From: starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: proof
Date: 12 Dec 1992 03:49:20 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu
Keywords: Jesus,Proof

In article <casivils.724130930@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:

>Yes, I am a Christian, Yes I have a brain, Yes, I ask questions.  

First of all, I'd like to encourage everyone else around here to join me
in complimenting craig on refraining from the various flailing emotionalisms
that we usually get from would-be proselytizers around here.  Thank you,
Craig... it's nice to see the intelligent believer is alive and well.

>Ok, my 30 words =>
>
>An empty grave, It would take take even more faith not to beleive, Historical
>Accuracy of the bible, Completeness of the Spiritual model given in the bible,
>personal experiances, Answers.

>An empty grave
Grave robbing.  Palestine at the time was a sufficiently fractious place
that it wouldn't be too hard to bribe or distract the guards... if the
guards bothered to show up at all.  Grunewald has a very beautiful painting
of the resurrection in which the guards are sleeping... the latter half
is entirely possible.  We have enough stories of corruption of American
guards at the embassy in Moscow to readily believe corruption or laxity
of some kind on the part of whatever guards were placed on Jesus of Nazareth's
tomb.  (I mention guards only because a Christian claimed to me there were
such.  For myself, I can't recall having any reliable or even Biblical sources
to the effect...)

>It would take even more faith not to believe
How so?  Clearly it's possible for an individual to have a series of
experiences, visions, whatever, that make his belief take rather little faith
in the face of what is, for him, overwhelming evidence that his particular
God exists.  But I don't see any reason this would be true for people in
general... particularly people from predominantly non-Christian regions.
(India?  China?)

>Historical accuracy of the Bible
In general, the places where we can verify the accuracy of the Bible are
places where the events referred to are purely mundane.  For example,
the simple existence of someone claiming to be the Messiah, and known
as Jesus of Nazareth, is not evidence that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son
of God! ... there have been, after all, hundreds of false Messiahs in
Jewish history.

The place where the historical accuracy of the Bible (that the events it
describes occurred) would actually be evidence for its theological accuracy
(that the God it describes exists) would be where miracles are described...
walking on water, manna from heaven, etc.   There is one very good test
case:  the solar eclipse that allegedly occured at Jesus of Nazreth's
crucifixion.  Since the man was crucified during Passover -- which, on the
Jewish lunar calendar, is always around the full moon -- this is impossible
by normal physics --    solar eclipse requires the moon be between the
earth and sun, or in new moon position.  So let's take this as our test
of Biblical truth -- after all, the existence of an honest-to-God (excuse
the pun) miracle is pretty good evidence for God, no?

Funny, though... you would expect -- or, at least, I would expect -- that
if a solar eclipse occurred over Jerusalem at the instant of a man's
crucifixion, that everyone would take it as an inarguable omen of some kind.
Those who were familiar with the crucifixion would undoubtedly convert on
the spot to Jesus-followers; those who didn't know about it would probably
still do something suitably apocalyptic.  Remember that in this period
many Jews expected the imminent arrival of the Messiah.  One way or another,
you would expect mass hysteria in Jerusalem, for a few hours at least.
Even more so when you couple the eclipse with an earthquake, no?

And yet, we have no record, not even in the Bible itself, of any great
public disturbance in Jerusalem on that day.  The records of the Roman
administrators are not referred to as documenting riots or eclipses or
whatever.  The Romans were reasonably superstitious themselves, and yet
this supposed total eclipse plus simultaneous earthquake doesn't get a
single mention in Roman documents of the period.  

So I don't know about you, but for myself, I have little credence in
the historical accuracy of the Bible as it pertains to the miraculous.
And if it's only reliably accurate about mundane things... well, so what?
You can say the same for religious documents of the Sumerians or
Assyrians, for example.

>Completeness of the spiritual model given in the Bible
The same can be said about models of other religions.  Take Hinduism.  Or
Buddhism.  Or Islam.  Or Judaism.  Etc.  In fact, if by 'spiritual' you
mean 'fulfilling certain psychological needs', plenty of non-religious
philosophies can do that as well.  

>Personal experiences
The human mind has demonstrated extraordinary capabilities of self-deception,
particularly under moments of great stress (fasting, dying, intense anguish,
etc.).  Further, because God in most religions is explicitly given as the
ultimate answer for everything, it's easy for ANY experience to be interpreted
as demonstrating the existence or will of God.  Acid test:  give me an
experience, I'll give you an interpretation that makes it a demonstration
of the influence of a benevolent God.  ANY experience.  I guarantee my
explanation to be at least as plausible as those often given by religions
to experiences that seem to deny the existence of a benevolent God.

So, the fact that you can, by virute of indoctrination and/or psychological
need, render your experiences into evidences of God and in fact perhaps
induce yourself to have hallucinations to that effect is not compelling
evidence for the existence of God.

Good 'personal experience' evidence for God's existence would be for someone
not suffering great psychological need or pro-religious indoctrination to
experience recurring events which point to a _specific_ religion's truth...
and even that could be questioned.  But I rather doubt most people not
brought up or exposed to a particular religion experience visions that 
point to it.

Or, to put it another way, if Christianity is true, why is it that no Hindus
or Buddhists or Jews or Muslims have visions of Jesus of Nazareth on the
cross, or acquire stigmata, or.. or... 

>Answers
As with the question on 'completeness of the model', this is solved by plenty
of other religions.  Heck, I can solve it without a religion.  Give me
a question, I'll give you an answer.  I'll even give you a good answer.  I'm
willing to bet that if you gave my way of thinking as much serious time as
you've given Christianity, you'll find my answers equally plausible. 
("Such a deal!")

So in recap:  graves are explicable, historical accuracy is either nonexistent
or satisifed by other religions/philosophies, the amount of faith required
not to believe depends on how much you buy into the other reasons here, 
spiritual completeness is provided by other religions/philosophies, personal
experiences are not only dubious but notoriously subject to interpretation,
and answers you can get anywhere if you spend enough serious time on your
chosen source of answers.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Daniel Starr                | "Wait! Wait! Maybe THIS will work!" |
|dstarr@minerva.cis.yale.edu |                                     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism