As some of you may have known, two Oxford dons went toe-to-toe on Moody Radio last night: the Christian apologist Dr. John Lennox and atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins. Although I missed their exchange, here's what a few people I know had to say about the debate:

"What I thought was so devastating to Dawkins’ position was how Lennox turned the tables on him and sent him reeling with respect to the sense of right/wrong, good/bad. Lennox made it clear that the sense of right and wrong is neither genetic nor the outworking of group dynamics over generations, but something we simply all possess. Dawkins couldn’t deny this..."

"I heard ~45 minutes of the debate and thought Lennox did a very good job. Dawkins was polite and thoughtful, but I can't imagine anyone being persuaded by his presentation. He represented his position about as good as one could, but it was uphill for him."

"My wife listened and her comment was that she was embarrassed for Dawkins…just a terrible performance that would have convinced no one."

If you caught the broadcast, what were your impressions?

Comments

[Patricia]

Didn't hear the broadcast but I totally agree with your statement "the sense of right and wrong is neither genetic nor the outworking of group dynamics over generations, but something we simply all possess". They mystery is why a lot of people take stock in Dawkins theories.

[Jamesr]

I heard most of the broadcast. It was a most fascinating interchange between the two gentlemen.

I got the biggest laugh out of Dr. Lennox's reply to Dr. Dawkins' rant on faith. I paraphrase - "You really believe that? That's faith!"

Dr. Dawkins was most flustered to have his "non-belief" belief called out for what it is.

Dr. Lennox then talked of how a created god is indeed a delusion (agreement with Dr. Dawkins), but that God Himself was never created. It seemed that Dr. Dawkins was not able (or perhaps not willing) to understand that or make that distinction.

I think I'm going to pop for the DVD of the program so that I can hear it again. Then I'll pass it along to friends who may not have known about the broadcast or might not have been able to tune in.

[Monty]

As I suspected, those whose critical thought processes were corrupted by religion were not going to be persueded away from their beliefs by anything Dr. Dawkins had to say. Those who prefer the "facts of life" to fairytales were not persueded by any thing that Dr. Lennox's had to say.

Hitler's xtian religion told him to exterminate the jews and homosexuals. Pol Pot and Stalin killed for political reasons only, nothing to do with their views on religion.

250 years ago most American xtians in this country accepted slavery and the fact that Husbands/Fathers could beat or starve their wife and children. They did not see these as bad.

1000 years ago there are no records of any xtians condemning slavery, wife beating, or child abuse. All of the xtian countries in Europe and Russia had no problem with mistreating or killing non-xtians. They were seen as doing gods work. Protestants and Catholics killing each other for god was a good thing. During the crusades the good xtians were killing muslim and jewish men of the "holy" land. They raped and killed a lot of the muslims and jewish women of the "holy" land as well. It was good because it was gods will.

What is considered good is not absolute to xtians either. Over time it has changed.

These types of debates help to sell books or dvds but really do not change the minds of the adults who attend.

[Regis Nicoll]

Monty—I’ll not deny that Christianity has had its dark chapters in history. However, the thousands to ten of thousands killed in the Inquisition, Crusades, witch hunts, etc. over two millennia stand in stark contrast to 100-200 million killed in less than one century by atheistic regimes.

All belief systems have their weak, hypocritical and misguided followers, yet Christianity--when it goes wrong--has a corrective to set it right. William Wilberforce (in Britain) and Martin Luther King Jr (in the US) are but two examples of individuals who effectively appealed to that corrective to awaken the moral conscience of a nation. By contrast, all that Sir Richard and Co. can do is appeal to the ever changing winds of popular opinion.

[Wiseclam]

How sad that the readers of this blog are so closed minded that they cannot accept - even remotely - the basic idea that religious claims (of all varieties) are unsupported by evidence while scientific claims (again, of all varieties) *requires* evidence. Start here. Start with this premise and religion will begin to disolve for you as it has for me.

"Two kinds of gaps"? Lennox tells us. Can't you see that this is nothing but an excuse to permit irrational thought?

Utter foolishness... and this in a time when we command so much information and such advanced technologies.

[Al D]

I heard the debate. As expected Dawkins appeared to be at a disadvantage. Lennox handled himself well. He clearly had the upper hand in the debate. Would be interesting to broadcast such events on am radio during daytime audience. Maybe even bring into the main stream through known personalities. The country seems to be yearning for wisdom.

[Regis Nicoll]

Wiseclam--You might want to clarify that “religious claims (of all varieties) are unsupported by evidence” that you are willing to accept. By contrast, the evidence for those contemporary with the events of the biblical narrative was so overwhelming that despite torture, imprisonment, and death, they firmly held to their account of a resurrected Messiah. In fact the evidence is so strong that Irwin H. Linton, a lawyer who has argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote that the resurrection "is not only so established that the greatest lawyers have declared it to be the best proved fact of all history, but it is so supported that it is difficult to conceive of any method or line of proof that it lacks which would make [it] more certain." Even for lawyers not inclined to accept the Christian message, Linton goes on to say that they have been “unable to refute the irresistible force of the cumulative evidence upon which such faith rests."

[Lee]

If I were still an atheist, I'd probably also be quite distressed that Dawkins didn't do better in the debate. (I didn't hear it myself.) I would want to dredge up every argument I could against Christianity, including all its past failures (which deserve more scrutiny than a slur; the Crusades and the Inquisition were complex events, and each had some Christians who acted like Jesus in spite of the prevailing sentiment). I would want to be as close-minded toward religion as possible. I would not want to face even the remotest possibility that Dawkins might have performed poorly because he was beginning to doubt his own message.

Because, after all, there were once two other Oxford dons, an atheist named Lewis and a Christian named Tolkien, and look what happened in that case...

[Wiseclam]

Al D - Thank you for providing such a solid example to back up my point. The only thing you could have done to make my point more clear would be to end your statement with something like "...and no matter what evidence you provide I'll never abandon my position".

[Steve (SBK)]

Wiseclam, look in the mirror.

[iota]

Al D,

quote:
>> the evidence for those contemporary with the events of the biblical narrative was so overwhelming that despite torture, imprisonment, and death, they firmly held to their account of a resurrected Messiah. <<

Willingness to die for one's beliefs and eyewitness accounts are not sufficient to warrant belief. If they were, we'd be forced to acknowledge the validity of other religions besides Christianity.

For example, many people are willing to die for non-Christian religions all the time (watched the news lately?). And many contemporary "eyewitnesses" describe levitating Hindu gurus, Scientology-inspired telekinesis and clairvoyance, and alien abductions. So on what basis are we to reject these eyewitness testimonies, but accept those associated with Christianity?

[Regis Nicoll]

Wisecam-- What would you accept as sufficient evidence to abandon your faith in naturalism? Or is it beyond falsification in your mind?

[Regis Nicoll]

Iota—As you rightly note, many people will die for what they believe to be true. But the key here is that no one will die for what they know to be false. Thus, the martyrdom of those who claimed to be eyewitnesses of the resurrection discounts conspiracy theories like the “Passover Plot.” When one objectively considers the remaining theories: Jesus didn’t die, but swooned; the disciples were victims of mistaken identity or mass hallucination—the eyewitness testimony best aligns with the historical record that the tomb was empty and has remained so for two millennia. Except, that is, for someone who is committed to naturalistic answers a priori.

[iota]

Sorry - I mis-addressed by previous post to "Al D" when it should have been addressed to "Regis Nicoll". Thanks.

[iota]

Regis Nicoll,

quote:
>>When one objectively considers the remaining theories: Jesus didn’t die, but swooned; the disciples were victims of mistaken identity or mass hallucination—the eyewitness testimony best aligns with the historical record that the tomb was empty and has remained so for two millennia. Except, that is, for someone who is committed to naturalistic answers a priori.
<<

Would you apply these same eyewitness testimony standards outside of Christianity?

For example, the Heaven's Gate Cult members of the early '90s took their own lives with the expectation that an alien spacecraft awaited them in the tail of a passing comet. Using your criteria, these people were willing to die for their beliefs, so we can reasonably conclude that they really believed what they said they did. So far so good, but what should we do with this conclusion? Does it follow that there really was an alien spacecraft in the tail of a comet, waiting to take earthlings to another galaxy, as the cult members believed?

Shouldn't we grant this claim the same level of credence that you want for Christianity, since the Heaven's Gate claim entails people who were willing to die for their beliefs, and who all essentially believed the same thing, and since we also have the historically corroborating evidence of an actual comet in the sky at the time? Or are you committed to non-"space alien" answers a priori?

[Lee]

The last comment from iota was directed to Regis, but I'll jump in. Sure, we Christians allow the same standards for anyone willing to die for their beliefs. (We make it a little more stringent, however: they also have to be willing to be tortured for years for their beliefs, or live lives of grinding poverty, have everything taken away, see loved ones executed before their eyes, travel long distances to preach to headhunting Auca Indians and face death, etc., etc.) It's insufficient to only be willing to take a quick bullet or drink some Kool-aid.

If they pass that test, we then go on to the second part: applying reason to those beliefs. We ask for evidence - as much evidence as any scientist would want. Heaven's Gate has no conclusive evidence for their beliefs. Christianity has evidence gathered from every department you'll find in any local University.

So I say go for it. Apply the most rigorous scientific standards you can to Christianity, Heaven's Gate, Scientology, atheism, Buddhism, and any others you choose. (I did.) And don't go copping out with the "that would take too much time" line, because Pascal's Wager kicks in at that point.

I think you'll find that people who became Christians after age 20 don't have commitment to anything a priori. I'm willing to revert to atheism (or convert to any other religion of choice) the moment all the evidence for Christianity is refuted. Maybe you'll be the one to convince me.

But I doubt it. In my experience, most atheists are too intellectually lazy, and settle for some lame excuse. The usual tactic is to try to deflect the argument onto another issue like "OK, if Christianity is so rational then where does faith come in?" And while that question has an answer, it's still just an attempt to avoid the reality that most atheists are only emotionally committed to their beliefs - not intellectually committed to them.

[Regis Nicoll]

Iota--to add to Lee's fine response, I would like to add that Christ's resurrection was such an outlandish idea that in the days, weeks and months after Jesus’s death, his body--if it existed--would have certainly been produced.

Both the Jewish leadership and the Roman authorities were not only highly motivated to quash any resurrection ruse, but had the political muscle and wherewithal to extract confessions and find the body, if indeed it existed. But as I've already noted, the silence from the empty tomb has been deafening for two thousand years.

[iota]

Lee,

quote:
"We ask for evidence - as much evidence as any scientist would want. Heaven's Gate has no conclusive evidence for their beliefs. Christianity has evidence gathered from every department you'll find in any local University."

Well, then please give me the best example from the chemistry department of an experimental result that is best explained by Christianity. (I suspect you are using the term "evidence" in the weaker "is compatible with" sense required by religion, rather than in the stronger "is best explained by" sense demanded by science.)

quote:
"most atheists are only emotionally committed to their beliefs - not intellectually committed to them."

I am intellectually committed to my atheism in the same way that you are intellectually committed to your disbelief in religions other than your own. You undoubtedly look at Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Scientology, etc. and remain as unconvinced by the supposed "evidence" in favor of them as I am. That I view your religion in the same category as these others does not make my rejection of Christianity an emotional one. It's quite intellectual, since your religion, like all the others so far, does not meet reasonable minimum truth standards.

[Regis Nicoll]

Iota—Not to horn in on Lee’s response; but what immediately comes to mind is the most basic component of chemistry--the atom. As you may know, atoms are made up of a positively charged nucleus enshrouded in a cloud of negatively charged electrons in an unimaginably tiny space. But there’s something odd about that. Because of the electromagnetic attraction between the nucleus and electrons, the atom should collapse within one microsecond (one millionth of a second) of its birth. Why doesn’t it? Well, no one knows for sure. So researchers came up with a tag, “quantum confinement” or “confinement energy”—really anything would have sufficed as long as it had a scientific jingle--giving the impression that they had explained something, when all they did was report an observation and attach a descriptor to it.

Lofty labels, notwithstanding, the explanatory power of such “materialism of the gaps” is zilch. Recall that physicists from Heisenberg to Hawking, acknowledge that what really goes on beneath the sub-atomic veil is ontologically unknowable. Consequently, positing an omnipresent Agent working in an interstitial dimension of the cosmos would equally describe, as well as explain, the phenomenon of the electronic orbit. And this accords nicely with the Christian text that reveals “The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.”

[iota]

Regis Nicoll,

quote:

"Recall that physicists from Heisenberg to Hawking, acknowledge that what really goes on beneath the sub-atomic veil is ontologically unknowable."

Perhaps so, but that does not obligate anyone to accept explanations given by those who think that they do know the ultimate answer. In other words, just because scientists are willing to say "I don't know" does not mean that those who say "God did it" win by default, especially when the "God" answer offers no predictive value whatsoever.

And it appears that you've used the "is compatible with" standard of "evidence" in your reply, rather than the "is best explained by" one. Or are you really suggesting that someone who observes the nature of particle physics could reasonably conclude that "There is a Supreme Being who takes a personal interest in people's lives, and who sent his only son to die for our sins. And we'd better accept this gift or we'll perish in Hell"?

A generic, amorphous "God" can be made compatible with *any* observation, but show me the repeatable, scientific observation that *is best explained by Christianity*.

[Regis Nicoll]

Iota--No; I’m saying that the Christian God is the BEST explanation for the electronic orbit. Why? Because naturalism is impotent to do anything but describe it, as readily acknowledged by the pioneers of quantum theory. Consequently, the reasonable investigator would consider an ultra-natural explanation. Since the quantum potential is the warp and woof of spacetime, an ultra-natural agent must not only be transcendent, but immanent. While Eastern gods are immanent and the Greco-Roman and deitistic gods are transcendent, only the Christian God is both transcendent and immanent. He is the One a Christian text says is “over all, through all and in all.” It is precisely because this world is created and sustained by a loving God that the world displays a rational order such that discoveries and predictions can be made. A cosmos created either by colliding particles or by a capricious God is one of chaos and uncertainty, not order and predictability.

[KC]

You can go listen to the entire unedited debate posted on the Dawkins' website at:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1707,Debate-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-John-Lennox,Richard-Dawkins-John-Lennox

[Lee]

Regis, it's OK - I horned in on your response first. :-) The only nitpick I have is one that iota's almost certain to pounce upon - your example isn't from chemistry per se, but from physics. (And I know that particle physics underpins chemistry, but of such molehills are great mountains of atheistic defense made.

iota, why are you asking me for evidence, instead of finding it for yourself? Where's the example from chemistry that disproves Christianity? This is the kind of laziness I mentioned - but perhaps you were just being terse.

And the actual meaning I had was neither "is compatible with" nor "is best explained by" but rather "has been used to support". For example, radiocarbon dating has been used to support conclusions about the age of the John Rylands Fragment, showing that it was written almost within the lifetime of the Apostle John. That fact is a major support for the Christian belief in the reliability of the New Testament.

For an example of "is best explained by", I have one from my molecular biology class (which is close enough to biochemistry that it should count). We were studying oxidative phosphorylation, as I recall, and got to the Citric Acid cycle. We found that if any part of the cycle failed to operate properly, the organism died from a toxic buildup of chemicals - so the entire cycle must work perfectly at all times. And, the transformation of one chemical to the next was as simple as possible; the cycle could not be short-circuited via a simpler path.

At that point a fellow student asked "But if it always has to work perfectly, and it's as simple as possible, how could the cycle have evolved?"

The professor thought for a moment, smiled, and said "Well, that would take a miracle, wouldn't it?"

We students were all materialistic atheists, so we roared with laughter.

But the professor said we would just have to have faith that science would one day find an answer to that problem.

It's been thirty years, and I'm still waiting. All I see are "just so stories" that contain either leaps of faith in chemistry, or leaps of faith in biology. I'm now convinced that the existence of living cells "is best explained by" a miracle instead of a natural process.

But I still say you haven't brought up an issue that would make me reconsider. Have you truly investigated - with a scientific mind, not a presuppositional one - the evidence for Christianity? Lord knows - haha - that there are enough accessible books published by Lee Strobel alone that you should have an easy time of it. I'd be interested to know if you have read even just "The Case for Christ", much less any of the more scholarly references in it.

I'll even make it simple for you: all you have to do is show conclusively that Jesus didn't raise from the dead, and I'll stop being a Christian. (In fact, 1 Corinthians 15:14-19 in the Bible says that if you can show that Jesus didn't raise from the dead, then you'll show that Christianity is idiotic and all Christians are fools - in one fell swoop.) Now, I'm not asking for just an alternate theory of what happened - I'm asking for you to show that the facts are "best explained by" your theory. I have Occam's Razor on the strop. But this should be relatively straightforward for someone who has more than a mere emotional commitment to atheism. Based on your writing style you appear to have the capacity for this effort, but I wonder if you have the fortitude for it.

So instead of trying to steer me off onto tangents about my scientific evidence, using a rhetorical device of misdirection to avoid the main issue, why don't you gather some evidence of your own and demonstrate its application? Show us that our belief in the resurrection is bogus. That will conclusively demonstrate your intellectual commitment to your beliefs.

[john connore]

I still don't understand how a debate pitting faith against science and rationality can't carry any real substance. Until people wake and take faith for what it is(superstition)we will not advance as a non warring species, religion simlply causes prejudice and division and by the way the Stalin, Pol Pot etc. is getting old and has nothing to do with topic

[john connore]

I wasn't aware of any historical evidence for Jesus. Where's the monuments, statues, artifacts, and why the 70yr. gap between his death and the first writings of him. This story is for people that really do need a crutch. Jesus was a carpenter where's some of his work, how bout a tooth or a hair, nothing at all

[iota]

Lee,

quote:

"For an example of "is best explained by", I have one from my molecular biology class ... so the entire cycle must work perfectly at all times. And, the transformation of one chemical to the next was as simple as possible; the cycle could not be short-circuited via a simpler path."

Again, none of your examples favor Christianity over any other religion that posits omnipotent magic. Using your standards, a Scientologist could say that the Citric Acid Cycle is "best explained by" Thetans (ghosts of dead aliens, according to L. Ron Hubbard) stuck to your immortal soul. I asked for an example that is best explained by *Christianity*, and is not equally compatible with the omnipotence proposed by other religions, and I'm still waiting.

quote:

"I'd be interested to know if you have read even just "The Case for Christ", much less any of the more scholarly references in it."

Yes, I've read Lee Strobel. And C.S. Lewis and William Lane Craig. And I was *seriously underwhelmed* by their arguments.

I'd be interested to know if you've read any scholarly analyses of Buddhism or Hinduism or any other religion besides your own. The point being that I can undoubtedly find some religion, some belief, that you reject without having immersed yourself in it - which apparently you require of those who would reject Christianity.

quote:

"I'll even make it simple for you: all you have to do is show conclusively that Jesus didn't raise from the dead"

I'll do that just as soon as you've shown conclusively that millions of Buddhists have not "become one with the Universe", that Hindu guru Sathya Sai Baba has not levitated in front of contemporary eye-witnesses (as opposed to 2,000 year old ones), or that a galactic overlord named Xenu did not kill billions of space aliens 75 million years ago (Scientology, for those keeping score).

In fact, the list of beliefs that neither one of us has disproved is very long, so it is your responsibility to explain why Christianity alone deserves the special treatment of having to be *explicitly disproved*.

[Lee]

iota, are you willing to grant, then, that materialistic naturalism is inadequate as an explanation for origins? (Recall that this discussion is going on in a thread about a debate between an atheist and a Christian. The atheist, Dawkins, does not claim that all religions are equally valid. Rather, he claims that all of them are rubbish. Part of the rules of engagement on The Point is that you cannot change topics in a posting - so a move from a discussion of atheism to a discussion of comparative religion is worthy of censure by those who permit us to post here.)

And I'm glad you've read Strobel and others. Yes, I did read scholarly works on Buddhism and Hinduism and Zoroastrianism and others. And I'm certain you can find some obscure religion with which I don't have a scholarly familiarity; I could probably do the same for you.

I require those who would reject Christianity not to immerse themselves in it, but to examine its truth claims. Our founder claimed that he was and is the foundation of all rationality. He buttressed this claim by predicting that he would die and be raised from the dead. So if the resurrection is false, then Jesus's claim to be the truth is also false. (Note: he didn't claim to possess the truth, or be able to impart the truth to his followers - he claimed he WAS and IS the truth.)

No other religion has made a falsifiable claim that can invalidate the teachings of the teacher and all of his followers in a single stroke. And in all other cases it's not possible to use the techniques of the university - archaeology, sociology, psychology, history, and even chemistry and physics - to prove or disprove their claims.

So I'm asking you to do something that's within the grasp of any educated human being. You're asking me to do something that requires powers beyond those of a university education, and possibly powers beyond those of a human being.

And "seriously underwhelmed" is an emotional response, not an intellectual one.

Furthermore, Christianity deserves the special treatment of having to be "explicitly disproved" because Jesus said he was the only way to God, and that anyone who didn't go to God via Jesus would go to Hell. So if Christianity is right, your decision to not accept it will affect you not just for your lifetime but for all eternity. (I'm sure you're familiar with C.S. Lewis's allusion to the fact that we are all immortal, and the only difference among us is where we will spend eternity.) This applies not only to you, but to everyone you've ever known.

