A Priori Naturalism, A Priori Inerrantism, and the Bible
Christian apologists often complain about New Testament critics who bring an a priori rejection of the supernatural to their studies of the New Testament. The underlying rationale, I take it, is that such a presupposition will determine a non-supernatural historical reconstruction of Jesus before they even begin their historical investigations. But if the historical Jesus turns out to be the miracle-working, resurrected Son of God that conservative Christians take him to be, such an assumption will lead them to construct a historically inaccurate conception of Jesus.
I agree with them in this regard: one shouldn't assume what can or can't be true on empirical matters before one even begins one's investigations. Although it's probably unavoidable that we bring assumptions about reality to all of our empirical inquiries, we should hold them tentatively, and allow them to be altered in light of our findings.
Of course, this assumes that supernatural events, if they occur, are capable of empricial detection, but I grant that they are detectable, at least in principle (I say this as someone who has read his Hume).
I also agree with them that there are some NT critics who do reject the supernatural a priori (e.g., the members of the Jesus Seminar, Gerd Ludemann, etc.). Having said that, however, I'd like to make three points with respect to naturalism, a priori commitments, and NT studies.
First, many New Testament critics do not assume that supernatural events do not or cannot occur; rather, they have principled reasons for thinking that, even if they do occur, the evidence for such events is never sufficient to establish their occurence. There are two ways to construe the 'never' here: never in practice and never in principle (both construals go back, of course, to Hume's famous essay "Of Miracles" in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding). Now one may disagree with their arguments on these matters (I tend to think that Hume's "in principle" argument is too strong, although I think his "in practice" argument has considerable force), but that's not the point. Rather, the point is that apologists too often attack straw men here, viz., by attributing to NT scholars a metaphysical basis for their conclusions, when in fact they're often based on epistemological considerations.
Second, although some NT critics do base their non-conservative conclusions about Jesus in particular or the New Testament in general on an a priori rejection of the supernatural, they need not do so. In fact, many don't. Indeed, there are plenty of NT scholars who are also serious Christians, yet who nonetheless reject the doctrine of inerrancy, based on their research.[1] In other words, non-conservative views of Jesus and/or the New Testament are supportable merely from applying ordinary historical methodology. For example, one can see how the geneologies and pre-birth narratives in Matthew and Luke contradict both each other and established historical fact in order to make theological points. The same goes with John versus the synoptic gospels on the day and time of Jesus' crucifixion: John changes it in order to fit his theological theme of Jesus as the Passover "Lamb of God" (I know that inerrantists argue against these discrepancies. I have no desire to argue with them in vain. I merely ask them to read a sufficiently representative sampling of NT scholarship outside of their conservative circles). Also, once one does their source-critical homework, they can see how, e.g., Matthew and Luke modified the portrait of Jesus they inherited from Mark and Q, and how John went even further. Thus, a non-conservative account of Jesus in particular and the New Testament in general often results from ordinary, non-controversial use of source criticism, redaction criticism, and the criteria of authenticity -- it need not be based on an a priori rejection of the supernatural.
Finally, if some NT critics are guilty of an a priori commitment to naturalism, many conservative NT scholars are guilty of an a priori commitment to inerrancy. Yet many apologists don't seem to mind when the latter determines the conclusions of conservative NT scholars. This leads one to question the sincerity of apologists in their criticisms of a priori commitments creeping into NT scholarship. For again, the basis of their criticism appears to be that such a priori commitments are liable to result in an inaccurate historical reconstruction of Jesus, should the person of Jesus turn out to be in conflict with those commitments. But if that is the basis of their criticism, then they should be equally diligent in their criticisms of conservative scholars who have an a priori commitment to inerrancy -- and to a conservative view of Jesus in particular and the New Testament in general. In other words, the potential danger here is not naturalistic a priori commitments, but a priori commitments per se.
But it's hard to deny that there is an a priori commitment to inerrancy among the majority of conservative NT scholars. For one thing, many of them work at conservative seminaries, where one must subscribe to and even sign extremely conservative doctrinal statments in order to obtain and keep one's job. Such scholars can't let an admission of errancy through the door, no matter what the relevant data should turn out to be, and no matter how convoluted and implausible the stories may be that are required to reconcile a given set of biblical texts.[2] Thus, it's a bit odd to hear apologists complain about a priori committments determining one's portrait of Jesus, when their own a priori commitments often determine, or significantly influence, their own portrait of Jesus.
To sum up: Christian apologists have a point worth hearing when they criticize certain NT critics for bringing an a priori commitment to naturalism to their studies. For one should let the empirical data about Jesus and the NT materials speak for themselves, lest one's conclusions be determined from the get-go, quite possibly distorting the data in the process. However, the apologists have failed to see that the point about a priori assumptions is a perfectly general one, and can't be limited to naturalism. And this entails that conservative NT scholars need to abandon a priori assumptions about inerrancy and orthodoxy when they come to their study of the empirical data, lest they, likewise, allow their assumptions to determine their conclusions from the get-go, quite possibly distorting the data along the way. The lesson is that all sides of the debate should hold their theoretical commitments tentatively, not forcing the pieces of evidence to fit within them when the fit is unnatural. Rather, one's assumptions should be malleable, and even disposable, thereby allowing the data to speak to us clearly, unmuffled.
-----------------------
[1] Examples include Raymond Brown, Dale Allison, James D.G. Dunn, John Meier, and Luke Timothy Johnson.
[2] For many examples of such reconciling stories, see, e.g., Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Norman Geisler's When Critics Ask, and Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. I leave it to the reader to decide whether these reconciliations are more plausible than not (more plausible, that is, to someone who doesn't already accept inerrancy).
I agree with them in this regard: one shouldn't assume what can or can't be true on empirical matters before one even begins one's investigations. Although it's probably unavoidable that we bring assumptions about reality to all of our empirical inquiries, we should hold them tentatively, and allow them to be altered in light of our findings.
Of course, this assumes that supernatural events, if they occur, are capable of empricial detection, but I grant that they are detectable, at least in principle (I say this as someone who has read his Hume).
I also agree with them that there are some NT critics who do reject the supernatural a priori (e.g., the members of the Jesus Seminar, Gerd Ludemann, etc.). Having said that, however, I'd like to make three points with respect to naturalism, a priori commitments, and NT studies.
First, many New Testament critics do not assume that supernatural events do not or cannot occur; rather, they have principled reasons for thinking that, even if they do occur, the evidence for such events is never sufficient to establish their occurence. There are two ways to construe the 'never' here: never in practice and never in principle (both construals go back, of course, to Hume's famous essay "Of Miracles" in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding). Now one may disagree with their arguments on these matters (I tend to think that Hume's "in principle" argument is too strong, although I think his "in practice" argument has considerable force), but that's not the point. Rather, the point is that apologists too often attack straw men here, viz., by attributing to NT scholars a metaphysical basis for their conclusions, when in fact they're often based on epistemological considerations.
Second, although some NT critics do base their non-conservative conclusions about Jesus in particular or the New Testament in general on an a priori rejection of the supernatural, they need not do so. In fact, many don't. Indeed, there are plenty of NT scholars who are also serious Christians, yet who nonetheless reject the doctrine of inerrancy, based on their research.[1] In other words, non-conservative views of Jesus and/or the New Testament are supportable merely from applying ordinary historical methodology. For example, one can see how the geneologies and pre-birth narratives in Matthew and Luke contradict both each other and established historical fact in order to make theological points. The same goes with John versus the synoptic gospels on the day and time of Jesus' crucifixion: John changes it in order to fit his theological theme of Jesus as the Passover "Lamb of God" (I know that inerrantists argue against these discrepancies. I have no desire to argue with them in vain. I merely ask them to read a sufficiently representative sampling of NT scholarship outside of their conservative circles). Also, once one does their source-critical homework, they can see how, e.g., Matthew and Luke modified the portrait of Jesus they inherited from Mark and Q, and how John went even further. Thus, a non-conservative account of Jesus in particular and the New Testament in general often results from ordinary, non-controversial use of source criticism, redaction criticism, and the criteria of authenticity -- it need not be based on an a priori rejection of the supernatural.
Finally, if some NT critics are guilty of an a priori commitment to naturalism, many conservative NT scholars are guilty of an a priori commitment to inerrancy. Yet many apologists don't seem to mind when the latter determines the conclusions of conservative NT scholars. This leads one to question the sincerity of apologists in their criticisms of a priori commitments creeping into NT scholarship. For again, the basis of their criticism appears to be that such a priori commitments are liable to result in an inaccurate historical reconstruction of Jesus, should the person of Jesus turn out to be in conflict with those commitments. But if that is the basis of their criticism, then they should be equally diligent in their criticisms of conservative scholars who have an a priori commitment to inerrancy -- and to a conservative view of Jesus in particular and the New Testament in general. In other words, the potential danger here is not naturalistic a priori commitments, but a priori commitments per se.
But it's hard to deny that there is an a priori commitment to inerrancy among the majority of conservative NT scholars. For one thing, many of them work at conservative seminaries, where one must subscribe to and even sign extremely conservative doctrinal statments in order to obtain and keep one's job. Such scholars can't let an admission of errancy through the door, no matter what the relevant data should turn out to be, and no matter how convoluted and implausible the stories may be that are required to reconcile a given set of biblical texts.[2] Thus, it's a bit odd to hear apologists complain about a priori committments determining one's portrait of Jesus, when their own a priori commitments often determine, or significantly influence, their own portrait of Jesus.
To sum up: Christian apologists have a point worth hearing when they criticize certain NT critics for bringing an a priori commitment to naturalism to their studies. For one should let the empirical data about Jesus and the NT materials speak for themselves, lest one's conclusions be determined from the get-go, quite possibly distorting the data in the process. However, the apologists have failed to see that the point about a priori assumptions is a perfectly general one, and can't be limited to naturalism. And this entails that conservative NT scholars need to abandon a priori assumptions about inerrancy and orthodoxy when they come to their study of the empirical data, lest they, likewise, allow their assumptions to determine their conclusions from the get-go, quite possibly distorting the data along the way. The lesson is that all sides of the debate should hold their theoretical commitments tentatively, not forcing the pieces of evidence to fit within them when the fit is unnatural. Rather, one's assumptions should be malleable, and even disposable, thereby allowing the data to speak to us clearly, unmuffled.
-----------------------
[1] Examples include Raymond Brown, Dale Allison, James D.G. Dunn, John Meier, and Luke Timothy Johnson.
[2] For many examples of such reconciling stories, see, e.g., Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Norman Geisler's When Critics Ask, and Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. I leave it to the reader to decide whether these reconciliations are more plausible than not (more plausible, that is, to someone who doesn't already accept inerrancy).
46 comments:
Excellent post. I like your blog as well. Very clear and rigorous entries.
Plantinga said: "we need Christian science". Maybe we could split history into 2 categories; "Christian history", and "naturalistic history"?
I wonder, how do we distinguish between fact and legend, if we accept that any is possible? I guess if an old text mention something about a flying horse, we shouldn't dismiss the story? I don't understand how we can make sense of the past if it doesn't correspond to what we know and observe today.
kiwi, I'm not sure you're directing this comment to me or not, since we just got finished in another round about whether there was a person named Jesus who existed. But surely you recognize the difference between a text claiming a horse took flight and one claiming a miracle worker made a horse take flight. You do, don't you? Surely we can both reject the claim that a horses can be made to fly, but that by itself has nothing to do with whether or not there was a miracle worker of whom it was said that he made a horse to fly.
No it's not directed at you, John. I don't know why you think that.
My point is (and it's not related to whether Jesus existed or not): if we accept the supernatural, on what basis can we dismiss stories of a horse flying? Maybe in the story, a God, or another magical invisible entity, had a good reason to make that horse flies.
It seems to me that any discipline, or in any situation of life, we never, never accept the supernatural as an explanation. If you are accused of murder, what will the judge think if you claim you saw Satan killed a man? What will your mother say if you claim a fairy ate all the cookies in the cookie jar?
I don't think it's having a bias against the supernatural to look at history from a naturalistic perspective; that's what we do in every discipline or in any situation of life. And the reason to me seems obvious: if we accept the supernatural, anything goes. Every absurd claim is possible.
It's sad how often people assume I hold my views because I teach at Denver Seminary. I completed and submitted the manuscript for Historical Reliability of the Gospels, which, if you would read it, you would discover intentionally does NOT presuppose inerrancy, before I got the job at Denver. I stay here not because I haven't read tons of non-inerrantist or non-evangelical literature (believe me I've read hundreds of such works and still do, and if you read my footnotes you'd already know that also) but because I understand the range of acceptable definitions of inerrancy to be in sync with my beliefs. I share your frustration for shoddy apologetics and for the double standard some conservatives have, grasping at any straw that would support their views but holding opponents to a much more rigorous standard. There's been way too much of that on both sides over the years. Indeed, I was all set to cheer your whole post, until I was mentioned at the end with your inaccurate, demeaning remark about a book it's clear you haven't carefully read. What was the point of that? Or do you really have your a prioris against us after all?
if we accept the supernatural, on what basis can we dismiss stories of a horse flying?
On the basis of the fact that, even if there are any flying horses, such a phenomena is extremely rare. Vastly less rare are lying, hallucinations, fraud, and misperceptions.
Even a supernaturalist should require very good evidence before being convinced a supernatural event occurred.
It seems to me that any discipline, or in any situation of life, we never, never accept the supernatural as an explanation.
Nonsense. There are all sorts of hypothetical scenarios where only a fool would reject a supernatural explanation.
If, for example, the second coming of Jesus actually happened tomorrow afternoon (implausible as I find that scenario).
Or, for that matter, if what happened to Harry Potter in JK Rowling's novels occurred to one of us we'd be hard pressed to give a naturalistic explanation which didn't make us seem like utter morons.
Of course, we don't actually encounter anything of the sort---most likely because the supernatural is imaginary nonsense.
But to say there are no imaginable circumstances where supernaturalism would not be the most reasonable explanation betrays either a lack of imagination or a dogmatism comparable to that of our fundamentalist pals who visit here now and then.
What about Bart Ehrman's argument that the miraculous is always the least likely explaination (from the historical perspective) because at best it is extremely rare?
How can anyone reasonably think that it's more realistic to accept that a rotting corpse was reanimated or that Mohammed flew off to heaven on a horse than to think people were telling Please-Let-It-Be-So stories or lying? There is nothing im my experience to confirm that miracles occur (and I grew up in a family that "saw" miracles every day). Miracles would have to show up with some regularity today to estimate that they are more likely than the mundane explainations. These thinkers that want us to believe that ancient historical miracles are not just possible but decidedly real need to give some linkage to present experience.
To gage the believability of the miraculous in history just think about your reaction to the miracle stories in "foreign" religions.
David,
"Of course, we don't actually encounter anything of the sort."
That's... the point. We never encounter anything of the sort. That's why in any discipline, or in any situation of life, we never, never accept the supernatural as an explanation.
If in a courtroom, a lawyer would present 4 minimal "facts" and he would try to convince the judge that the best explanation is that it's not his client but Satan who killed the man, the judge would laugh at him. Why should it be different when Craig, Habermas and Licona present their 4 "facts" to "prove" the resurrection?
"But to say there are no imaginable circumstances where supernaturalism would not be the most reasonable explanation (...)"
I've never said that.
exapologist and others,
It is clear that what you mean by 'a priori' is rather indicative of "maintaining a bias" or "having presuppositions".
Though the term can colloquially be used in this way, allow me to disabuse you, and everyone else of the term in this context.
It is true that there are unjustified and obstructing presuppositions in intellectual debates, especially about matters such as these.
However, to those of us who think that naturalism is true a priori [1], and it is impossible to marshal any evidence for or against any proposition and not have it be ultimately naturalistic--after all, if by 'evidence' we mean that which furnishes proof a posteriori--then how can any evidence not be in space and/or time? As such, appeals to a sensus divinitatis can evince supernaturalism as much as looking at my hand could [2].
On that note, for the record, if Muhammad really did fly up into the sky, or if a man really did reanimate after being dead for three days [3], or even if the parousia occurred--such phenomena, though we would say they are incredibly bizarre, we should not count them as 'supernatural' by a long shot.
On such a criteria--namely that 'supernatural' means 'really, really weird'--phenomena in quantum mechanics would count as supernatural.
David B. Ellis' is one such criteria. He says:
"...if what happened to Harry Potter in JK Rowling's novels occurred to one of us we'd be hard pressed to give a naturalistic explanation which didn't make us seem like utter morons."
I'd be hard pressed to saya fortiori, upon witnessing such an event, that "there are no necessary truths! no laws! all is contingent!" [4] It would be infinitely more moronic to posit a supernaturalistic explanation for such phenomena. Do you really think that, if we saw people riding on broomsticks, that we would concede that their trajectory could not be calculated with relativity theory? Or, that gravity was not acting on any of the particles that composed the witch? This is an amazing concession; a huge argumentum ad ignorantium and one borne of a poverty of explanation.
Philosopher John Searle puts it succintly in his book Mind, Language and Society:
"For us, if it should turn out that God exists, that would have to be a fact of nature like any other. To the four basic forces in the universe--gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces--we would add a fifth, the divine force. Or more likely, we would see the other forces as forms of the divine force. But it would still be all physics, albeit divine physics. If the supernatural existed, it too would have to be natural."
Clearly, we should not have unjustified biases for or against some position. Agreed. However, if the truth of an ontology is simply unavoidable to a rational being, it would be irrational a priori not to accept it as a necessary prerequisite for the veracity of any proposition or propositions.
David says:
"But to say there are no imaginable circumstances where supernaturalism would not be the most reasonable explanation betrays either a lack of imagination or a dogmatism comparable to that of our fundamentalist pals who visit here now and then."
I do maintain that: "there are no imaginable circumstances where supernaturalism would an explanation." Am I really being dogmatic if I think that, if supernaturalism is true, then the law of identity (A=A) is contingently true [4]?
It is one thing to be charitable and fair, exapologist, but not so much that we effectively render inert or neuter any argument we could possibly put forward in defense of naturalism.
--------------
[1] Cf. Fullmer, G. (1977) "The C0ncept of The Suprnatural" inter alia for such an argument.
[2] Such an argument (sadly, very ignored and potentially powerful contra theism) can be found in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and "Of A Particular Providence and of A Future State"--the essay following Hume's essay "Of Miracles" in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
[3] Read: "1 1/2 days", pace Mt 12:40; Mk 8:31, etc.
[4] n.b. that this is as contradictory as saying "there is no truth"; i.e. "there exists an x such not-x".
Dr. Blomberg, thanks for your comment.
I cannot speak for exapologist or anyone else. All I can say is that when my livelihood no longer depended on any earnings from a Bible College or church ministry I was freed to think through issues without that pressure.
I do not doubt you've read the relevant literature and that you believe as you do because you think there are reasons for doing so.
You think we have an anti-supernatural predispositon, and you're correct. You have a supernatual predispositon. So the most important question of all is which predisposition is the better, more informed one, with better evidence for it?
I summarize the arguments for adopting my skeptical predisposition here.
BTW, have you taken the DC challenge? It's part of The Outsider Test for Faith argued for in my book.
Cheers, and come back often.
Hi Craig,
Sorry about the misunderstanding, but I think you've misread me here. I referenced your work and others in the footnote as examples of texts that discuss reconciling scenarios, not as examples of authors who do so out of a desire to keep up appearances for their institution.
Institutional pressures can play a role in sustaining a commitment to inerrancy, and that this can lead to accepting the reconciling scenarios. But an author of such scenarios need not himself be one of the people under the influence of such pressures. So I think we're in agreement here, as far as I can see.
But I must say that I've read (and re-read, and outlined) your The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, as well as chapters you've written in other apologetics texts (e.g., your stuff in Craig's 1994 edition of Reasonable Faith, and your stuff in Jesus Under Fire). I used them as the basis for evangelistic discussions when I was a believer. In fact, I plan on posting a series on these texts in later posts, and I would be delighted if I could show them to you first before posting them, to make sure I'm accurately representing your views and arguments.
Best,
EA
Also, about this:
I completed and submitted the manuscript for Historical Reliability of the Gospels, which, if you would read it, you would discover intentionally does NOT presuppose inerrancy, before I got the job at Denver.
Yes, but I never said that that book presupposed inerrancy. I know that you discuss there the standard tools of (e.g.) source criticism, redaction criticism and the criteria of authenticity in that book, and that you argue that, when you strip away the inessential and illegitimate assumptions, etc. associated with those tools, they can be used to make a decent case for the reliability of the NT.
However, you do have a chapter in that text where you discuss prima facie contradicitons and other worrisome passages in the synoptics, and offer reconciling scenarios and explanations. And this is the chapter I had in mind.
Sincerely,
EA
Hi Kiwi,
Thanks for the kind words.
About historical research and miracles: it seems to me that it's possible in principle to think that a miracle has occurred. So, for example, suppose you had some really good arguments for theism. Then you have a reason for thinking God exists, in which case it might be reasonable to leave open the possibility that God might want to intervene in history to communicate with his creatures. And if an act of history was best explained in terms of direct divine action, then it might well be reasonable to think a miracle has occurred in history.
How can one differentiate real miracles from fake cases? Well, it depends on the case. If the other candidate miracle cases don't best explain the data, then one can reject their authenticity.
I say that all this seems possible in principle, anyway.
But what if a historian doesn't have good arguments for God, and belief in God isn't properly basic for him/her? Then it's going to be a lot harder for that historian to properly infer a miracle -- maybe it'll be impossible in practice. Thus, the rationality of inferring miracles may well depend on one's background evidence.
Christian apologetics are right to point fingers to apriori naturalism because they lose their job if they don't. If you don't believe in supernaturalism your read the myth or the original sin, see for what it is and use the rest of the Bible as toilet paper. Which is cheap and they want you to buy their 500 page books of convoluted reasoning that start from "god is love" to prove in the end that "love is god".
