few historians I have read contest the basic facts that Sanders outlined. He is one the most respected of all NT historians, and he has summed up what most of them conclude (these facts are “almost beyond dispute”).
8. So very little I write here is my own opinion, I’m still trying to get agreement that we accept the facts as determined by the experts (which I am always happy to support with references). If that happens, then we can move onto opinions, But until that happens, others reading this discussion can see that there are some here who don’t accept the evidence. Again, I’m sorry to be so blunt, but I see no alternative.
I would be very interested to see which of these points you and others here agree with.
“How can Sanders consider these to be “facts” that Jesus existed when the bible is still in dispute by many as being an actual and historical record of events?”
I will say again, the experts don’t divide sources into those that are “an actual and historical record of events” and those that are not, This is far too binary! But they have found the gospels to contain good historical material, from which they draw their conclusions. They differ in their assessment of much of that material, but they all draw the same broad conclusion.
This reply is long enough so I’ll stop there. Thanks.
LikeLike
“You’re saying, with a straight face, that vastly more ancient historians reject mythicism than scientists who accept evolution?”
Arch, I meant what I said and I had good reason to say it.
I have seen lists of scientists who reject evolution, and in the US alone they number in the hundreds. This source claims 840. Wikipedia claims 87% support for evolution by natural selection, and 97% believe in evolutionary change over time (but presumably not necessarily including natural selection). The same article references other studies that show 5% of scientists believe in creationism. But of course, these numbers may include scientists in non-relevant fields. And the data is very US centric.
Wikipedia also says only 700 out of 480,000 earth and life scientists (= 0.146%) in the US support creationism.
So we can conclude somewhere between 0.15% and 13% of scientists don’t accept evolution, with the number of scientists working in the field likely to be at the low percentage end. (Note that I accept evolution.)
In contrast, I have heard that there are about 10,000 ancient history and NT scholars working in the field, and as far as I know, only about 5 are mythicists, and Bart Ehrman claims there are none with positions at reputable universities. Thus the percentages range from 0 to 0.05% who are mythicists.
Thus, however you cut the cake, it appears reasonable to conclude that the percentage of historians with relevant expertise who believe Jesus existed is greater than the percentage of scientists with relevant expertise who accept evolution. But whatever the actual percentages, the consensus in both fields is enormous.
Like I said to Nan and Nate, are you willing to accept this overwhelming consensus of experts, or are you not?
LikeLike
Hi Nate, it seems I missed a tag close somewhere. Sorry. Are you able to do the necessaries to make that last post more readable please?
LikeLike
Not without researching it personally, no, as without such research, I don’t know that such a consensus exists – and this is something that at the moment, I simply haven’t time to do.
LikeLike
Particularly regarding a matter so trivial.
LikeLike
Hey Arch-
I’m gonna try to hit both of your comments in one comment. With regards to differing accounts of events, or even copying of accounts from one telling to another telling, I guess that doesn’t to me. Whether they followed Jesus on Saturday or Sunday, or whether Jesus found them or they saw him, I don’t really care that much. On the copying of accounts, I can’t really speak to that since I don’t know much about it. There’s been an incredible amount of review on this thread about whether, and how much of, the accounts of Jesus’ life can be considered historical. I’m not as well read as unkleE, but what I’ve read leans me more toward his side of the camp than the other.
That, I think, leads a bit into the other comment of why wouldn’t God make himself more readily accessible. My honest response is I really don’t know. However, I can say that he certainly seems to take the road less traveled when it comes to indisputable reveals. He was born to a poor couple in a stranger’s barn. He died a pretty average criminal death. His teaching and miracles caused some to believe and some to want him dead. Even those who did believe based on his miracles denied knowing him and ran away when he was captured. In the Hebrew Bible, God is often choosing second-born scoundrels over first-born, “rightful” heirs. God seems to take a much more subtle approach than many in scripture expect of him. God chooses to just not act the way we want him to, or think a “good God” should.
I think some of the difficulty in this conversation comes from what Nate was pointing out – that I don’t think I view God throwing people into hell for not having enough information, which is the way hell is characterized in these discussions quite often. I do, however, acknowledge that it seems clear that, for many different reasons, some people will not believe or choose to reject God as he is revealed in scripture. I’m not necessarily okay with that, but that seems to be the case. I was trying to point out, in my conversation with Nate and Howie, that I thought they’d agree that there *might* be circumstances in which, even if they believed Jesus is who he said he was, that some people will not believe or reject him. I either didn’t communicate that very well, or they disagree. I’m not sure how much more I have to say on that point, either. I can’t really think of a different way to communicate it, and that they disagree is fine.
LikeLike
Good morning Josh. It’s perfectly ok with me to disagree as well because you know how to do it gracefully, and I really hope I do too, but maybe I fail. I have not one ounce of judgment for any of the beliefs you hold. It looks to me like you come to them through honest process of thinking. When I express my views it’s in the hope of somehow being understood, but I’m no pollyanna so I also know that will often not happen.
I think what I was saying yesterday is not that simple, because not all Christians believe hell exists, some are universalists, some believe in post-mortem conversions (like Robert Farrar Capon), etc., etc., etc. My line of reasoning was more what I think a lot of Christians believe, and what I think the bible seems to suggest (although it looks like it suggests different things sometimes which causes even more confusion in these discussions).
So let me ask you this then. A lot of us non-theists here are well informed about the gospel message, although to differing degrees of education on all the issues involved. However, I’d say we are all a lot more well informed on it than every other religion that exists. So we are very aware of the message. But we say that we doubt it’s veracity. (again, I’m not saying that I judge you for disagreeing, just expressing my own doubts). So would you say that deep down we actually do realize that the god of the Christian worldview exists?