Coming back to the theme of this thread, are you bringing up comparative religion as a smokescreen? Some atheists claim that all religions are equally ridiculous. Is that your justification for being an atheist? If so, you'll see that Christianity cannot be lumped in with the rest. Therefore, it awaits your attempt to disprove the resurrection and show Strobel, Craig, Lewis and me to be fools - not by your opinion of the evidence, but by scientific and logical refutation.

Go for it.

Or, offer another excuse.

[jason taylor]

"In fact, the list of beliefs that neither one of us has disproved is very long, so it is your responsibility to explain why Christianity alone deserves the special treatment of having to be *explicitly disproved*."

It doesn't need to be explicitly disproved to disbelieve in it. It does need to be explicitly disproved to claim the right to despise it which so many atheists do habitually.
As a side note, as I understand Hinduism it regards the Law of Non-contradiction as unnecessary which, if true, is enough to disprove it.

[jason taylor]

"I still don't understand how a debate pitting faith against science and rationality can't carry any real substance. Until people wake and take faith for what it is(superstition)we will not advance as a non warring species, religion simlply causes prejudice and division and by the way the Stalin, Pol Pot etc. is getting old and has nothing to do with topic"

I don't understand how people can give science a primacy in determining truth when the scientific consensus changes every ten years which makes a fetishism of science a violation of the Law of Non-contradiction which is one of the foundations of rationality. Thus faith in science is by definition irrational
And Stalin and Pol-pot have as much to do with the subject as the faith in the position that eliminating religion will eliminate war which is getting equally old. It is also a faith which is inherantly illogical as most wars have nothing to do with religion. Besides if we eliminate things that cause men to kill each other we have to eliminate a lot of other things.
As for advancing as a "non-warring species" that begs the question of whether that is important and what that has to do with whether atheism is true or not. Because if there is no eternity what does the fate of the mankind matter? It will die off eventually one way or another.

[jason taylor]

"As I suspected, those whose critical thought processes were corrupted by religion were not going to be persueded away from their beliefs by anything Dr. Dawkins had to say. Those who prefer the "facts of life" to fairytales were not persueded by any thing that Dr. Lennox's had to say.

Hitler's xtian religion told him to exterminate the jews and homosexuals. Pol Pot and Stalin killed for political reasons only, nothing to do with their views on religion.

250 years ago most American xtians in this country accepted slavery and the fact that Husbands/Fathers could beat or starve their wife and children. They did not see these as bad.

1000 years ago there are no records of any xtians condemning slavery, wife beating, or child abuse. All of the xtian countries in Europe and Russia had no problem with mistreating or killing non-xtians. They were seen as doing gods work. Protestants and Catholics killing each other for god was a good thing. During the crusades the good xtians were killing muslim and jewish men of the "holy" land. They raped and killed a lot of the muslims and jewish women of the "holy" land as well. It was good because it was gods will.

What is considered good is not absolute to xtians either. Over time it has changed.

These types of debates help to sell books or dvds but really do not change the minds of the adults who attend."

Uh, where did you get the idea that Hitler was an "xtian", whatever an "xtian" is(must be an awfully small religion)? It is well established that he was not an "xtian" and to the extent that he had a religion, he was probably a neopagan.
And there are quite a few Christians who died fighting against Hitler. And maybe even some "xtians" as well.

Hitler's xtian religion told him to exterminate the jews and homosexuals. Pol Pot and Stalin killed for political reasons only, nothing to do with their views on religion.
______________________________
And by the way the Holcaust had nothing to do with "xtianity". It was because Jews were felt to be a racial impurity and the idea of racial impurity was a recent one and has more to do with social darwinism then "xtianity."

[Rob]

I think Dawkins came out of this debate severely bruised. Lennox showed that The God Delusion is heavy on rhetoric but void of good meaty arguments. Well done both debaters -- and especially the winner!

[Regis Nicoll]

John--A while back we had a lively discussion on the historicity of Jesus. You can check it our at: http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/2007/01/jesus_never_exi.html#more. As to the lack of a "tooth or a hair," or any physical remains; that only serves to validate a tomb that has been empty for nigh on two thousand years, despite the efforts of highly motivated people to produce any positive contraindicating evidence.

[Bruce in Orlando]

Listen for yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYYJaYT2YHg

[iota]

Lee,

quote:
"iota, are you willing to grant, then, that materialistic naturalism is inadequate as an explanation for origins?"

Materialistic naturalism *may very well be* inadequate to explain origins. And, as a result, we may never know how or why we got here. The real answer might be a God (Christian or otherwise), or gods, or a magic bubble of infinite possibilities, or perhaps our observable universe is just a fleeting speck in a larger, eternal Universe, etc. I'm willing to concede that I don't know what the answer is, and I may never know. I realize that you think you do know the answer, but that in no way obligates me to accept it. If the real answer ever comes, I'd expect the evidence in favor of it to match or at least approach the scope of the claim being made. None of the proposed explanations so far even come close.

quote:
"No other religion has made a falsifiable claim that can invalidate the teachings of the teacher and all of his followers in a single stroke."
and
"Therefore, it awaits your attempt to disprove the resurrection and show Strobel, Craig, Lewis and me to be fools - not by your opinion of the evidence, but by scientific and logical refutation."

And how would one disprove the resurrection? How is it falsifiable? By producing a 2,000 year-old body that would be impossible to identity as Jesus? (If missing 2,000-old bodies validate the resurrection, we must conclude that much of the ancient world is alive and well somewhere.) What would constitute disproof of the resurrection in your mind?

I realize that as *proof of* the resurrection, you and Regis Nicoll have previously offered the suffering and conviction of the disciples and the eyewitness testimonies as irrefutable evidence. But this is why I brought up the "comparative religion" angle in the first place, since you obviously reject the conviction and the eye-witness testimonies of people of other faiths (I suppose I'm risking "censure" by making this point, but oh well.)

Though I think it's odd that you would tie the truth value of Christianity solely to the ability to prove or disprove the resurrection. I would think that anything as pervasive and omnipotent as Christianity is claimed to be should yield some kind of currently observable evidence that is indisputable. In other words, if Christianity really were true, you should be easily able to prove it here and now, instead of relying only on 2,000 year-old eyewitness testimonies (which, again, we all reject for other religions). In fact, you've been asked to do this, after asserting that "Christianity has evidence gathered from every department you'll find in any local University" and (Regis Nicoll)"it is difficult to conceive of any method or line of proof that it lacks which would make [it] more certain". But instead of offering this evidence, this "proof", you've demurred.

If such evidence really exists, *then present it*, and the case will be closed in your favor.

[Lee]

iota, the evidence you ask for has been presented repeatedly - Strobel is just the latest compiler. You said you read his books, and others, and said you weren't convinced by their arguments, but you never said what *evidence* persuaded you. Based on your repeated dodging of the issue, I'm becoming convinced that you have none, and that your disdain for the arguments is indeed emotional and not rational.

