Dishonest Apologetics

[anEvilAtheist]

By the way, sorry for being so behind on responding to posts. I wanted to take my time responding to your earlier post because I think the fine-tuning argument does not deserve to be casually dismissed. When laid out in the way you did, the fine-tuning argument seems very compelling. However, this is not the first time I have heard the argument and after considering the evidence on both sides, I concluded that this is not good evidence that there is a God. I will try to identify some, though by no means all, of the problems I see with the fine-tuning theory. Let me know if you see any major flaws in my reasoning.

Dr. Dennis Scania, head of Cambridge University Observatories, said in a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle: “If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature - like the charge on the electron - then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.”

The problem here is that we have no other universes to look at so we cannot determine how unlikely this really is. Just think for a second, how would you randomly choose a number from zero to infinity? You can’t as long as all numbers are equally likely. So you need to have some distribution where some numbers are more common than others. But since we have only one data point (our universe), we are not able to say exactly how likely each value of a given constant is. If we had a probability density function for the possible values of one of the constants, then we could say whether or not our value of that constant in our universe is unusual. But without knowing what that distribution is, the probability of a given constant being within .0000000000001% of our universe’s value could be 99%. If this were the case, then finding out that a .0001% change in the constant would result in a universe devoid of life would be irrelevant. To be impressed, we would first need to know the range of possible values for these constants.

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: observed: “If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.”

In The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology, physicist Victor Stenger showed that even if you randomly select the values of the key physical constants from five orders of magnitude below our universe’s values to five orders above, the large majority of such universes would have stars that lasted long enough for life to form and evolution to take place. Although I respect the opinion of a mathematician, I could see how a mathematician might not understand how the various constants interact (they are not all independent of each other) as well as a physicist like Stenger would.

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University, said: “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly.”

So what? As I mentioned in the first part of this post, this is not evidence that our universe is unlikely without the existence of a God.

When the late Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be created in the “blast-furnaces” of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous “fortunate” one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful “adjustments” had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.
Hoyle summed up his findings as follows: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.”

I am perfectly willing to grant that there are some physicists who are impressed by the fine-tuning argument. Physicists disagree on this issue (though I do not think that Hoyle’s position is a very common opinion), reflecting the high level of uncertainty we have over just how likely values similar to our universe’s are. So while I wouldn’t claim this is a settled issue, there is currently not enough evidence to conclude that a universe containing life would be fantastically improbable. And physicists make mistakes, for example Fred Hoyle rejected the big bang model and was a big proponent of the steady state model.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

In his best-selling book, A Brief History of Time, Sir Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world’s most famous cosmologist) stated: “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life” (p. 125).

“For example,” Hawking wrote, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded… It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.” Hawking said this was evidence of “a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)” (ibid. p. 125).

This is a clear example of quote mining: taking Hawking’s words out of context to make it seem like Hawking meant something different than what he actually did. I don’t in any way blame you for this; none of us have the time to personally discover every single quotation that we use through a thorough review of the source documents. I had read that Hawking had been taken out of context, but to find out for myself, I read those pages of his book. I found that he had indeed been taken out of context.

For example, in the paragraph where Hawking talks about the electron charge, he also says that “We cannot, at the moment at least, predict the values of these numbers from theory – we have to find them by observation. It may be that one day we shall discover a complete unified theory that predicts them all, but it is also possible that some or all of them vary from universe to universe or within a single universe.” Also, Hawking did not say that any of this was evidence of a divine purpose, he merely said that “one can take this as evidence.” Now this may seem like a trivial point, but if you read on, Hawking lays out the reasons why he objects to this interpretation. He explains why he thinks that the strong anthropic principle really reduces to the weak anthropic principle, which atheists have no problem accepting. He also says that “a second objection is that it runs against the tide of the whole history of science. We have developed from the geocentric cosmologies of Ptolemy and his forebears, through the heliocentric cosmology of Copernicus and Galileo, to the modern picture in which the earth is a medium-sized planet orbiting around an average star in the outer suburbs of an ordinary spiral galaxy.”