Naturalism is an epistemological stance that one takes usually after carefull examination. Christian appologetics claim we should dismiss it when we talk about their god. But if they want us to let go of our epistemological premises they should provide an alternative. Since their alternative is contradictory to other alternative before trying to prove us why their supernatural invisible friend is true they should point why the other supernatural invisible friends are false.
As I've said naturalism is an epistemological premise. D'Souza said one time that their is no epistemological difference between believing your hand exists and believing that your hand doesn't exist. This is supposed to be a challenge for naturalism. OK, I would like to see a christian putting his hand in the fire and show no sign of pain. After all, we, atheistic naturalists risc an eternity of hell-fire for disbelieving supernaturalism. Why aren't they willing to risc their hands for disbelieving naturalism? Because they are actually naturalists that like to intelectually jurk off.
Everybody christian apologist goes to sleep believing the sun will shine tomorrow, wake up in the morning believing they have a job they have to go to but once you ask him to doubt they'll live happily for eternity they start doubting that their own mother exists.
Do you really think that, if we saw people riding on broomsticks, that we would concede that their trajectory could not be calculated with relativity theory? Or, that gravity was not acting on any of the particles that composed the witch? This is an amazing concession; a huge argumentum ad ignorantium and one borne of a poverty of explanation.
You are making the mistake of equating naturalistic with scientific (the same mistake I recently encountered in another blog while discussing the definition of science fiction and whether CS Lewis's OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET should be called christian science fiction (the term I think most appropriate) or fantasy (what he wanted to call it).
The supernatural/magical things of the sort described in Harry Potter books existed they could be investigated and explored by science just as much as anything else that produces empirically observable effects can.
When I speak of the supernatural I am referring to a dualistic metaphysical theory common to many supernaturalists. One in which there is believed to be both a physical world operating, ultimately, according to the laws of physics and a second reality, usually conceived of being one of pure mind or spirit in which mind can exist (as in souls), act (as in magic, telekinesis, etc) and gather knowledge (as in telepathy, precognition, divination) independently of any physical basis. And, of course, the two forms of reality, according to supernaturalists, can interact (which is usually their explanation for the mind/body problem, as well as why they think miracles can occur, etc).
Of course, if magic existed the way its described in Harry Potter it would have observable effects which could be scientifically studied---even though its ultimate basis lay not in physics, but in the supernaturalists hypothesized second for of reality---the realm of spirit as opposed to that of matter.
Am I really being dogmatic if I think that, if supernaturalism is true, then the law of identity (A=A) is contingently true [4]?
If supernaturalism, as described above, was true it would in no way entail that the truths of logic are contingent. The very idea is absurd.
The supernatural can also be conceived of and explained in terms of a monistic, rather than dualist metaphysical theory (like that of some forms of idealism). But for the sake of discussion I don't think it's necessary to go into both. Whichever metaphysical theory was true, if the supernatural existed, it would still be subject to scientific investigation so long as we were able to make empirical observations about it (as we could, hypothetically speaking, if Harry Potter and the "wizarding world" revealed their existence to us Muggles).
Miracles are possible in the same way that gods are possible. So what?
Where's the evidence?
What theological interpretations of past 'miraculous' events are more than speculative, improbable, just so concoctions?
Let's theologically speculate about this topic: Would it be a more or less effective communication from God(s) if the golgotha 'miracle' were the only one instead of being linked to hundreds of others (i.e. talking donkeys, descending, avenger horses, demons thrown into pigs, etc.)?
Regarding the original post, the argument that a bias to inerrancy exists in the work of most Christian apologists is dependent on the notion that these apologists argue in a circle. To wit, “The Bible says it is the Word of God, so the Bible is the Word of God, because the Bible says it is the Word of God.”
Many Christian apologists do not argue in a circle. They provide a linear argument from the basic reliability of history, to the basic reliability of the gospels, to the miraculous life and authoritative teaching of Jesus, to the teachings of Jesus on the Bible’s inerrancy. If a Christian apologist does not argue in a circle, then your concern with a bias toward inerrancy is not valid in that it does not directly impact the arguments given.
I sometimes assume inerrancy when I approach some possible conflicts between biblical passages in my personal life. I do this based on the evidence given through linear argumentation of the type mentioned above. At the end of a sound bunch of evidence and reasoning, this is a valid working assumption.
When I was in college, I assumed Isaac Newton’s equations were accurate when evaluating the results of my introductory physics lab. experiments. If my conclusions from the data I took were very far of the mark, I fell back on the overwhelming past evidence for Newtonian Mechanics and looked for an error in my experimental method or calculations. (It was usually measurement error. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.) Since Newton’s equations were established through experiments and arguments other than the ones I was conducting, back-checking my results against his established constants was warranted.
As a layman and not a professional historian, I read and evaluate the arguments of professionals like Dr. Blomberg (commenting above) when the issues become difficult. I also read books by Erdman and others to get the ‘other side.’ In that sense, I do not assume inerrancy because I do look at differing opinions.
Christians are as capable of non-biased thinking as anyone else. We are not perfect at it, but we do try.
To exapologist:
I'd love to hear your story of how you moved from where you were to where you are. I was raised in a very liberal Lutheran church and it was my academic study of the Scriptures that played a big part in moving me to evangelicalism! Thanks for clarifying that the three books you mentioned at the end of your original post were not examples of what you were lamenting in the post; I think you can understand why many readers might have misunderstood that. You still don't respond to my question as to why you felt you had to call them entertaining, just-so stories. I'm not bothered in the least by someone saying my work is unconvincing; my follow up question then is, OK, tell me why and let's talk about those reasons. But an allusion to Rudyard Kipling fiction doesn't seem to reflect the desire for genuine dialogue.
To John W. Loftus. Thanks for your kind response. It all depends on what you mean by supernaturalism. If being a supernaturalist means beginning with an a priori that there must be a God or must be some transcendent force or power that periodically works what are generally called miracles, then no I have never started my research or philosophical reflection from that point of view. Quite honestly, I often reflect on atheism and try to rethink why I hold to what I hold and if it seems to me to still hold up (pun semi-intended!). I've had invitations over the years to teach at schools that would not require a confession of faith so it's not that I fear I'd be out of work. If, on the other hand, by supernaturalist you mean one who does not rethink the basis for my beliefs on a daily basis and hence comes to each new exegetical inquiry generally believing that miracles might happen, then that's a fair description. But I'm always open to being persuaded by new evidence or reasoning that I haven't worked through before that would change my beliefs.
To several writers who refer, with or without mentioning him, to Douglas Hume's famous argument from the age of the so-called Scientific Enlightenment that the evidence against miracles will always be greater than that for it, why should that be true? Hume has been debunked repeatedly over the centuries. His logic would have required people in the tropics in his world to have denied the existence of ice and, perhaps more seriously, his approach would require us to deny that free human agents could ever create something brand new. (See the philosophical literature if these compact arguments' summaries don't make sense.)
Let's make it more personal. I'd be curious as to what readers would recommend to me to do when, as has happened on four different occasions in my life, a relative or close friend who I have personally observe suffer with a prolonged, diagnosed, serious, physical, life-threatening ailment has prayed and/or had others with him or her pray to Christ for healing and in an unscientifically short period of time that doctors have admitted they have no explanation for (specifically, in two cases, instantaneously, in one after a night's sleep, and in the other, after 24 hours and a medical checkup), have had all symptoms and traces of the ailment vanish and have lived for years (in three of the four cases the people are still living) without any recurrence whatsoever. I suppose you could argue it's some kind of unknown "mind over matter" that science has yet to be able to explain, but does that require any less faith than that God exists and occasionally chooses to work supernaturally? And while I have no doubt that there have been plenty of charlatans and faked miracles over the years, when I also encounter numerous friends who have demonstrated over time to be people of honesty and integrity who tell me very similar accounts, who themselves have not benefited by them, who have not advertised them on TV (!), who have in fact at times been skeptics themselves prior to such experiences, and I notice a pattern of "miracles," shouldn't Hume's criteria actually lead to me to accept a supernaturalist rather than an anti-supernaturalist hypothesis?