And if you've truly read Strobel's books you'll know that it's not merely eyewitness testimony that supports the resurrection, but all the evidence from every University department. (Are you expecting me to type all of it in here? You've ignored the documentary significance of the early date of the John Rylands Fragment, versus the documentation supporting every other religion, I see.) And I don't reject the eyewitness testimony of other faiths - I subject it to the same scrutiny that I and others gave and still give to Christianity.

If you want to falsify the resurrection, be a good investigative attorney and develop a theory that better fits the facts than the resurrection story. We all know that "cold cases" can be solved long after the crime, by the use of new techniques and the discovery of new evidence - and some intellectual investment. Dan Brown tried this, in "The Da Vinci Code", with the idea that Jesus didn't die on the cross at all (an idea promoted by Islam). The Jesus Seminar claims that Jesus' body was thrown on a garbage heap and eaten by wild dogs. Pick either of those, and show conclusively how they fit the facts better than what Christianity says.

You keep asking me to do all the work for you - why?

[Regis Nicoll]

Iota—Because of the nature of history (from the Peloponnesian Wars to WWI), corroborative eyewitness testimony is usually considered sufficient to establish historical events. Submitting the resurrection to the standards of historical criticism, it will be noted that there exists four gospels by four different authors and several letters by Paul that support the physical resurrection of Christ. These works are dated (even by liberal standards) to the mid-late first century—well within the lifetimes of those who were contemporary with the events described—and were copied and widely circulated from the time of their origin. In one of those writings, Paul tells the readership about Jesus’s death, burial and resurrection—going on to say that if they didn’t believe him, they could go and ask any one of over 500 eyewitnesses, many of whom were still living. Consequently, there is substantial corroborative, eyewitness testimony for the resurrection such that, if the writers’ claims had been false, there would have been any number of individuals with the motive and means to prove them as such and squelch, what was to many folks a very unwelcomed rumor. By contrast, the historical evidence for the miraculous claims of other religions is either from a single voice (Mohammed and Joseph Smith come to mind)) or non-existent.

This has led historians like, Paul Maier, to conclude: “If all the evidence is weighed carefully, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement.”

[Wiseclam]

Regis Nichol wrote:

“Wiseclam-- What would you accept as sufficient evidence to abandon your faith in naturalism? Or is it beyond falsification in your mind?”

To me, this question is the equivalent of asking me what it would take to abandon my own perceptions. It implies that there IS something beyond what we observe and that this something is “beyond natural explanation” (supernatural). Further, it implies that anything and everything that cannot be explained naturally can legitimately be explained by supernatural phenomenon. And this implication is significant as it leaves us open to accepting any claim regardless of evidence.

To be clear, for me to abandon my “faith” that what I observe is real would require monumental evidence of something occurring that is outside the realm of what we known to be physically possible. Like a resurrection, for example. If there was evidence that such a phenomenon occurred then I would have to acknowledge that supernatural (i.e., things beyond what we know to be physically possible) can in fact occur.

But we don’t have evidence that such a thing can occur or has ever occurred for that matter. Your “eye witness” testimony is laughable insofar as meeting a reasonable standard of evidence for a claim of this magnitude. If you were claiming that you ate cereal for breakfast I might accept your claim without any evidence as this is both a trivial claim (i.e., the scope is minor and accepting it as true has no bearing on my life) and a feasible claim. If you claimed you ran 100 meters in under 9.5 seconds I would most certainly want to see some evidence to back that up – but eyewitness testimony might be sufficient given the scope and the feasibleness of the claim. But when you claim that someone died and came back to life... well this is a claim of infinite scope and it is known not to be possible. I’m going to need a heck of a lot more than “eyewitness” testimony (documented more than 100 years after the events took place – and over 2000 years ago) to accept it. Scientific evidence that a person was actually dead and is now alive would do it.

[Wiseclam]

Lee wrote:

“I'm willing to revert to atheism (or convert to any other religion of choice) the moment all the evidence for Christianity is refuted. Maybe you'll be the one to convince me.”

Lee – do you understand that the burden of proof is on you and not the atheist? The atheist is not making a claim. The atheist is rejecting your claim (and the claims of any other theist/religionist). Every religion makes a claim about god based on what they see as evidence. Buddha said this, Jesus said that, etc. The claim you are making as a Christian is an extraordinary claim (about things that are known to be impossible in our observable world) and it requires evidence that is proportional to it. What you offer as evidence falls far below reasonable standards of evidence and hence it is rejected (by more than atheists, I might remind you). Keep in mind, you do the same thing for the claims of every other claim about god. You comfortably reject it. Have you refuted the evidence for Scientology or Islam?

[Isaac Faulk]

I found it very disturbing that after Lennox's closing statements in which he fully described the deity and lordship of Jesus, Dawkins then called his argument for Jesus 'petty' and 'non-scietific'. How cocky and offensive Dawkins came across in closing. I thought to myself what a boob he is and I really felt sorry for him. Since he obviously doesn't believe in hell I'm sure that I am currently more concerned for his eternal state than he is - I pray that he finds the truth and realizes the mind he's been given should not be used to mock God (which he doesn't currently believe exists). I truly feel sorry for the foolish Godless men in these centers of learning that are swaying so many other minds to believe a lie.

[Wiseclam]

Regis Nichol wrote:

“Consequently, positing an omnipresent Agent working in an interstitial dimension of the cosmos would equally describe, as well as explain, the phenomenon of the electronic orbit. And this accords nicely with the Christian text that reveals “The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.””

This is a clear example of how low the standard is for the committed Christian. You read these words in the bible and find a way to claim that they “reveal” atomic theory. You see... science doesn’t work that way. You don’t get to take some generic words that could (apparently) mean anything and then use them to support your claims about Jesus. This would be laughable if not for the fact that you are seriously trying to do it.

[Wiseclam]

Lee wrote:
“iota, why are you asking me for evidence, instead of finding it for yourself? Where's the example from chemistry that disproves Christianity? This is the kind of laziness I mentioned - but perhaps you were just being terse”
Again, the burden of proof is on you, Lee, not the atheist. Here’s a simple example... I claim that I can levitate. I can raise myself off the ground and hold myself above it using the power of my mind. I can also turn myself invisible whenever I need to. You belive this claim, correct? You accept it until you can prove that I can’t do these things, right. You are calling other people intellectually lazy because they have not disproved your claims about a resurrection and about a host of miracles. Are you intellectually lazy for rejecting my claims about levitation and invisibility – or do you accept them?

[Wiseclam]

Lee wrote:
“Furthermore, Christianity deserves the special treatment of having to be "explicitly disproved" because Jesus said he was the only way to God, and that anyone who didn't go to God via Jesus would go to Hell.”
Rubbish. Christianity deserves to be explicitly disproved because Jesus said so is not a valid answer. This is irrational.

[iota]

Regis Nicoll,

quote:
"Because of the nature of history (from the Peloponnesian Wars to WWI), corroborative eyewitness testimony is usually considered sufficient to establish historical events. "

Eyewitness testimony is only considered sufficient to establish historical accounts which do not propose paradigm-shifting claims. Wars are known to occur - we can even witness them happening today. So eyewitness claims that a war occurred in the past are not paradigm-shifting. That is, claims of past wars do not fundamentally change our view of the nature of the universe. A historical resurrection, on the other hand, proposes something that is not otherwise known to occur in our universe. Thus, mere eye-witness testimony is not enough to establish the resurrection as historical fact. Paradigm-shifting claims require currently observable, repeatable results.