LikeLike
Hey Howie-
First, thanks for the complement. I’m certain I am not always gracious, but I certainly appreciate that you feel that way. You, and pretty much everyone here, are always pleasant to speak with, though I know we often disagree. Thank you.
No. I wouldn’t say that. I don’t know if I’d even say that deep down I truly realize the Christian god exists. I am persuaded, though…most of the time. And, to be clear, the vast majority of my persuasion comes from what I’ve talked about in terms of observations of myself and others, and trying to work out where there might be any hope for us. That plus, as I’ve mentioned before, despite the numerous doubts and problems I run into almost daily, my faith and hope remains. Only a small amount of my persuasion comes from the arguments and evidence. The more I’ve read of Capon, and those who think similarly, the less I am believing that being “right” is important. I think Capon is right that the Gospels and other NT texts are often confusing and contradictory. However, the thread of grace, that the work is finished and has been finished since before time began, is really the only Good News I see. It is an announcement. It is not a new contract on top of, or in place of, the old. It is news that it’s done. For everyone. How will that play out for everyone, especially those who don’t “know” about God or Jesus? I really don’t know. I just know that the hope that I have is in a God who would not turn on those who find their hope for the reconciliation of this crazy world in him. If God exists, and I’m wrong and he is not like that? Well, then I’ll probably end up in the flames with the rest of you! 😉
Part of what I’m trying to work out when I ask questions and make statements here is where that line of evidence ends and faith begins. I know that the evidence doesn’t lead all the way. But, I’m often not sure how far the evidence does go. Maybe it really doesn’t go very far at all. Even that would be okay with me. I am aware of enough of what I hope for now that, even if all historical texts were compromised in every possible way, I would still hope that the grace and mercy I believe in for everyone is true. And, as I do now, I would (very, very imperfectly) try to live out that grace and mercy toward others the best that I can.
LikeLike
Josh, I’m gonna exercise my right to ramble and sound like a broken record. My own view is that the evidence that I am aware of doesn’t lead me very far to conclude much about ultimate questions. So I focus on the practical – like teaching my kids not to stick their hands in fire, and not to worry about things that are unknown (like an afterlife). Does this give me enough to live life – maybe. Are there times I want more – yes. Are there times I don’t – yes.
When I read that Capon book I liked the overall idea (and hence I like a lot of what you believe). A God who simply wants us to accept the gift of forgiveness and nothing more – I’d accept it welcomingly and thankfully. I’m not perfect either. But “like” doesn’t get me to feeling I can claim to others that I believe it is real, and that they should believe it as well. The overall picture makes me doubt, but as I’ve said before the overall picture isn’t always easy to prove – I don’t want to sound like Kathy did claiming certainty that she knew she had the overall picture correct.
And a lot of what you write here (especially the last paragraph) is really very beautiful, and I think may be the source of why Nate and others try to tell you they think you’re a good guy. Yes, I know that you do bad things. I’m sure you’ve done some things that would make some cringe on this blog. I grew up in a poor urban area and had friends in gangs so I know what we are all capable of. But your warm and caring desires and values bleed onto the blog page when you write, so I think that’s part of why we react the way we do when you talk about the bad guy that you are.
LikeLike
I just know how much I fall short a lot of the time, Howie. I can echo Paul unconditionally that I seem to have two opposing natures fighting within me. And, that I often do things I don’t want to do, and fail to do things I want to do. Maybe that is just the way we are. Maybe there’s more to it. Can’t say I know one way or the other.
LikeLike
“On the copying of accounts, I can’t really speak to that since I don’t know much about it.” – You can correct that shortfall in an afternoon, Josh (assuming you can tear yourself away from PlayStation) – just take two bibles, open one to Mark, the other to Matthew, and read them side by side. All biblical scholars I’m aware of agree that Mark was written first. Don’t listen to me, draw your own conclusions.
LikeLike
“…trying to work out where there might be any hope for us” – I believe that that hope lies within us, people like you and me, who can have differences and sit down and talk about them civilly. And if we walk away, still holding the same beliefs – so what? It’s all good!
LikeLike
“I seem to have two opposing natures fighting within me.” – We all do, Josh.
Imagine the bell curve, with our good side on the right, our dark side on the left – I think you’ll fine that most of our actions take place in the middle. While you ARE unique, Josh, you’re unique just like everyone else —
LikeLike
“You can correct that shortfall in an afternoon, Josh (assuming you can tear yourself away from PlayStation) ”
Not sure I can pull myself away long enough, Arch 😉
LikeLike
Your not alone Josh, I’m glad I’m not the only one who is goes through this
LikeLike
Force yourself!
LikeLike
Hariod Brawn, RE:
“I believe it to be so that many have their religious faith sustained by the emotional solace that is derived from it.”
Would you also accept that that “emotional solace” might simply be relief of anxieties, knowing that someone powerful is in charge, whose main motivation is protecting us?
“I think if we are of a character type disposed to faith per se, then it is not so easy as to switch it off by virtue of reason.”
Consider the possibility that we came by it naturally:
LikeLike
Nate, RE: “I feel like I know Brandon and unkleE well enough by now to trust that they’re not being disingenuous.” – Then clearly, you don’t know Brandon, if he’s not being disingenuous this time, that’s once in a row!
LikeLike
“May the path you choose eventually be superstition free.” – You RULE, Ark! (while I’m on vacation –)
LikeLike
“God is by definition totally beyond us in power and knowledge” – The lengths to which the human mind will go to avoid cognitive dissonance, never ceases to amaze me. At first, the Bible’s god was located in the “heavens” – somewhere up in the sky. Since we’ve gone to the moon, he has moved to somewhere beyond space and time, and according to some, “totally beyond us.” By definition? By my definition, he lives between our ears, and once we evict him, he ceases to be. Has anyone seen Zeus lately?
LikeLike