You seem to be an honest Christian scholar, Craig. My kudos to you. I need to take a good look at what you've written.
Are you disputing R. Bultmann's claim that presuppositionless exegesis is impossible?
I think you meant to say "David Hume." It's an honest mistake given the nature of blog writing on the fly.
With regard to these so-called miracles go, my response is simple. I wasn't there. If I was and I knew the people involved, or if such things can be documented by unbiased people, or if a natural explanation can be completely ruled out, then I would probably accept them as miracles too. The problem is, I wasn't there. Such claims aren't documented by unbiased people, and a natural explanation cannot be ruled out. Even as a Christian for over twenty years I never saw an event that could be thought of as a miracle. Besides, if God is unhappy with me arguing as I do, and leading others astray (supposing he exists and that I am), then he knows how to get my attention quite easily. I think he would want to do that, wouldn't you?
Is it a pattern of miracles, or simply an indication that sometimes ailment vanishes? I don't think it requires faith to think that the body has the capacity to fight ailments, even serious ones.
I have never read "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels", but I have read Geisler's "When Skeptics ask", and it fits exactly the exapologist's description.
Dr. Bloomberg,
Thank you for poking your head in and commenting. Your calm and rational thoughts are refreshing to read and reminds me that not all Christians are blind followers who never question their beliefs seriously. I think many who read and post at this blog have been very discouraged concerning the treatment that we got while we were Christians when we started to have honest doubts and questions about our faith. The vast majority of Christians that I run into feel as if it is a sin to question the essentials of the faith and that is a disturbing thing.
You make me want to re-read some of my Bloomberg books :)
Of course, miracles could, maybe, might, possibly occur. But do they?
If one really thinks that spontaneous remissions are reserved for one's particular theology I think it could be empirically tested. Of course, what we get in experience is the same claims from a broad spectrum of religion and no one backing it up with research. And you never hear a believer say, 'We prayed for these three and they got better and we prayed for these 6,029 and they just got worse'.
Again, in the historical context, why should anyone beleive that it is most likely that demons fly into pigs, humans shoot up out of the stratosphere, gods inflict nation-states with hemorrhiods, donkeys talk or corpses reanimate?
The disconnect between life as we experience it and the claims made by evangelicals is very wide indeed.
@Graig Blomberg,
you said "Let's make it more personal. I'd be curious as to what readers would recommend to me to do when, as has happened on four different occasions in my life, .... have had all symptoms and traces of the ailment vanish and have lived for years"
Satan cured your friends and fooled you to believe you are worthy of God's attention. You are thus guilty of pride (Satan's favourite sin) and I'll see you in Hell. :)
On a more serious note... Prometheus was a god that brought a gift for ALL mankind while your god has gifts for few (apriori selected?). Mankind must learn to reject the gifts of gods if they are not for everyone. Your god doesn't offer those gifts to those that are born in other parts of the world and he didn't even lift a finger to stop the Inquisition. You tell me what to think of your 4 friends that got miraculously cured while you spoke god's name? I ask you what do you think of thousands that died miraculously in agonising pain while tortured by others speaking god's name? Do you think your friends songs of joy are louder than the despair of thousands?
I'm guilty of wrath (anger). I'm sick of this fake christian humility. It's everywhere. You believe you'll get to heaven but are not satisfied with that, you pray to live good in this life too. Why don't you just be satisfied with heaven and pray for other to live well during this life. And please do get back to me when your prayers stop a tsunami.
PS: What do you think of these 5 kids?
Let's make it more personal. I'd be curious as to what readers would recommend to me to do when ... than that God exists and occasionally chooses to work supernaturally?
But then you have the alternative examples - for example, there have been a few stories over the years of people who, upon the advice of faith healers etc, withdrew their child's insulin medication for diabetes treatment. They replaced this with prayer. Of course, the children all got sick and died. Some of the parents in question then prayed for their child to be resurrected. Of course, this didn't happen.
Large scale, well-controlled studies, such as those by the Mayo clinic, also show absolutely zero effect of prayer on patient health. While many people have anecdotes regarding the miraculous effects of prayer, I agree with John's take that it's hard to conclude much simply based on stories peole tell. Obviously, when it comes to the crunch and a serious scientific study is conducted, or the likelihood of recovery is so small as to be nonexistent (eg in the diabetes case) that any recovery would have to be a miracle, the effectiveness of prayer is nowhere to be seen.
There are bible verses that, to a layman such as myself at least, appear to support the idea that Christians can pray and expect to receive what they ask for (eg Matthew 21 where Jesus states:
21And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen.
22"And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."
Of course, this sets the bar pretty high, and suggests that Christians can essentially wish for just about anything to happen and it will. Clearly, to any sensible person, the world does not operate along these lines.
Then when you start to factor in the thousand and one people who have claimed to have contact with God, to have been able to perform miracles (eg Sai Baba has a vast following who say he's done all sorts of things) and the people who have claimed to be God in our lifetime alone, never mind totalled up through history, pretty much all of which are dismissed as nonsense/lies/embellishments by atheists and Christians alike, I really fail to see how anyone can put much stock in the idea of the miraculous.
To me (and this is obviously just my personal opinion), because of all these sorts of problems, I don't see obvious reason why people would go a step beyond and single out one particular 'brand' of miracles as the only true ones, while discarding almost all the other claims of a similar nature, especially in the face of some of the objections Exapologist has raised against the reliability of the gospels such as Jesus' failed prophecy, and theologically motivated embellishments apparent in the text such as the shift in the timing of Jesus' crucifixion in John's gospel.
Well, let's see the questions are coming fast and furious from all over :)
To John W. Loftus: No, I'm not disputing Bultmann's claim. I'm disputing that presuppositions have to be so controlling that people can't change them if evidence moves them to. Yes, of course, I meant David Hume, sorry about that! I had just finished e-mailing a former student, Douglas Holm! Will God get your attention with a miracle (or in some other way)? It's quite possible; he's done it often enough. But Christ also said to Thomas, "You believe because you have seen? Blessed are those who have not seen and also believe." God gives us amazing freedom to go our own way at times.
To Kiwi: I hope you get a chance to look at it. I'd like to think it's considerably more sophisticated than Geisler's book!
To Jeff Lord. Just one o in my last name should you want to look it up in amazon or wherever. Yes, I'm discouraged and frustrated by that phenomenon too. No one should ever malign an honest questioner. We've created a polarized "culture-wars" society these days that is a far cry from my formative years in the 1960s when people could have vigorous but friendly discussions over religion in many circles and not sling mud. (But then we did it in politics, too; virtually every political ad that is run on TV these days would literally have been illegal.) But times have changed, alas.