I think you'd agree in cases outside of Christianity. For example, if I told you that I ate a ham sandwich for lunch yesterday, you'd probably take my word for it, even if I couldn't produce any eyewitnesses. Eating a ham sandwich requires no changes to our understanding of what is possible within our universe. On the other hand, if I told you that I levitated using my own mental powers yesterday, you would probably not believe me, even if I could produce eyewitnesses. I'm sure you'd want to see it for yourself. You'd want to see currently observable, repeatable results.

[iota]

Lee,

quote:
"iota, the evidence you ask for has been presented repeatedly"
and
"And if you've truly read Strobel's books you'll know that it's not merely eyewitness testimony that supports the resurrection, but all the evidence from every University department. (Are you expecting me to type all of it in here? You've ignored the documentary significance of the early date of the John Rylands Fragment, versus the documentation supporting every other religion, I see.)"

All of the evidence for Christianity that you've directly described, including the dating of the John Rylands fragment, is about supposed eye-witness testimonies or the accurate *dating* of these eyewitness testimonies. But it doesn't matter that you can prove that the dating of certain eyewitness testimonies places them during the correct time period, because eyewitness testimonies are notoriously unreliable, as I've already shown. I can produce eyewitnesses, with accurate times and dates, for events that neither you nor I believe. Again, Sathya Sai Baba has contemporary eyewitnesses to his levitations for whom we can undoubtedly get accurate time stamps. You don't accept them, so you obviously understand that eyewitness testimonies, no matter how accurately timed and dated they are, are not sufficient to believe claims of a significant magnitude.

quote:

"You keep asking me to do all the work for you - why?"

Because, as a believer, you're the one making the affirmative claim. You are the one who is asserting that God came to earth in the form of a man, died for our sins, and was resurrected, and that believers of this event will live an infinite life in heaven. This is a claim of infinite scope. But as "evidence" for this infinite claim, you have only provided the claims of 2000 year-old eyewitnesses, and some archeological evidence related to the accurate dating of these eyewitness testimonies, despite having asserted that Christianity is well-proven by *all academic disciplines*.

Look, if all you have are 2000 year old eyewitness testimonies, then say so. If, on the other hand, you have more evidence than this, from chemistry and biology and all academic disciplines, then shouldn't you spread the word to as many people as possible, and in as effective a way as possible? Aren't people's immortal souls on the line?

And I'm not asking for *all* of the evidence that doesn't fall into the category of eyewitness testimonies, just *a few good examples*.

[Regis Nicoll]

Iota-Your statement that “Eyewitness testimony is only considered sufficient to establish historical accounts which do not propose paradigm-shifting claims” is tautological to the extreme. What’s more, it validates your a priori bias against anything that might smack of the supernatural—which, by its nature, is not repeatable nor predictable. As I recall Darwinism was a “paradigm-shifting” claim for its day. Funny, I don’t know of any direct observation, and certainly of no repeatable experiment, in which homo sapiens was seen to evolve from homo habilis (much less from a primordial swill).

[Regis Nicoll]

Wisecalm—you stated that I “read these words in the bible and find a way to claim that they “reveal” atomic theory.” To the contrary, I recognize how atomic theory, particularly the integrity of the electron orbit, accords with scripture and is best explained by it. As an epiphenomemon of the quantum potential, the infrastructure of the atom is intrinsically veiled. This ontological uncertainty makes the quantasphere an “equal opportunity” realm for competing theories; even for (gasp!) the hand of God. Added to its descriptive power, the God hypothesis suggests an explanation: the Omnipotent will for a universe which wouldn’t exist without atomic stability.

You also stated that “for me to abandon my ‘faith’ that what I observe is real would require monumental evidence of something occurring that is outside the realm of what we known to be physically possible.” I suspect you’d agree that turning a frog into a prince is outside what is “known to be physically possible.” And yet you probably have no problem with a therapsid turning into a human despite its “fairy tale proportions” and the fact that it is beyond what anyone has observed or reproduced.

[Riley]

On the topic "Do you need religion to be good," Lennox claim that without religion it's a moot argument as to what is "good" or "bad" since there is no objective standard begs the question: Why does Lennox believe that religion provides an objective standard for good and bad?

Every religion it seems claims to provide an objective standard for good and bad. How is that? Is it objective because they have accepted the subjective standard of men who wrote their opinions down in a book hundreds of years ago? That's not an objective standard, that's willful obstenance.

Moreover, members of religions today pick and choose and re-interpret the teachings of their books to fit their own modern-day opinions of right and wrong anyhow.

[Wiseclam]

Kudos to Regis Nicoll for posting all of these controversial comments. And sorry about the misspelling of your name!

[Wiseclam]

“Eyewitness testimony is only considered sufficient to establish historical accounts which do not propose paradigm-shifting claims” is not at all tautology. It’s a very clear statement about standards of evidence for extraordinary claims. What iota means here, I think, is that normative historical claims can be accepted based on simple evidence (eye witness testimony, archeological evidence, etc.) while claims that are extreme in scope and/or violate known laws of physics require more substantial evidence. This is not tautology in any way.

And let me go on record now and state that I do have a bias against supernatural claims. I bet you do, too. Again, using the levitation or invisibility examples I can quickly show that you are biased against such supernatural claims. Compare how you’d evaluate these claims to how you might evaluate a naturalistic claim (I climbed the ten highest mountains in the world before I turned 30 years old – quite a claim, right? – but it falls within the realm of what is known to be possible). My bias is not that supernatural things are impossible and can never be proven. My bias is that the proof for such claims will have to be compatible with the claim. I am certain you hold the same standard – you just don’t apply it to the claims around Christianity. Iota points this out nicely when he challenges you to explain why you discard the claims of other religions. On those you are very capable of applying a strict standard of evidence.

Indeed, Darwin’s theory was a paradigm shifting claim. But there IS a mountain of scientific evidence (built since the time he offered his theory) supporting his claim. His theory has great predictive value. No observation has been made that would refute his claim (and in science ONLY ONE such observation would be required to refute a theory). The “homo sapiens was seen to evolve from homo habilis” example you give, Regis, points to your lack of understanding of evolution.

