The debate went pretty well, actually. In the Christian corner was Tim Thorburn, and the Atheist was Michael Tan.
Atheist Michael did a great job, hitting all the main points. Humans have a need to explain things, and sometimes they make explanations that involve magical beings. But we need to use evidence and reason to sort out what’s happening, and the evidence for Christianity is not particularly strong. The most electric moment: Tim said that the Bible contained predictions that have been fulfilled, and Michael responded that many others haven’t yet, especially the return of Jesus. “How long is it going to take before we realise he’s not coming back?” he said, to gasps and applause from the audience.
Christian Tim argued that Christianity was true because the Bible said so. Okay, he didn’t put it as weakly as that. He mentioned that the Bible contained eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, and that Paul alluded to the eyewitness accounts so casually that they must have been well-accepted by the Christians of his day. So that’s the evidence.
“Except it isn’t evidence,” I said to Tim as we chatted afterwards. “It’s another claim.”
“How do you mean?” he asked.
“Well, Paul is claiming that Jesus was resurrected and that there were eyewitnesses to it. But that’s not evidence. That’s another claim, and we need to examine it.
“I mean, it’s part of the same story. You can’t use a part of the story as evidence for the story!”
“Yes, I can!” he said, looking rather surprised.
I also asked him about the Book of Mormon. At the front of every copy of the Book of Mormon, there appears the testimony of three men who claimed that an angel showed them the gold plates. There’s also the testimony of eight other men who claimed that they got to see the gold plates without any angel. I believe these testimonies to be false, to which Tim the Christian readily agreed. But if you’re going to accept the testimony of so-called eyewitnesses in the Bible, why wouldn’t you accept the testimonies of eye-witnesses in the Book of Mormon?
Tim responded that the Bible was a very reliable source of testimony because it had many different witnesses whose testimony dovetailed together so well that it couldn’t all be fiction. I’m not doing his response justice because he said it much better than I can remember, and I hope I’m getting the gist of it right — memory is unreliable. But that was basically the idea; the Bible was so much better a source for eyewitness testimony than other books because it was so complex and dense and interlocking that no one could have faked it and it must be true.
But anyone who’s heard the story of the Nottingham Lion or heard conflicting reports from eyewitnesses at accident scenes knows that eyewitness accounts are not reliable sources for what really happened. Especially when the story has had hundreds of years to get itself straightened out.
Anyway, it was a fine outing. Michael and Tim were good gentlemen to talk to. And the UWA Atheist and Agnostic Society has a Facebook group, if you’re a person of the ‘Book.
5 August 2008 at 5:18 pm
“Tim responded that the Bible was a very reliable source of testimony because it had many different witnesses whose testimony dovetailed together so well that it couldn’t all be fiction. I’m not doing his response justice because he said it much better than I can remember, and I hope I’m getting the gist of it right — memory is unreliable.”
bwaaahahahaha. Nice one Daniel. I like the way you make the point while still sounding like you are taking his point seriously. So very smooth. The rest of the post wasn’t even needed after this.
7 August 2008 at 1:12 am
Call me Ishmael, but with that logic, I’m fairly sure I can claim anything I write is gospel if I spin a good enough narrative (and make the book look old enough).
“There was an omnipotent god from Nantucket…”
27 August 2008 at 8:27 pm
When you argue that eyewitness accounts of the Bible are not true because people make mistakes in accident scenes is illogical and stupid.
I say stupid because most Ahteists I’ve talked to cannot accept the answers I give them and instead always use very obtuse examples to try and disprove the evidence as true. This is one such incident.
Obviously they (the people in the accident) were shaken up and their minds are not on how the accident happened. Some may even try to say that it was someone else’s fault just to get out of paying a ticket, but the eyewitnesses of the time of Jesus did not have a reason to make up a story (unless they could fast forward to the future so that Atheists could make another accusation of Christians lying).
Stop ganging up on Christians and trying to disprove our beliefs with facts that in no way relate to the context and history of what the Bible says.
ted, why do atheists always make up stupid unaccepted and unnoticed names like Nantucket, Spaghetti Monster to try and make it sound like a God could not exist. Simply pathetic.
28 August 2008 at 5:37 am
Somebody needs to call the waaah!mbulance. I’m being too mean, apparently.
Anon, if you’re too lazy to look up some psychological literature about the unreliability of memory and eyewitness accounts, then maybe I can make it that little bit easier for you.
Here are a few articles that explain that memory is unreliable, false memories are easy to induce, and eyewitness accounts are subject to ex post facto revision.
A CNN article about research by Elizabeth Loftus.
The SkepDic page on false memory
Tons of links from Rick Ross
People in a good mood remember details worse.
A recent study that suggests that people are more likely to remember false information if someone they trust presents it to them.
If you disagree with the foregoing, it must be because you have some very special evidence. Will you share it with us?
