Historical Evidence, a Hidden God, and the Witness of the Spirit: Christian, What is the Basis of Your Faith?

This post is a further reflection on the debates that ensued from my claim that Jesus was a historical person.

I have made the point, contrary to the Christian claim, that if God revealed himself in the historical past then he chose a poor medium and a poor era to do so. Historical studies are fraught with all kinds of difficulties when it comes to what happened in the past. History does not give up its truths easily. What we have are glimpses and hunches and guesses about a great majority of questions concerning what happened in the past, along with how we can best understand the writings of the past. This is quite evident in what has transpired when it comes to whether Jesus was a historical person who was a failed apocalyptic prophet behind the myths surrounding him. This is obvious to me.

It is NOT the case then, that God has confirmed his revelation in the past. Even if God did so to the people in the past, this confirmation does nothing for us living in the present. We do not know what to believe even about the most fundamental question for the Christian set of beliefs, i.e., whether or not a historical person named Jesus even existed in the first place. I think he did. But I could be wrong, as I said.

I claim it's patently false to say that if someone comes to a different conclusion he is motivated by some sort of desire to reject God. Historians dispute the conclusions of other historians on a host of mundane questions which have nothing to do with the desire to reject God. They just want to know what probably happened, that's all. And since this is the case about mundane questions, it provides strong evidence that it's also the case when it comes to whether or not Jesus existed. Historians who disagree on this question merely disagree, and that's all there is to it.

Furthermore, if we can reasonably doubt this fundamental non-miraculous question about the existence of Jesus (which it is) then how much more so will we have doubts about the claims of the miraculous in the past. We dispute the miraculous claims of the present, so how much more is it the case that we doubt the miraculous claims of the past. God has not confirmed to people living in today's world his revelation in the past, period. As an omniscient God he should know better. Is he stupid, or what?

How does the Christian reconcile his or her claim that God is omniscient with the fact that God was stupid with regard to confirming his revelation in the past? I know my answer.

One Christian answer is that I have made an unreasonable demand upon God. That “God doesn’t do what I want.”

In one sense this is true, but I’d rephrase it differently, I’d say God doesn't do what is needed for people like me to believe. The past is irretrievable for the most part. Believers seek merely to confirm what they were raised to believe, including the Mormons, and Muslims. But I need sufficient reasons and sufficient evidence in today's world to believe. This is who God supposedly created me to be as an intelligent human being. I am a person who needs sufficient reasons and evidence to believe.

So, in order to satisfy the demands I have for reasons and evidence as a thinking person, God should’ve met my so-called “demands.” In the first place, either God should've created humans with a greater intelligence to better figure out the mysteries of the faith, like why there is intensive evil if he exists, or how Jesus could be 100% God and 100% man without anything leftover, or how Jesus' death actually atones for our sins....OR he could've explained these mysteries in a "mother of all philosophical papers."

Short of doing that he should've given us sufficient present-day evidence to believe. The location of Lot’s wife who was turned into a pillar of salt, would still be miraculously preserved and known by scientific testing to have traces of female DNA in it. There would be non-controversial evidence that the Israelites lived as slaves in Egypt for four hundred years, conclusive evidence that they wandered in the wilderness for forty years, and convincing evidence that they conquered the land of Canaan exactly as the Bible depicts. But there is none. I could go on and on, but you get the point.

So I don't think this is an unreasonable request at all.

Another Christian response is that God hides himself…he’s a hidden God. Well, if so, he’s doing a great job of this given the numbers of people who are not Christians.

But why should I believe in a God who hides himself in the bushes, so to speak, and then who will punish us if we don't find him? And how does he expect us to find him if he’s hiding from us. If he fails to show us his true love and we reject him because of the presence of the massive amount of suffering in the world, then we have merely rejected a caricature of him and not the real God. How can he be upset with us for this?

One last Christian answer to this problem is that God reveals himself, not through the historical evidence, but through the “inner witness of the Holy Spirit. I’ve recently dealt with this answer here, here, and here. But let me summarize what I’ve said and offer a dilemma for the Christian.

What propositional content does this inner witness provide the Christian with?...that Jesus was born of a virgin as a historical person living in the 1st century AD? William Lane Craig claims Christians do not need any other evidence but the inner witness of the Spirit, and that it's rational to believe even if the evidence is against it. Convenient, eh, especially when the Mormons claim the same thing with regard to their faith.

The best that Alvin Plantinga can say is that IF Christianity is true THEN it's rational to believe. But how does he make the case that Christianity is true? He doesn't even attempt this as far as I can see. Craig does, of course, but his actual case doesn't hold up to the evidence (a subject for another time). But to show Christianity to be true requires dealing with the historical evidence, for no one can come to the conclusion that Jesus was born of a virgin via philosophical argument. This then, is the problem for such an argument. At least that's what I think.

Again, the best that Plantinga can show us is that IF Christianity is true THEN it's rational to believe. But what if his arguments concerning the proper basicality of the God-hypothesis were found to be circular, uninteresting and trivial, or false? Then what? Would you as a Christian still maintain your faith? Does your faith now depend upon his arguments or not? If so, then you believe based upon an argument after all! If not, then what basis do you have for believing?

3 comments:

eheffa said...

Good post John.

We are apparently supposed to accept the premise that the Creator God of the known universe: the master of nuclear level precision, the creator of the Cosmos is somehow unable to communicate his story and message of salvation clearly without ambiguities & contradictions. Why would this be? - unless it's indicative of the fact that these writings are not inspired by God after all.

The documentation to establish Jesus' existence is so remarkably poor, there is good reason to doubt that he even existed, let alone said & did all that is described in the Gospels. To think that God is going to punish anyone who doubts the veracity of these writings is an amazing assertion. What kind of despot would demand this kind of dishonest sycophantic response from his children?

It truly is unbelievable.

-evan

Harry H. McCall said...

When a Christian tried to use nature to prove the existence of God by pointing to a flower remarking; “Sinful man could not have made that!” I responded by pointing to a car with its complex computer controlled engine and automatic transmission and replied; “God could NOT have made that!”

If the Catholics had their Index of Forbidden Books, your book would be at the top!

Truth sure does hurt and to all the Christians bad mouthing John's book, all I can say is "Kicked Dogs Holloo"!

Jerry said...

Oh boy....the path u are taking is what i have taken before...for many years i believe an intelligent person does not and cannot believe in religion becos it defies rational and logical thinking. Now I am a christian becos i dun believe in supertitions...got it? for many yrs of my life i challenged religions wif my intellectual theories and using probabilities as my strongest tools....and in the end, now i realise, i find it hard to believe christianity is true and its harder to believe its false:-)