[Regis Nicoll]

Wiseclam—At the risk of repeating myself, the very nature of supernatural claims is that they are neither predictable nor reproducible. Consequently, the only way to determine whether something of an extraordinary nature actually happened, is to discern the trustworthiness of eyewitness accounts. What separates the extraordinary claims of Christianity from those of other world religions is the unique quality of eyewitness testimony. To recap: 1) the accounts were written within the lifetimes of those who were contemporary with the events described, 2) they were circulated in the region where those events happened—a region that was the most hostile on earth to the Christian message. 3) the accounts of five authors to diverse audiences in the region are in material agreement in every respect (one writer points to 500 eyewitnesses that were still around for readers to challenge!). 4) Jewish and Roman leadership had every possible opportunity and means to produce Jesus’ body, if it indeed existed, thus, putting and end to the movement before it gained traction. However, instead of snuffing out the movement, Christianity grew from a handful to tens of thousands within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses. Given the fact that believers (and the champions of those beliefs) were persecuted and killed for things that they could have readily verified, adds incredible authenticity to the accounts that is totally absent in any other supernatural belief system. Does any of this PROVE the resurrection? No! But it best fits the facts and establishes the basis for reasonable (versus blind or biased) faith.
Turning to the predictive power of Darwinism: it is nil. Granted that drug-resistant bacteria, pesticide resistant insects and dog breed varieties demonstrate the ability of a species to adapt to its environment, such small-scale changes are no more a demonstration of macro-evolution from common descent than of genetic variaton within a common design. And they have absolutely no power to predict what drosophila, much less homo sapiens, will look like in millennia to come.
Yes, I realize that homo sapiens is CLAIMED to have evolved from homo habilis. But a claim is all it is. No one has directly observed the change or has produced a repeatable experiment—a common criticism of supernatural events. Rather, it’s an unfalsifiable theory based the collection of a few bone fragments and an unwavering commitment to naturalism. Again, those fragments, even if they are legit, no more demonstrate common descent than common design. Thus, what one “sees” from these scraps is determined by one's underlying presuppositions.

[Lee]

iota and Wiseclam, the burden of proof isn't only on us believers. In any intellectual contest, the burden of proof is on both sides. And as I've said repeatedly, this information has been published over and over again. The defense rests, and it's now the prosecution's turn. Or is this "burden of proof" issue just a dodge - a cover for the intellectual laziness I've been claiming?

iota, you're now asking for evidence from all the departments of the University, when my original use of that claim was for all of Christianity's beliefs, not the resurrection alone. Please try to remember the scope of the discussion points.

The John Rylands Fragment shows not just eyewitness testimony, but actual written testimony. And these are not mere eyewitnesses, but people willing to be tortured and killed in support of that testimony.

And you have it right, iota - there's a lot at stake in this discussion. Christian missionaries are even right now going all over the world to help create new converts, and many of those converts will live in countries where Christianity is illegal - so they'll be imprisoned and/or tortured and/or put to death. Others will be shunned by their families, possibly even having funerals performed because they are "dead to" their closest relatives.

It would be unimaginable cruel indifference to these people if non-Christians had the ability to stop all this missionary activity. It would be a calling worth every ounce of energy you could expend to stop the madness.

Or do you just look at all those new Christian martyrs and shrug, saying "Eh - survival of the fittest at work"?

"Your Honor, the prosecution has a lot of theories but no evidence to support them."

I did the work myself to weigh the evidence as a dispassionate scientist and hostile atheist, years ago. Why can't you do the same?

[iota]

Regis Nicoll,

First off, yes - I agree with wiseclam. Kudos to you for posting contrary opinions here, and in a timely fashion.

quote:
"Iota-Your statement that “Eyewitness testimony is only considered sufficient to establish historical accounts which do not propose paradigm-shifting claims” is tautological to the extreme. What’s more, it validates your a priori bias against anything that might smack of the supernatural-which, by its nature, is not repeatable nor predictable."

Here is an example of a hypothetical experimental result that is both supernatural and repeatable:

When a sealed flask of sterilized, distilled water is prayed over in the name of Jesus Christ, it spontaneously generates new life. When not prayed over, or prayed over in the name of other religions, nothing happens.

Now, don't get caught up in the specific details here. If you don't like the prayer aspect, or the water, or the "new life", that's fine. The point is that we should see some kind of supernatural and repeatable result in some discipline of science that is comparable in its basic nature to what I've outlined here, given that Christianity posits an active, personal, responsive, omnipotent, omnipresent God at work in the Universe today.

Instead, the sole evidence for the supposedly omnipotent and omnipresent Christianity seems to be 2,000 year old eyewitness testimonies. I suppose that these eyewitness testimonies might be all we'd expect to see if the resurrection *was the only thing posited by Christianity*. In other words, if Christianity had no bearing on our lives today, but instead came and went 2000 years ago with that single event, leaving only eyewitnesses of the time period, then I suppose eyewitness testimonies are all we'd expect to see. Then again, it wouldn't really matter if these testimonies were true or false, given that such a Christianity would have no impact on our lives today.

But that's not what you're proposing. You clearly feel that Christianity is at work in the Universe today. You just want to support it with the kind of evidence that one would only expect to see from a long-dead, "came and went" kind of Christianity.

[iota]

Lee,

quote:
"The John Rylands Fragment shows not just eyewitness testimony, but actual written testimony. "

Any eyewitness testimony can be turned into written testimony, *by writing it down*. I've already assumed that all of the eyewitness testimonies that you site have been written down, and were written down within a reasonable timeframe of the supposed event. That doesn't lend them any greater credibility, because eyewitness testimonies alone are notoriously unreliable.

quote:
"And these are not mere eyewitnesses, but people willing to be tortured and killed in support of that testimony."

How do we know that the disciples of the time were willing to be tortured and killed? By more eyewitness testimonies. You've used eyewitness testimonies to try and bootstrap the credibility of other eyewitness testimonies. You're building a pretty long chain of equally weak links.

quote:
"I did the work myself to weigh the evidence as a dispassionate scientist and hostile atheist, years ago. Why can't you do the same? "

I've looked at the evidences in favor of Christianity and other religions, and found them to be devoid of substance. If you do have any evidence from these many academic departments that you allude to that does in fact support Christianity in general (resurrection or otherwise), present just an example or two of it here, and I'll look it over.

I don't think you can, because I don't think it exists. Prove me wrong.

[Wiseclam]

Lee wrote:

“iota and Wiseclam, the burden of proof isn't only on us believers. In any intellectual contest, the burden of proof is on both sides.”

This is inaccurate and your reference to legal proceedings illustrates it nicely. You say, “The defense rests, and it's now the prosecution's turn.” Actually, the prosecution goes first as they are the one making a claim. The jury does not have to hear from the defense if they are not convinced by the evidence presented. In this case, I am the jury (for myself, anyway) and I’m simply not convinced by the evidence presented. It’s far too weak given the scope of the claim. I think both iota and I have been very clear as to why this is our position.

Regis wrote:

“At the risk of repeating myself, the very nature of supernatural claims is that they are neither predictable nor reproducible. Consequently, the only way to determine whether something of an extraordinary nature actually happened, is to discern the trustworthiness of eyewitness accounts.”

I disagree – and iota offers us a very nice example of a measurable (observable) experiment that would show that supernatural phenomena could be tested. Why don’t we see interstitial prayer having a measurable effect if Jesus is Lord? Also, if the only way to measure the validity of supernatural claims was to rely on eye witness accounts then I would argue that you will always reject those claims. Again, iota has summed this up nicely – repeatedly.

Let me ask Lee and Regis a question... Is it reasonable to reject Christianity or is it your view that arriving at this position is necessarily unreasonable?