To several people: I'm not surprised that you deflected attention from my question to the whole, much larger question about unanswered prayer or the problem of evil or the salvation of those who have never heard the gospel or. . . All those are good questions and I'd be delighted to discuss them, too, but before I write a whole book on one blog, which is not my purpose, let me explain why I asked the question the way I did: Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, however unlikely someone may think it is, that there is a God who actually has his purposes behind answering some prayers the way people asked for things and not others, preventing some evil things and not others, etc., then we at least have an answer for why some apparent miracles take place. But my question was how does one explain the repeated co-inciding of prayer, often corporate, sometimes accompanied by the laying on of hands or the anointing with oil, and unexplained instantaneous or nearly instantaneous healing in, say, even 5% of the instances in which it is tried (the number John Wimber, founder of the Vineyard, gave for his "success rate")? On the presumption of atheism, what is a credible explanation of such phenomena? And then an interesting follow-up question would be if personal first-hand experience of such isn't sufficient to suggest the existence of a God, would a higher percentage of success rate do the trick or not, and why or why not? And if it would, how high would that percentage have to be?
To exapologist: I accept and appreciate your apology very much. It's rare when my Google Alerts allow me to drop in on skeptics' blogsites who "malign" me that anyone does anything except keep on attacking. So I truly am grateful. I wrote one chapter surveying the historical Jesus quests (chapter 10) in my Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1997) and I wrote a review of Ehrman's Jesus book on our Denver Journal on-line journal of book reviews (still retrievable at www.denverseminary.edu) after it came out back in 1999 or 2000. I've also read all the other authors you cite. The failed prophecy view goes back to P. Schmiedel in the 19th century, who even preceded Albert Schweitzer, and spoke of the three pillar passages in the Gospels that had to be authentic because no one would have invented failed prophecy and attributed it to Jesus--Mark 13:30 and parallels, Mark 9:1 and parallels and Matthew 10:23! Those texts I do discuss briefly in Historical Reliability in the section on the Delay of the Parousia under Form Criticism in chapter 2 (and I don't know if you've seen the revised and substantially expanded version that I came out with in the fall of 2007). Briefly put, the first, in context, refers to all the events leading up to Christ's return but not that return itself, since it would make no sense to say that when you see Christ's return has come, know that it is near. The second fits well as a reference to the Transfiguration, the very next passage in the Synoptic accounts, and the last appears in that "half" of Matthew 10 where Jesus is predicting the post-resurrection ministry of the disciples so it seems more likely that he is saying that the mission to the Jewish people will be perennially incomplete before his return.
To Logosfera--that is I think a very legitimate criticism of five-point Calvinism (believers in limited atonement) but not to the rest of Christianity.
A final, general comment. Suppose the end of world history, allowing for all the metaphorical language in apocalypic literature, were actually something like the new heavens and new earth that Revelation 21-22 present (those chapters are really worth re-reading if you haven't done so lately). Suppose it were actually true that Jesus' innocent life and undeserved death somehow made it possible for all who became his followers to have that experience for all eternity (have you spent some time recently thinking just how long that is--yes I know we can't!). Suppose, as has been argued, as one of about six major Christian options to the fate of the unevangelized (no, we don't all hold to restrictivism) that everyone actually experiences Paradise except for those who consciously choose otherwise, wouldn't that go a long way toward solving the problem of evil in this world? After all, atheistic evolution has no explanation for human perception of good and evil. Don't you have to presuppose something like the morality that the world's major religions have held to even complain about all the suffering that does exist?
Sorry to go on so long; I actually was trying to be succinct.
And blessings on all of you in your honest searchings!
Thanks Craig,
Your comments are clear and well thought through. It is great to see a scholar such as yourself dialoguing with people here. I am encouraged.
I Hope you don't mind if I but in.
@ Dr Funkenstien,
You Said,
I agree with John's take that it's hard to conclude much simply based on stories peole tell.
My Reply,
Sure, but would not science have the same failed conclusion. Science could only position a positive or negative correlation with regards to prayer and healing? In the end science can only tells us that, so would we not need to go back to the evidence of testimony?
Regards, Rev. Phil.
Hi Craig,
Whoops -- I deleted and revised my comment while you were posting yours. Sorry about that!
A sketch of some of the main factors leading to my de-conversion can be found here. Details about many of the epistemic factors behind my de-conversion can be found here.
About the "convoluted just-so stories" expression: I apologize if I give offense. I'll revise the language accordingly.
Although it'd be interesting to talk about this or that prima facie contradiction in the NT, I think it would be more interesting (given that I've got you on the line, so to speak), and would get straight to the root of our disagreements, by discussing the standard Third Quester case for Jesus as a (failed) apocalyptic prophet. Is there any place where you do this? I know you approvingly cite non-conservative Third Questers re: their optimism about what can be known about the historical Jesus. But is there anywhere where you explain to your readers the Sanders/Vermes/Ehrman/Allison/Fredriksen...-style arguments that compel these very same scholars into accepting this standard picture of the historical Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet? I sure don't see this case spelled out in the apologetics works of yours I mention.
Now to be fair, you spend a couple of paragraphs summarizing the delay of the parousia material as the basis for the skepticism of some scholars, followed by a brief reply, in (e.g.) The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. But I think you'd agree that it comes nowhere close to presenting a fair exposition of their arguments (I don't find a divide-and-conquer approach to the imminent eschaton passages on Jesus' lips -- passages that all obviously point to the same assertion, in my view, as well as the view of the vast majority of Third Questers -- to be sufficient).
Contrast this with the book-length apologetic criticisms of the picture of Jesus defended by the Jesus Seminar (e.g., Jesus Under Fire, Boyd's Cynic Sage or Son of God, etc. Given that conservative scholars who write such books know that the case for Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet is more powerful than the case for the Jesus Seminar portrait(s) of Jesus by many orders of magnitude, what is the explanation for this?
Would you be willing to lay that case out on this blog, and explain why, exactly, you think a conservative view of the historical Jesus is a better explanation of the data than the failed apocalyptic prophet view, point-by-point? I don't know if you'd do the following or not, but just in case: please don't refer me to Wright and Witherington -- at least not until we've given the authors I mention a fair shake.
Sincerely,
EA
Hi Craig,
I was worried that you'd summarize what you've said about Jesus' putative failed prophecy passages that you've already given (in The Historical Reliability of the Gospels). I don't find that convincing, as it seems to me to take a divide-and-conquer approach to a set of passages that seem to me -- and to virtually every other non-conservative Third Quester I've read -- to clearly point to the same assertion of an imminent eschaton prediction. I'm primarily interested in hearing a sufficiently thorough (relative to our purposes) exposition and discussion of the main lines of argument and data for the hypothesis of Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet -- the sort of case given by Sanders, Allison, Ehrman, Vermes, and Fredriksen.
Thanks for the reference to your review of Ehrman, but it doesn't seem to be of the book that's relevant here. The review I found is of Misquoting Jesus, but his systematic case for Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet of an imminent eschaton is found in his Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. What would be relevant here would be to exposit the cumulative case argument Ehrman gives in that book, as well as similar arguments offered by Sanders, Allison, and others.
Would you please sketch their arguments in the relevant books (combining them into a single case would probably be best, to save time)?
Best,
EA
Dr. Blomberg, if you'd like to post a long post here at DC you are more than welcome to do so. Just email me (by clicking on my name) or post it here, and say so. I will turn it into a blog entry without comment, like I have done with Bill Craig and John F. Haught.
Thank you for your comments.
To Craig Blomberg: You mention that Wimber claims a 5% miracle or healing rate. Having spent the first thirty years of my life in pentecostalism, I must say that I am extremely skeptical. To give a reference point, I was youth pastor at Church on The Way under Jack Hayford in the early 70's. I observed what I think are many similar experiences and I can't attribute any of them to the supernatural.