Now since this book was intended for a fairly general audience, Hawking was understandably coy about his personal beliefs. Looking through his public statements makes clear that he is not a believer in the traditional sense. In response to someone bringing up the issue of God, Hawking remarked that “I thought I had left the question of the existence of a Supreme Being completely open in my article. It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for the laws of physics. However, I think it could be misleading to call such a Being ‘God,’ because this term is normally understood to have personal connotations which are not present in the laws of physics.” He also remarked that “What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.” Although even these statements are somewhat coy, his former wife Jane made clear in her book that Hawking was actually a dogmatic atheist. So Hawking clearly did not find the fine-tuning argument to be convincing.

I believe this post in addition to the three previous posts regarding the prophecies I offered you should give you information to seriously consider.

I will address the other posts separately, but I feel that your post on fine-tuning provides no evidence whatsoever to believe in God. I do agree though that the current arguments for fine-tuning are interesting and should be seriously considered. However, I have done that and found them to be without merit.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

One piece of evidence is the martyrdom of His Apostles.

I addressed this earlier in this thread:

I have read a little bit about this, but I found the real evidence to be pretty thin. From what I’ve seen, there are only independent accounts of the deaths of a few of the apostles, and no evidence that they could have avoided being killed by recanting. So if you have some independent accounts of their deaths, I honestly would be interested in reading them.

Also, I am not claiming that they all made it up. I do not want to do a thorough explanation here of what I see as the most plausible explanation for the biblical accounts, but I’ll lay out very briefly what I think might have happened. I do not believe in the empty tomb (a belief shared by many biblical scholars). I believe that Jesus probably existed and was executed. I then think that his followers had dreams and visions of Jesus. Over time, and through multiple tellings, the stories grew. So I think some of them may have been convinced by their visions that Jesus had appeared to them.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Obviously it would be up to you to take the information presented and in greater depth make the comparisons as you seek the truth. Making the time is something you should wish to do for the simple reason if could make a difference not only in your earthly life but in your eternal life once you learn the truth. Now, as far as whether the prophecies should be taken as chance or as actual knowledge of future events, the evidence is in the facts and depths of those prophecies. You certainly are intelligent enough to know the laws of probability and once compared to the number of prophecies and the accuracy involved, chance is not possible, in fact out of the question. As I recommended before, check into the history of Saint Justin Martyr who came from the same mind frame as you but a professional philosopher in history.

My problem is that no matter how closely I examined what you posted, it could not provide any evidence of God. Until certain events of the New Testament are established as probably accurate, it is meaningless whether or not they would represent fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. If Jesus was not the son of God, it makes sense that the legend of Jesus would develop so as to generally fulfill Old Testament prophecy. What I am saying is that in order to establish that God probably exists, you have to at the very least establish that certain events in the New Testament actually took place, and that they represented fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. You would then have to establish that these fulfilled prophecies were unlikely to be fulfilled by chance. My problem is that you completely skipped over the first step of establishing what actually happened.

Further, events regarding Christianity and the periods of Roman rule can be compared and as much as the Roman powers that were disliked the Christians, they served to provide verification of many things in their day. History doesn’t question the existence of the Christians, Christ, the apostles or events that took place. Only the possibility of the actual miracles which have been recorded.

The lack of historical evidence one way or another is not evidence that the story is true unless you would expect there to definitely be historical evidence refuting it if the story was false. You have not yet established this.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Further still, if one studies and knows the human natural responses of man when it comes to danger and safety, death or survival and so on, one needs to also consider the reactions and paths of the apostles and their successors not to mention the faithful. Consider the fear and reaction of the Apostles when Jesus was taken into custody, brutally tortured and hung on the cross as He was to die such a horrid death. These things are historic so they are not in question even by non-partial historians. The Apostles reacted as anyone else would either then or today in that they believed their teacher and leader and Savior had been murdered and the same was probable for them. Remember He was their savior and had been murdered so to them at that time there was no hope whatsoever. They all took off abandoning Jesus to hide for their lives. Now, the big one (question), what possible occurrence could change these men fearful of a similar death as Jesus into men who would turn completely opposite in nature and set out publicly proclaiming His word if not something that would reaffirm their belief that He was the savior after all and there was more than what we know as this worldly life? It would have to be supernatural in nature because the only thing to change such fear in men into the absolute of an eventual confrontation leading to such horrid death would be for Christ’s returning to life as history refers and confirming His teaching including such eternal life. The apostles faced and suffered the deaths of beheadings, crucifixions, stoning and whippings to the point of bleeding to death, being torn apart by animals for the entertainment of others and more. Each apostle faced these things at different times and in different places so you can’t say they all were caught at once and didn’t have the opportunity to change their minds. They absolutely knew what eventually could and for most would happen but they remained steadfast in their teachings to death. Only the realization of a continued eternal life as promised could keep such devotion firm.

