Recently, I read an article on Skeptico that presented an interesting example using dice. Skeptico says:
"Suppose someone is rolling a set of two dice. He rolls a double six- something with a one in 36 chance of happening. Which is more likely, that the person rolled a set of regular dice and just got lucky, or that he rolled a special set where both dice have just sixes on all faces? (Let's assume you can't see any but the sides that are on top.) You might think that since a regular set would produce a double six on only one out of 36 attempts, he is more likely to have rolled the trick dice with just sixes. But after a moment's thought you would probably realize that was wrong. With just one roll of the dice, you would have no way of knowing...."
He concludes this:
"No matter how many dice he rolled at once, or how high the apparent odds against it happening by chance you wouldn't know he was cheating by just looking at the results of one roll."
While I am not exactly sure of his point, Skeptico seems to be saying we cannot tell by just looking at this universe whether it was the result of lucky occurences or if it was manipulated to be the way it is. His conclusion is there's no way we can tell if our universe is the result of the action of a Higher Power.
Really?
I could take the same information and come to a different conclusion. Let me give my take on it. Your friend rolls two dice, (you don't see the roll, ok?) comes up to you and says, "Hey, I rolled two sixes!" To which you think, "Big deal." The odds, 1 in 36 are well within probability. But what if he rolled 5 dice and they were all sixes? The odds for that are much lower, (1 in 7776) and therefore more impressive. Anyone who has played Yahtzee knows the difficulty of rolling all sixes. What if your friend says he opened a bag of ten dice, dumped them on the table and they came up sixes. The odds now become 1 in 60,466,176. Would you believe him? Or secretly harbor a thought that he had skewed them in some way. Maybe he's (very) lucky. (Does he have any lottery numbers in mind?) With a bag of 25 dice the odds become 1 in 28,430,288,029,929,700,000. In case you didn't know, that is a very small probability. For them to show all sixes in a single roll would be, for all practical purposes, impossible.
The point I am trying to make here is that one part of his analogy is right. You would not be able to tell, from a single roll if the dice was manipulated or not. But you could be suspicious. As the number of dice increases so does the possiblity that something else is happening and an alternative explanation is needed.
We should consider that the universe is a lot more complicated than a pair of dice. It is more complicated than 10 or even 25 dice. In light of that knowledge the possible causes for our present reality narrow considerably. Either one has to believe that the universe somehow, someway, came into being in spite of impossibly small odds, or one must cling to a theory that cannot be proved (as in multiple universes) and therefore borders on religion, (Something believed with no cororobating evidence.) or (gasp) that something, or Someone manipulated it to be that way. A Creator, perhaps?
Link here: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2010/04/fine-tuning-arguments.html.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Must Christianity be Accepted Without any Evidence?
I recently read an article from Skeptico titled "Atheism is Not a Religion". In this article there are a few statements I would like to comment on. As the article begins the author says this: "Religion must include something you have to accept on faith - that is, without evidence commensurate with the extraordinary nature of the belief." About the world religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Scientoloty...etc.) he says: "They are not based on fact or on any reasonable evidence commensurate with the claims they make." Further, when referring to evidence he states that the extraordinary claims of a particular religion should be reinforced with extraordinary evidence.
While I would agree that most religions are based on some sort of superstition or false belief, I would disagree that Christianity is without evidential merit. We all know that the premiere event for its foundation is the resurrection of Christ. Skeptico says this: "Of course, the resurrection of Christ, if it had actually happened, would be pretty good evidence for Christianity." However, he denies that there is any good evidence for the resurrection.
Really?
Let's illustrate the situation this way. Suppose your best friend comes up and excitedly tells you he has seen an extraordinary event. A miracle. "I saw it with my own eyes!" he says. What do you do? You can believe him, or not. The choice is yours. Soon after, another friend claims to have seen the exact same thing. Now what? You can still believe him (them) or not. What about three friends? Or four? At what point does the testimony of these people sway you? Of course you didn't see the miraculous event. You can steadfastly refuse to believe if you so desire. "I need real proof?" you say. What if this miracle was seen by dozens or even hundreds of people? Where is the threshold for belief? Is the testimony of multiple reliable witnesses good enough?