You asked what percentage would be necessary to change an athiest's mind concerning these events. It's not about the percentage but the quality of evidence. For me, ONE unequivocal event would suffice to shift my view on supernaturalism. To be safe I would prefer it to be three or four. But it's the quality that's important. The documentation would need to be completely available to skeptics. The witness base also available and should include many individuals and a good number of them disinterested. The kind of events that would be unequivocal would be things like a decapitated corpse coming back to life; missing extremities, removed eyeballs, voice box or prostate back in place and functioning; etc.
Certainly this is not raising the bar too high for the god of the Bible? Or is the speculation that this particular god doesn't perform unequivocal miracles?
Why is it that the charismatic wing of evangelicism hasn't set up some sort of screening procedure along the lines of the above? Wouldn't this kind of rigorous attention to detail be appropriate instead of uncritical acceptance of such claims? Or is it that unequivocal instances are rare or maybe just not out there after all?
@Craig Blomberg
What do you say to a person that has seen on themselves a change after FengShui counseling? What do you say to a persoan a healty improvement after homeopathy? What do you say to a person after he sees Chris Angel dissapear in front of their eyes? And please keep in mind that all my examples include things that are available to everyone that asks (ask the advice of a FengShui master, go to a homeopathic store, watch Chris Angel filmed again and again) and don't depend on the mood swings of infinite mind.
You'd be skeptical, right? You'd need scietific, natural explanations, right? Don't tell me you suddenly lost faith in the supernatural even though god/satan may work in misterious ways?
The christian ortodox church in my country says that every revelation a layman may have must be dismissed as a temptation from Satan. And they provide an example with a saint that did that for all his lifetime. The rest of the story is that made god persevere in sending more accurate visions of the future and made that saint see the future as clearly as I see the present. As for god's plan the orthodox church has another story about a saint (i say he was an asshole and you'll see what I mean) who spoke to god and saw the future. One day in church comes a woman that saw his husband die in front of her and being pregnant, out of dispair, provoked herself an abortion. In the silence of the church the priest starts yelling at that woman: "Maria, what have you done? God had a plan for your unborn child". Aparently the asshole has just received a message from god. Do you remember what god did when he had a plan with Moses? Do you remember what god did when he had a plan with Jesus? He made sure that the plan goes according to the... plan. So instead of telling god to take his plan and shove it (as in "What you did to Moses you should have done to that woman's child"), the asshole thought that would be better to make another human being feel worse than she already was. Because in the end, when the supernatural touches you, you become special, above everybody else. So forgive us, naturalists, who don't accept that the fortune and misery of humans is due to a counscious choice of an infinite mind but to the mindless randomness of nature and the lack of intervening god.
Wow, the more I read, the more I like "you guys"--esp. John. I skimmed through some of your earlier posts and you do exactly the same thing I try to do, which is to acknowledge as much truth in the views you disagree with as you can. Such a breath of fresh air for the blogworld!
I wasn't referring to my review of Misquoting Jesus. You have to find the place on the Denver Journal where you can click on earlier years' editions and then go back to either 1999 or 2000 to find my review of the book you're mentioning.
A longer piece for this blogsite? How exciting! I've never been invited to do anything like that before for a skeptics' blogsite. You all (I'm now showing my eclectic Colorodan idiolect--sometimes "you guys" from my northern Illinois upbringing and sometimes you all, maybe even y'all from my years of sojourning in the South and we have about an equal number of immigrants here from both places!) really are different!
I wasn't consciously attempting any divide and conquer strategy. The three pillar passages do form the heart of most failed apocalyptic prophet portraits of Jesus. And, again, if you don't find my treatment of those passages convincing it would be helpful to know what about them doesn't convince.
So, at the risk of asking for some homework, maybe John and exapologist (do you have a first name I could use that would sound less impersonal?--Craig is fine for me!) could sketch out a brief outline of the key points from these books you'd like me to touch on? Otherwise, I fear I'll spend a lot of time and just get the response of either, no, that wasn't the part we meant or sorry, we just don't find that convincing, and my attempts to address your specific issues will have failed. No rush; it's a busy time of year for all of us. But if you could give me a bit of an outline to work from, I'll be happy to write something up.
To Ken and Logosfera:
I was exactly where you both are when I was growing up. When my aunt who spent thirty years of her adult life on strong painkilling medicine, due to a badly re-set broken ankle, after an injury as a young woman prayed for healing at the request of a well-known TV faith-healer and lived another 15 years without taking again so much as a single aspirin, I had no categories, even as a liberal Christian (!), to explain what happened. I never thought in those days of getting some kind of documentation--what would have been convincing? I could give you my mother's contact information and she could confirm the story, as could other relatives, but you'd label them as not disinterested. All I knew, as an 18-year old, is that I had watched her for days at a time, twice a year when we'd go to visit, for as long as I could remember, grimacing periodically as she hobbled slowly around, and that that simply never happened again. You just can't fake that before family members! Does that mean I've come to believe every miracle that said faith-healer has reported? Not in the least--I'm still highly suspicious of many of them. I suspect what often happens is that God works a true miracle through someone and then we try to repeat it repeatedly (!) in our own strength. But sometimes a person finds himself in a position simply unable to deny what they've seen. That's one of the four stories I alluded to in an earlier post.
Now my uncle was a liberal Methodist preacher and longtime chaplain at Cook County hospital in downtown Chicago. He'd seen everything--but he hadn't seen this. Absolutely fascinating to watch their diametrically opposite reactions. My aunt became a strong, balanced, evangelical, mildly charismatic Christian (who was still suspicious of some of the stranger claims of Oral Roberts--woops I gave away the name :) --and my uncle, respectful though he was of her changed life, simply attributed the incident to mind over matter in some way that science has yet to explain. So what would be the point of documentation? Those who didn't want to believe would always propose an alternate explanation, wouldnt' they? And that's precisely what we see on the pages of the Bible; miracles are pointers to faith but they never compel it. God has granted us way too much freedom and dignity for that.
Craig,
I appreciate your willingness to discuss things with us. I would have to say as one who had been a Christian for about 25 years of my life (I have recently deconverted) I was open to the miraculous but was never very impressed with what I saw. Now that I have deconverted even if one could document some of these miracles I'm not so sure that would prove the biblical/Christian God had done such. There are for me deeper issues that have to be overcome before I could come back to faith. The overwhelming evidence for biological evolution (I used to be a creationist and an IDer) needs to be dealt with and the many critical and historical problems with both the Old and New Testaments as well.
On the specific issue of the authority of the Bible (including the issue of inerrancy), has any evangelical written anything in response to Kenton Sparks's "God's Word in Human Words"? I've only seen one critical article and it was mostly related to the topic of postmodernism, which I'm less interested in. I'm more interested in a response to the specific examples that he gives. I have recently purchased but not yet read G.K. Beale's "The Erosion of Inerrancy" which is, from my understanding, mostly a response to Peter Enns.
Craig, I'm giving you carte blanche to write something to challenge us here. I personally would like to see you defend the historicity of Jesus, since I alone seem to be defending it among skeptics, although I'll also disagree with your portrait of him.
Or you can just defend your portrait of Jesus, or exegete the relevant texts. That too would be a good discussion starter for us. I'm sure exapologist would be interested in that. [He is graduating in philosophy with a Ph.D. and doesn't want to hurt his chances at getting a teaching job if he's also known as a "debunker."