I do not think there is good evidence for what you say happened to the apostles. I have only seen independent evidence for a couple of them, and it is not clear that they could have survived by recanting. But I am not assuming that the apostles did not believe that Jesus had appeared to them. I addressed this in another post:
anEvilAtheist;5230488:

Well, I think it’s completely possible that the disciples believed that Jesus had appeared to them. I heard about one woman (in the present) who said that Jesus had come to her in a dream and promised that she would live to a certain age. She was absolutely convinced that it was a real appearance and that the promise would be kept. However, there could certainly be a psychological explanation for dreams such as this. So if the disciples had vivid dreams or visions of Jesus, and I think there’s a good chance that they would have given the mental state they were probably in after Jesus’ death, they may have fully believed that Jesus had appeared to them. Through word of mouth, their stories may have been exaggerated. But they still would have been certain that Jesus had appeared to them and have been willing to die for their beliefs.

The word kept by the master teacher to His students. Many had been martyred in the name of Christ. And the numerous prophecies that we refer to as inspired word of God spanned more than 5000 years before his birth to such detail you could never provide support to claim chance even remotely. And you know what I am saying to you. These things aren’t even half of all that exists in the name of God.

I was not saying that most of the prophecies were confirmed by chance. I was saying that first show me that they were confirmed and then we’ll see how unlikely they were.

A good investigator doesn’t offer only one piece of evidence to prosecute a criminal he gathers all the evidence to make the case. You my unknowing brother will get no where only looking at one thing. You need to bring it all together and see what you find.

Believe me; I’m not just looking for one perfect rock-solid proof of God. I am confident that such a thing does not exist. I am perfectly happy to merely make a decision based on what seems like the better explanation after considering all the evidence. My problem is that I still don’t think I’ve found any good evidence for Christianity.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I no longer put much stock in arguments for or against. I have come to realize the question cannot be answered definitively beyond a pretty powerful private revelation.

I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it – might be true. Some may have a problem with this but it is, if nothing else, honest.

I’ve lived my life both ways, ignoring God and His word and trying my best to follow God and His word. The latter is certainly better for me. Therefore I have faith.

I think it wise advice to stop seeking the definitive answer. Perhaps, the reason we cannot answer this question with all the advances in modern science, thousands of years of philosophers, theologians, scientists etc etc, is part of the plan.

And…maybe not. see?

I’m not really seeking a definitive answer, and I think that our own existence is about the only thing we can know with 100% certainty, but I currently think it is a lot less likely that there is some sort of personal God than that there is no such God. Even if believing in God would be “better for me”, I would still not be able to force myself to believe something that I don’t think is true. I think the only thing I can do is consider all the evidence and figure out what I think is probably true.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

What exactly is “Dishonest Apologetics”?

Should the thread not be entitled “Dishonest Apologists”?

Yeah, I know what you mean. What I meant was practicing Apologetics dishonestly. I guess that wasn’t as clear as I hoped it would be. One problem with calling it “Dishonest Apologists” is that I don’t like to call people dishonest merely because they have done one thing I see as dishonest. I don’t think it’s fair to call someone a liar because they’ve told one lie. Although I consider myself to be a very honest person, I’m sure I have told a few lies sometime in the course of my life, as I think most people have.

Though at this point, maybe we should call it, anEvilAtheist tries to answer every argument ever made for the existence of God.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

*“In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty*. - Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 65.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/65.htm

I know that not everyone believes that God will reveal himself to you if you pray. But since some people believe that it works, I thought that it would be worth a try. My problem with relying only on the story of Christ is that I do not think there is good evidence that it is true. Even if I really liked the story in the Bible (or the Koran, or any other religious text), unless there’s a reason to think its true, it doesn’t make sense for me to believe in it.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

You have given me food for thought and a task. Reason to believe! Hmm! I will look into that and come back to you.

Wow, I didn’t realize how much I used that phrase in my message. Yeah, definitely let me know what you come up with. At this point I really doubt that there is any good reason to believe, but I’ve been wrong before.