25 September 2008 at 4:04 am
daniel and jeffrey make an interesting point about memory / reliability etc. i would have a few comments though which don’t prove anything but might be worth considering. for certain; people misinterpret things but i don’t know if paul receiving the core beliefs (ie the creed 1 Corinthians 15) within 5 years (that’s skeptic NOT just Christian apologists dating) in the same city (Jerusalem) as the events themselves are supposed to have happened, constitutes a clear cut case of memory loss. princess diana died over 10 years ago and no one is claiming, in Paris or elsewhere that she rose from the dead? It doesn’t explain Paul being a persecutor of the church converting nor the Apostle James who was a skeptic. Nor does it account for an empty tomb in that people could check this if people suddenly forgot en mass the details. Also given the context of second temple Judaism the cultural precedence would lead to claims of ascension and not resurrection which in a strictly Jewish context is an end of world event.
I don’t think you need to be defensive Anon, just address the concerns of our atheist friends as they arise.
26 September 2008 at 3:09 pm
2nd Anonymous: You’re doing it, I’m afraid. You’re taking the details of the story largely at face value because the Bible says they happened that way. This is known as ‘affirming the consequent’. In fact, whether there was an empty tomb to visit or whether Paul or James did the things the Bible claims is just that: a claim. We need to distinguish claims from evidence, and I don’t know how to help you with this, except to point it out.
The Diana example is interesting. I haven’t heard any claims of her resurrection, but perhaps the extensive media coverage put the kibosh on that fairly conclusively. Imagine what no media coverage and word of mouth could do. There have been many Elvis sightings, which shows that even in a relatively short time a mythology can spring up. The legend of Christianity has had many more years to spread.
27 September 2008 at 2:21 am
I think I can see your objection now! To say that there was a bible laying around and these guys just perpetuated it would be one I wouldn’t agree to, mainly because all of the authors were long gone by the time anyone bothered to compile the New Testament as we know it. I think your objection is more on the issue of biased testimony?
When I say “Paul said this in 1 Corinthians…” I’m not appealing to divine inspiration of the NT. The historical document is quite apart from any preconceived notions of inspiration. If Paul wrote all his material before 64AD then why discount his material because he was cited in a collection of works centuries later? His biases are treated no differently than Tacitus (Roman bias), Josephus (Jewish) or any other ancient author. The bias argument against use of Paul’s testimony is fine, it’s just that every ancient document has to be tossed as a result.
27 September 2008 at 2:40 pm
We don’t exactly have to toss it because of bias. Every author’s biased. We just need to be aware of bias.
In particular, we need to be aware that when an author claims something happened, this does not mean that the thing really happened, even if the author promises that it’s true. It could have happened, or the author may be honestly mistaken. (What’s more likely; that a man rose from the dead, or that some people were mistaken?)
It could also be the case that well-meaning editors could have intervened in the interest of a story that they wanted to promote, which can happen as time passes.
29 September 2008 at 4:08 am
I wholeheartedly agree! Take bias into account when assessing ancient texts. So we can assess his material objectively as long as we put aside his Theology and Christology. Material outside his theological/Christological bias would be reporting of eyewitnesses to a Resurrected Jesus (including himself), an empty tomb (implied by the word Resurrection that is a body once dead is now alive). You are correct in that he may have been mistaken but I think you are also correct in that the word 'mistaken' implies that he was being honest in his reporting, he just didn't know any better if it wasn't in fact a Resurrection. I think we can safely say he is not dishonest because his subsequent life and martyrdom (see Clement) don't appear to be consistent with a man who is duping people (Cui Bono? not Paul that's for sure).
So I don't know if you'd agree with the following but I think we could say with a fair degree of certainty that "regardless of what actually happened; something happened to these early Christians which made THEM believe that THEY had seen a Resurrected Christ and that THEIR lives were changed."
The biggest question to me is how did they get to this point. The biggest question mark is the claim itself (Resurrection). It is completely outside the context of 2nd temple Judaism (or indeed the wider Greco-Roman context), to claim a man has risen from the dead ahead of the Great Resurrection is like saying "The end of the world has come….just a little bit".
The probability calculus you offer is a fair one. But I would add the disclaimer "given no existence of God". Here I would absolutely agree, given no God a man certainly does not raise from the dead and would welcome a naturalistic explanation of eyewitnesses (perhaps they were visions?), and empty burial place (grave robbery?) and the conversion of those who were initially opposed to this new Judaism (Paul, James).
In regard to your last point on the editors, there is certainly that possibility. But when you take into account Paul's timeline (<5 years after the event) and the fact that it's not just him but multiply attested to be all the early Christians, there just doesn't appear to be enough time, especially considering we don't have someone quoting Paul, it's Paul himself writing the text. Again I'd have to say, it looks like honest reporting BUT as you say there may be some other explanation other than an actual Resurrection of which I'd be all ears.
14 August 2013 at 7:48 am
'But we need to use evidence and reason to sort out what's happening, and the evidence for Christianity is not particularly strong.'
Hi Daniel, This is a massive claim. Can you provide evidence for this 'not particularly strong evidence.' What evidence would you require?
Bec
14 August 2013 at 3:40 pm
No, it's not a 'massive claim'. If you want a massive claim, try the idea that dead people have come to life, and that an invisible spirit can grant requests. Those are the claims of Christianity, and they are unsupported by any evidence at all.