[Regis Nicoll]

Iota--(boy I wish I you’d use your real name so I could feel that I’m dialoging with a real person…same goes for you, Wiseclam ;--) Oh, by the way, I take no credit for the timely posting of your comments. Our incomparable blog Meister, Gina Dalfonzo, gets all the kudos. Go, Gina!)--You insist that if supernatural occurrences are real, they ought to be verifiable through naturalistic science. Do you see a logical disconnect there? If Supernature could be completely explained by naturalistic science, it wouldn’t be supernatural, now would it? That Supernature interlocks with nature, and at times manifests itself in nature, allows us an occasional unexpected glimpse beyond nature. But Supernature, by its nature, has no obligation to conform to the laws of nature. Quite the opposite; the laws of nature are fashioned by Supernature, whose inner workings are not revealed within nature. Sounds a lot like that mysterious quantum potential that governs the universe through the infinitesimal infrastructure of the cosmos, don’t ya think?

You rightly note that “Christianity posits an active, personal, responsive, omnipotent, omnipresent God at work in the Universe today.” At the same time, he is not a divine butler who answers prayers by giving into to every desire of the human heart. Thus, as much as you would like, prayer cannot be subjected to deterministic analysis. Thus, I personally don’t put much stock in those double-blind studies that purport to show that sick people who were prayed for recovered at higher rates than those who weren’t, because they overlook the fundamental inscrutability of Supernature. Instead of a Cosmic Vending Machine that gives patrons what they want if the right buttons are pushed, the Christian God is a father who gives his children what they need to become the people they were designed to be. That means his intent is not so much to shield us from painful circumstances in the here-and-now, but, as a good father, to strengthen us to pass through any and every circumstance in preparation for what is yet-to-come. So in addition to the resurrection, the phenomenon of the early church, and the prophesy-filling character of the bible (which we haven’t even addressed)--which of themselves are sufficient to base one’s faith--the changed lives of authentic (I emphasize, authentic!) believers is evidence of God’s ongoing transformational activity.

I would add that the Christain worldview is the only belief system that answers the great metaphysical questions of life (Does life have meaning; what is man; where did we come from; what went wrong; is there a fix; how are we to live; and how will it all end?) in way that is both internally coherent and conformant to how the world really works. But that is a whole other topic for another thread!

[A Thinking BUM]

If you're willing to allow a supernatural explanation for why the disciples believed that Jesus rose from the dead - even under torture and death - then one option that's immediately obvious (to me at least), is that the disciples were possessed by spirits.

That explains everything that needs to be explained w/o a resurrection. All you need is possession by spirits (which happened ALL the time back in Jesus' day).

[Lee]

Thank you, Wiseclam, for spotting my "mistake" - it is indeed the prosecution who goes first in a trial. Why, then, does iota insist that I, the defender of my faith, go first? Indeed, this would be why Dawkins was expected to go first in the debate - he brings the charge against Christianity, and Lennox defends.

iota, my blushes (as Sherlock Holmes once said) - the early Christian martyrs were recorded not merely by eyewitnesses, but by the Roman historian Tacitus. (Do your other religions have a long list of martyrs who were killed simply because of their faith, and not, say, for politics?) Or are you rejecting all eyewitness accounts, not merely sympathetic eyewitnesses? So it is only the evidence you can see with your own eyes that you believe?

Your proposed experiment, iota, would indicate such. And it's an interesting experiment - expecting (as Regis points out) a Supreme being to obey an inferior one, repeatedly. So evidently the only God you'll accept is one that will allow you to be God over Him? I think this is the central psychological issue of atheism. You insist that God perform a miracle any time you please.

So now, iota, you expect me to produce scientific evidence that is repeatable in a laboratory setting, that proves that the resurrection is correct? I can do that as soon as you can show me that Socrates wasn't a fictional character created by someone who went by the pen name "Plato". By the way, what makes evidence "devoid of substance"? I'll need to know that, to report results that will satisfy your increasingly particular and rather arbitrary requirements (can't be 2,000 years old; can't rely on eyewitnesses; must involve physical science; must be repeatable; ...). I've shown you enormous amounts of evidence via published works, but you reject it *for emotional reasons*. So clearly I won't be able to show you any other evidence that will convince you; you'll simply reject it arbitrarily as well.

That's not how science works.

About 1990 or so a skeptic was prepared to publish a book that claimed Christianity was a fraud, partly because no one could prove that anyone was actually ever crucified - except via eyewitness accounts. I offered to fas a copy of the Israeli archaeological journal from the 1960s that described the discovery of the heelbone of a Jew named "Jochannon" at the time of Jesus, and showed pictures of the bone - with the nail still embedded in it. The skeptic, who claimed to boldly pursue truth no matter the consequences, declined my offer. He never said why.

It's deja vu all over again.

[Wiseclam]

Lee wrote:

“Thank you, Wiseclam, for spotting my "mistake" - it is indeed the prosecution who goes first in a trial. Why, then, does iota insist that I, the defender of my faith, go first?”

Because you are bringing the claim to court, Lee. You are the one making a claim (just like the prosecution claims that Mr. Smith robbed the bank, etc.). The burden is on that person presenting the claim. Let me explain it this way... if I claimed that a species of pink elephants existed and that this rare species could fly, would you then have to prove me wrong? Of course not. And not only would the burden of proof not fall on you but it would be IMPOSSIBLE for you to prove such a thing does not exist. This is Bertrand Russell’s classic teapot example. Any intelligent, reasoned person will reject a claim (especially a claim of large scope that is not even known to be physically possible) until evidence is provided that supports it.

Your “Socrates wasn't a fictional character” question is revealing. You realize that there is nothing extraordinary about claiming that a person named Socrates existed. It’s not like this claim comes along with all the impossible claims of Christianity. It’s not a big stretch to accept such a claim. Now, if you say Socrates could hover above the ground...

[Lee]

Wiseclam, it is indeed extraordinary to claim that Socrates existed - the oldest documentary evidence of him that we possess is dated well over 500 years after he died. How do we know that the whole thing wasn't a forgery or a hoax? The same documentary test can also be applied to any religious leader like Jesus or Buddha.

And it was you and iota who came onto this forum and claimed Christianity is false. If I went to a skeptic forum and claimed it was true (and I've done exactly that, in the past), then the burden would indeed be on me.

But once again, there is a mountain of published evidence in favor of the resurrection. It's the evidence against it - and even coherent theories against it using the existing evidence - that are lacking.

Lee,

quote:
"So now, iota, you expect me to produce scientific evidence that is repeatable in a laboratory setting, that proves that the resurrection is correct? ...to report results that will satisfy your increasingly particular and rather arbitrary requirements (can't be 2,000 years old; can't rely on eyewitnesses; must involve physical science; must be repeatable; ...) "

I am asking you to supply an example of the evidence that you claimed you had that would support Christianity from any university department. Since you claim to have such evidence available to you from all academic disciplines, it should be easy for you to produce an example of this. You have not. You are the one making the affirmative claim that this evidence exists, yet you incorrectly insist that the I bear the burden of finding this evidence for myself, and then disproving it. Wiseclam gave a great explanation of why this is wrong.

Your arguments are an interesting contrast to those of Regis Nicoll, who seems to have been consistent in his claim that the evidence for Christianity is tantamount the evidence for the resurrection, and that this evidence is sufficient for belief. You, on the other hand, seem to feel that there are volumes of evidence in favor of Christianity, only a small part of which is the evidence for the resurrection.

So:

1) If you feel that the evidence for the resurrection is the only evidence available, but is sufficient for belief, then admit so.

2) If you instead feel that the evidence for t