Last evening I was scanning the TV and came upon a movie 20 years old which caught my attention and decided to watch. It is called Dad with Jack Lemmon. If you can get hold of the movie I recommend it. You reminded me of the character of the son which was rather special. They don’t make movies like that these days.

Ciao
Cinette

I like old movies too. Maybe I’ll check it out sometime.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Thank you for your honesty. No disrespect to you, but you are obviously one who requires a physical person to appear before you in order to believe because it is obvious you have no real support not to believe other than you are dependant on your limited senses. Unfortunately, what you are requiring already happened 2000 years ago for all those who couldn’t grasp it then. Jesus did appear in person and look at what we did to Him because we wouldn’t believe. And if He did appear once again for the sake of those who can’t grasp it just to show us He was real and truly loved us do you think the reaction of the people would have different results? No, the majority would once again persecute Him just as we persecute and martyr many who believe in Him today. So when He returns this time, for those who refuse to truly seek the Truth (which if one does He or She will believe) He will serve just response. What you want He did. That is fact. You weren’t there but the History and nature of man certainly offers the proof. If you haven’t found it, you haven’t looked deeply enough.

My big problem is with how unreliable the historical account of Jesus is. There is little historical evidence that Jesus even existed (though I believe that he did), let alone that the Bible’s account of his life is correct. I think that the story in the Bible is more likely to be a legend developed around a kernel of historical truth as it is to accurately depict what actually happened. Not only has a natural explanation historically been shown to be more likely than a supernatural one, but I think that the amount of inconsistencies and ambiguities in the Bible would be more likely if it was a legend built up over the years.

There is plenty of stuff that (although not convincing to those who want absolute proof), that would convince me that God exists. For example, if instead of one poorly recorded event that happened in one area of the world during a superstitious period of time, God had proclaimed a message to all the peoples of the world at the same time in their own languages. If all of the peoples of the world had stories of God proclaiming the same message at the same time, I would find it very hard to explain that naturally. Now some may say that there could be a psychological explanation, and maybe they’d be right. But to me, that would seem like a pretty good reason to believe in God. I don’t need proof, just something that makes God’s existence seem more likely than his nonexistence.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

For some it is hard to believe and have faith in God. To those, I guess, He is no more real than Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. For others that choose to believe and have faith in God, whether it is hard or easy for them, is a grace from God. For those that find it very difficult to believe in God, they choose to tsubmit to their own explanation of the universe because it is easier for them. It is hard for them to go against the grain of their natural way of explaining the universe, so they look for and agree with the arguments that make most since to them without causing them to leave their comfort zone. I guess there are also people that find it easy to believe in God but choose not to. For them we should pray for as well.

I actually think that it is hard to go against the grain of the supernatural way of explaining the universe. The universe is unbelievably complicated and mysterious. It is difficult to be content with not knowing exactly why it is the way it is. I actually think it is much more tempting to say that it was all created by a God. At least if you say God did it, you feel like you have a good answer.

You will know it one way or the other. Hopefully, before you die. It is good that you truly want to know if you are wrong. Don’t give up on asking God to reveal Himself to you. It may not come as soon as you’d like, but just keep asking. “Never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never give up.” - Winston Churchill

Though if there is no God, then I’ll never really know.

I wanted to add what Fr. Corapi says. I’m paraphrasing here. “Empirical science is part of the truth. The truth is one. Allow those lower truths to bring you up higher to the highest truth of all who is Jesus Christ. To know the Truth is to be set free. What can you do when you are set free? You can know, love and serve God.”

Well I currently feel free, and currently think that what I believe is probably true. But obviously if God exists and knowing God is an incredible experience, than I would definitely want to know God. If there’s some truth of God out there to find, I simply haven’t found it yet.

Are you familiar with Fr. John Corapi?

No, I wasn’t familiar with him until you brought him up. I read up a bit on his life and conversion. I think it’s really impressive that he was able to turn his life around like that. One thing that I think is fascinating is that a lot of people who live hedonistic godless lives often realize the error of their ways and turn to religion and people who were brought up with in an overly strict religious household often turn away from religion. For example, William J. Murray, whose mother epitomized militant atheism, later became a Christian. And Nate Phelps, son of religious extremist Fred Phelps, later became an atheist. I’m not trying to say the only reason Fr. Corapi believes in God is how he was brought up, I just think it’s really interesting that in their extreme forms, both religion and atheism can sometimes drive people to go in the complete opposite direction. Maybe I’m wrong and it isn’t that common. It’s just a random thought I had that I wanted to share.