Let's expand this a little bit. Suppose all the people you know who witnessed this miracle became different in some way. We all know that personalities can change for the worse from (among other things) drugs and alcohol. But these lives are changed for the better. They are more honest than before, more happy, personable and caring. The change, they all say happened as a result of the miracle.
This is what we see with Christianity. People and not a few of them claim to have seen a living man who was publically executed and buried just a few days before. They were not superstitious pagans: they were Jews, adherents of Judaism. A few were highly educated. One notable disciple (Thomas) thought the others were delusional. "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." A week later his concerns were met when he saw Jesus for himself. The various sightings occurred over a period of 40 days. Rarely did they happen to individuals. The largest appearance was to some 500 people.
What is the difference between my illustration and what happened two thousand years ago? Time. The questions we ask today are the same for both groups. Are they primary witnesses, like your friend or secondary ones. Are the various testimonies of the witnesses reliably consistent? What is the character of the witnesses? Is their testimony trustworthy?
It should be known that what I am going to give in condensed form has much scholarly support. Whole volumes have been written about these matters.
Let's take a look at Jesus' biographers. Matthew writes as a primary witness. His account is matter of fact and not laced with sensationalistic language. He gospel was almost certainly written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and well within his lifetime. Also there are no competing writers for his Gospel. Every early tradition points to his authorship. Mark is a little different. He is named as a follower of Jesus, but not one of the Twelve. He may not have been a primary witness to all the events about which he writes. But we know from tradition that he was a companion of Peter. Peter was the most outspoken and well-known of Jesus' disciples. Essentially the Gospel that bears Mark's name is that of Peter. His Gospel is dated before 60 AD. John also writes as a primary witness. He was the longest lived of all the disciples and may have written his Gospel after 70 AD, but still within his lifetime. He died around 97-99 AD.
What about Luke? He was not Jewish and expressly states that he was not a primary witness. He was, however a reporter. His mission was to located the primary sources, find out what they had to say, and record that information. Luke's Gospel includes some episodes which are not in the others but can be traced back to primary sources. Luke also wrote the book of Acts as a continuation of his Gospel. Both of his books were written before 60 AD. We should note that Luke was an extremely accurate writer. His books have held up to the most careful scrutiny by archaeologists and historians.
What about the character of the witnesses? Does their testimony hold up? Actually - yes. Peter was the first to publically preach about the resurrection. He appeals to the crowd's knowledge of the events. (....you yourselves know....) A few days later he was on trial against a hostile jury and made the same appeal. (....this Jesus whom you crucified and God raised from the dead....) Peter's trial was less than two months after Jesus' crucifixion and only a few minutes walk from the tomb. It would have been pretty easy to refute his declaration. The suprising thing is that the prosecution could offer no evidence to the contrary. No one stood up and said. "Hey! You're wrong! This man is still dead!" In fact, no one in Jesus' time was able to refute the evidence. Instead they resorted to bribery or threats.
Clearly the evidence above does not square very well with that of the scientific kind. But what do you want? A neon sign in the heavens? If you are looking for some kind of goo you can take to a lab and use to reanimate dead matter - it simply does not exist and you will forever be disappointed. But if you can believe the testimony of reliable people who personally witnessed these events there is hope. The question I would like to ask: Is the evidence presented sufficient to believe they are telling the truth? You will have to answer for yourself. My answer is yes.
It's time to look more closely at the Gospel record.
(Link to Skeptico article: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/06/atheism-is-not-a-religion.html )
While I would agree that most religions are based on some sort of superstition or false belief, I would disagree that Christianity is without evidential merit. We all know that the premiere event for its foundation is the resurrection of Christ. Skeptico says this: "Of course, the resurrection of Christ, if it had actually happened, would be pretty good evidence for Christianity." However, he denies that there is any good evidence for the resurrection.
Really?