You can write on anything in this thread you want to clear up and argue for, no matter how long (although keep in mind you may lose readers if it's too long).
Keep in mind some skeptics who visit may treat you with disrespect. You must have thick skin.
BTW, there are two major deficiencies I've noticed lately in my book. I didn't deal with Gary Habermas's work, nor yours. I wish I had.
Craig, one other thing. I recently proposed to read a paper at the Ohio regional meeting of the EPS on my "Outsier Test for Faith." The committee meets December 15th to discuss which papers they will approve. Tim Erdel said this would be a first, but there's nothing against allowing it. I want some serious Christian feedback on it. Hopefully I will get the chance to hear it if they accept my abstract.
That's "Outsider Test," but you knew that.
What is miraculous that sometimes ailments vanish? I don't get it. It's well documented that the human body has the capacity to fight ailments, there is not even a need to refer to a "mind over matter" scenario.
Doctors might not have an explanation for a specific case, but that's because each body is different. It would be an impossible task to provide an explanation for every possible medical case.
If a person rises from the dead, now that's an example of a true miracle. If we see Albert Einstein tomorrow, one would have to find a convoluted, completely crazy excuse to deny it. There is no need to find such excuse in a case of a ailment vanishing.
Of course we've heard the "God gave us freedom" explanation before. But in grand scheme of things, it doesn't work. According to "conservative" Christians, God judges people. If he judges people according to whether or not we believe in a miraculous event (ie, the resurrection of Jesus), then he needs to provide sufficient evidence to all of us that 1) miracles can happen 2) that Jesus did rise from the dead.
I disagree that better evidence than what we have now would coerce us to believe. For example, there is far than enough sufficient enough to believe the Holocaust happened. But it doesn't stop thousands of people to deny it.
If there would be sufficient evidence to believe Jesus rose from the dead, then that's what most reasonable intellectuals would believe, just like most reasonable intellectuals believe the Holocaust did happen. There simply isn't.
What I notice "conservative" Christians do is that they ultimately attack the integrity of the non-believer. We don't believe because we don't want to, or because we repress the truth, or the evidence would never be good enough anyway. But if we take people like Bart Ehrman, it's clear that they desesperately wanted to believe, but they realized the evidence is simply not there.
Hi Craig,
Thanks for the clarification. I'm drafting final exams and grading papers at the moment (as I bet you are, too!), but I'll take a look at your review over the weekend. I'll post or comment as soon as I can come up for air.
Best,
EA
Hi Craig,
I'm hoping to read your review of Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium at denverseminary.edu, but I haven't had any luck. When I click on the years for past issues, it takes me to the seminary's homepage. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong?
Best,
EA
@Craig Blomberg
From your words I get the following conclusion: "I know god is an asshole with thousands of people but since he's nice to me, I love him". That's why Christopher Hitchins says god is a dictator like Stalin. And believers are his KGB.
I haven't seen you addressing the hypothesis that maybe Satan cured your relatives. I meant it as a joke, but it was not entirely for supernaturalists. Supernaturalists must deal with this dilema when encountering a miracle. Hm, actually is not a dilema because it could be that it was the Satan of Islam that cured your relatives so he makes you wrongly believe in Christianity. Satan works in misterious ways too.
I'm guessing we've probably gone on this thread about as far as we can go, not least logistically, since there are so many disparate issues being raised by the various posters.
Logosfera, I'm thinking you have has been deeply hurt by some Christians (if that's the case I'm very sorry). Obviously you are angry, but I don't recognize my views in your summaries of them so it's hard to say anything more.
Kiwi, you really don't think it's anything unusual that a body would not change for thirty years with regard to a chronic problem and then, coincidentally at the one and only time a person intensely prayed over that body part, the issue would go away forever? If you don't think that's dramatically different than bodily ailments that just go away, then I'm really not sure what else to say.
Anthony, I agree 100%. Despite all the rhetoric, it's not all about miracles. There are no miracles that can compel belief and there are so many other issues that affect people's choices to believe or not to believe, as even just this short thread of posts demonstrates. Sparks' book is sitting next to my lazy-boy at home where I'm writing this post, along with Beale and eight other books on my ever-changing "short stack" of next-to-read-at-home items. Hard copy published reviews scarcely begin to appear these days in under a year from a book's release and you've presumably googled the book and not found much that way, so we may just have to be patient. But, given that Bob Hubbard and I agree on most things biblical and theological (we were colleagues for a decade) and given that he strongly endorses it, I suspect I'll like it a lot. (My definition of inerrancy is broader than many, many people's. . .)
John and exapologist, I'll wait for E.A. to have a little more free time to get back to me, and after he has, then I'll try to put some kind of a post together. Again, thanks for such a gracious offer. Do either of you have an e-mail address you'd be willing to share with me (I won't give it to anyone) so that I can ask a few follow-up questions about the exercise that the whole blogword would be bored having to read?
By the way, if any of you would like to carry on a 1-1 conversation with me, you can find me easily enough by googling me, but I'll save you even that little hassle. I can be reached at craig.blomberg@denverseminary.edu. Just don't sell it to more spam lists; we get too many already!
I'll sign off on this thread now.
I'm guessing we've probably gone on this thread about as far as we can go, not least logistically, since there are so many disparate issues being raised by the various posters.
Logosfera, I'm thinking you have has been deeply hurt by some Christians (if that's the case I'm very sorry). Obviously you are angry, but I don't recognize my views in your summaries of them so it's hard to say anything more.
Kiwi, you really don't think it's anything unusual that a body would not change for thirty years with regard to a chronic problem and then, coincidentally at the one and only time a person intensely prayed over that body part, the issue would go away forever? If you don't think that's dramatically different than bodily ailments that just go away, then I'm really not sure what else to say.
Anthony, I agree 100%. Despite all the rhetoric, it's not all about miracles. There are no miracles that can compel belief and there are so many other issues that affect people's choices to believe or not to believe, as even just this short thread of posts demonstrates. Sparks' book is sitting next to my lazy-boy at home where I'm writing this post, along with Beale and eight other books on my ever-changing "short stack" of next-to-read-at-home items. Hard copy published reviews scarcely begin to appear these days in under a year from a book's release and you've presumably googled the book and not found much that way, so we may just have to be patient. But, given that Bob Hubbard and I agree on most things biblical and theological (we were colleagues for a decade) and given that he strongly endorses it, I suspect I'll like it a lot. (My definition of inerrancy is broader than many, many people's. . .)
John and exapologist, I'll wait for E.A. to have a little more free time to get back to me, and after he has, then I'll try to put some kind of a post together. Again, thanks for such a gracious offer. Do either of you have an e-mail address you'd be willing to share with me (I won't give it to anyone) so that I can ask a few follow-up questions about the exercise that the whole blogword would be bored having to read?
By the way, if any of you would like to carry on a 1-1 conversation with me, you can find me easily enough by googling me, but I'll save you even that little hassle. I can be reached at craig.blomberg@denverseminary.edu. Just don't sell it to more spam lists; we get too many already!
I'll sign off on this thread now.
Sorry, I didn't mean to do that twice. It didn't look to me like the first one had gone through. But may I take this opportunity to say what a privilege it has been talking with all of you, and I look forward to doing it again in the near future.
Hi Craig,
Thanks for your gracious discussion. I've enjoyed it. I'll email you to follow up. I've been wanting to discuss the non-evangelical Third Quester position with an evangelical scholar for a good while now, and I really appreciate your willingness to discuss it with me/us.
All the best,
EA
Post a Comment