Let's illustrate the situation this way. Suppose your best friend comes up and excitedly tells you he has seen an extraordinary event. A miracle. "I saw it with my own eyes!" he says. What do you do? You can believe him, or not. The choice is yours. Soon after, another friend claims to have seen the exact same thing. Now what? You can still believe him (them) or not. What about three friends? Or four? At what point does the testimony of these people sway you? Of course you didn't see the miraculous event. You can steadfastly refuse to believe if you so desire. "I need real proof?" you say. What if this miracle was seen by dozens or even hundreds of people? Where is the threshold for belief? Is the testimony of multiple reliable witnesses good enough?
Let's expand this a little bit. Suppose all the people you know who witnessed this miracle became different in some way. We all know that personalities can change for the worse from (among other things) drugs and alcohol. But these lives are changed for the better. They are more honest than before, more happy, personable and caring. The change, they all say happened as a result of the miracle.
This is what we see with Christianity. People and not a few of them claim to have seen a living man who was publically executed and buried just a few days before. They were not superstitious pagans: they were Jews, adherents of Judaism. A few were highly educated. One notable disciple (Thomas) thought the others were delusional. "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." A week later his concerns were met when he saw Jesus for himself. The various sightings occurred over a period of 40 days. Rarely did they happen to individuals. The largest appearance was to some 500 people.
What is the difference between my illustration and what happened two thousand years ago? Time. The questions we ask today are the same for both groups. Are they primary witnesses, like your friend or secondary ones. Are the various testimonies of the witnesses reliably consistent? What is the character of the witnesses? Is their testimony trustworthy?
It should be known that what I am going to give in condensed form has much scholarly support. Whole volumes have been written about these matters.
Let's take a look at Jesus' biographers. Matthew writes as a primary witness. His account is matter of fact and not laced with sensationalistic language. He gospel was almost certainly written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and well within his lifetime. Also there are no competing writers for his Gospel. Every early tradition points to his authorship. Mark is a little different. He is named as a follower of Jesus, but not one of the Twelve. He may not have been a primary witness to all the events about which he writes. But we know from tradition that he was a companion of Peter. Peter was the most outspoken and well-known of Jesus' disciples. Essentially the Gospel that bears Mark's name is that of Peter. His Gospel is dated before 60 AD. John also writes as a primary witness. He was the longest lived of all the disciples and may have written his Gospel after 70 AD, but still within his lifetime. He died around 97-99 AD.
What about Luke? He was not Jewish and expressly states that he was not a primary witness. He was, however a reporter. His mission was to located the primary sources, find out what they had to say, and record that information. Luke's Gospel includes some episodes which are not in the others but can be traced back to primary sources. Luke also wrote the book of Acts as a continuation of his Gospel. Both of his books were written before 60 AD. We should note that Luke was an extremely accurate writer. His books have held up to the most careful scrutiny by archaeologists and historians.
What about the character of the witnesses? Does their testimony hold up? Actually - yes. Peter was the first to publically preach about the resurrection. He appeals to the crowd's knowledge of the events. (....you yourselves know....) A few days later he was on trial against a hostile jury and made the same appeal. (....this Jesus whom you crucified and God raised from the dead....) Peter's trial was less than two months after Jesus' crucifixion and only a few minutes walk from the tomb. It would have been pretty easy to refute his declaration. The suprising thing is that the prosecution could offer no evidence to the contrary. No one stood up and said. "Hey! You're wrong! This man is still dead!" In fact, no one in Jesus' time was able to refute the evidence. Instead they resorted to bribery or threats.
Clearly the evidence above does not square very well with that of the scientific kind. But what do you want? A neon sign in the heavens? If you are looking for some kind of goo you can take to a lab and use to reanimate dead matter - it simply does not exist and you will forever be disappointed. But if you can believe the testimony of reliable people who personally witnessed these events there is hope. The question I would like to ask: Is the evidence presented sufficient to believe they are telling the truth? You will have to answer for yourself. My answer is yes.
It's time to look more closely at the Gospel record.
(Link to Skeptico article: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/06/atheism-is-not-a-religion.html )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)