 

[WesleyF]

My problem with relying only on the story of Christ is that I do not think there is good evidence that it is true. Even if I really liked the story in the Bible (or the Koran, or any other religious text), unless there’s a reason to think its true, it doesn’t make sense for me to believe in it.

In that case you should do some reading on the subject of Christ and his claims, coz as far as I am aware, no qualified historian will deny Christ’s existence.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

In that case you should do some reading on the subject of Christ and his claims, coz as far as I am aware, no qualified historian will deny Christ’s existence.

I have done some research into it and I think the evidence points to there being some sort of historical Jesus. I don’t think there’s enough evidence to remove all doubt, but I think it’s more likely that he existed than that he didn’t exist. I just don’t think there’s good evidence that the account of his life that is given in the Bible is true. I think it is more likely that it is a legend that developed around a man than that he was the actual son of God.

For example, I believe that George Washington existed, but I think that the story of him chopping down the cherry tree is a legend. Along with many historians, I think that there might be some historical basis for King Arthur, but I think that the stories about him are largely legendary.

 

[WesleyF]

I don’t think there’s enough evidence to remove all doubt, but I think it’s more likely that he existed than that he didn’t exist. I just don’t think there’s good evidence that the account of his life that is given in the Bible is true. I think it is more likely that it is a legend that developed around a man than that he was the actual son of God.

People hardly give up their lives for lies. All of Christ’s 12 apostles were killed because they preached the truth about him. They were not afraid to die for him. And many of the early Christians were persecuted for their faith by the Romans. These are all historical facts. You can look them up. Thomas came preaching the faith as far as India and was killed over there. I’ve visited that place myself. It is absurd to think that someone would go to such an extent if he was merely preaching a lie. What would he gain from it?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

People hardly give up their lives for lies. All of Christ’s 12 apostles were killed because they preached the truth about him. They were not afraid to die for him. And many of the early Christians were persecuted for their faith by the Romans. These are all historical facts. You can look them up. Thomas came preaching the faith as far as India and was killed over there. I’ve visited that place myself. It is absurd to think that someone would go to such an extent if he was merely preaching a lie. What would he gain from it?

Where is the evidence that 12 apostles were killed for preaching Jesus’ teachings? I have already addressed this before in this thread, and it is simply not an established historical fact. There is some evidence for a few of them, but definitely not for most of them. Also, I do not necessarily believe that they died for a lie. I explained my thinking in an earlier post and would be interesting in hearing what you think is wrong with my reasoning:

I think it’s completely possible that the disciples believed that Jesus had appeared to them. I heard about one woman (in the present) who said that Jesus had come to her in a dream and promised that she would live to a certain age. She was absolutely convinced that it was a real appearance and that the promise would be kept. However, there could certainly be a psychological explanation for dreams such as this. So if the disciples had vivid dreams or visions of Jesus, and I think there’s a good chance that they would have given the mental state they were probably in after Jesus’ death, they may have fully believed that Jesus had appeared to them. Through word of mouth, their stories may have been exaggerated. But they still would have been certain that Jesus had appeared to them and have been willing to die for their beliefs.

 

[WesleyF]

Where is the evidence that 12 apostles were killed for preaching Jesus’ teachings? I have already addressed this before in this thread, and it is simply not an established historical fact.

I think it is, but again I’m not so good at all the historical data.

I think it’s completely possible that the disciples believed that Jesus had appeared to them.

Can hallucinations occur simultaneously? And to such an extent that not just the 12 but all the other disciples sudden start behaving in a wierd way?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I think it is, but again I’m not so good at all the historical data.

From what I’ve read, there’s pretty good evidence for Peter, Paul, and James, but the others are more uncertain.

Can hallucinations occur simultaneously?

Well I didn’t say they all hallucinated. I think that some of them may have had dreams or hallucinations of Jesus, but not necessarily all of them. I do not claim that there must have been a group hallucination. I think it is quite possible that when the apostles began to spread their stories of dreams or hallucinations of Jesus, they gradually got embellished upon and exaggerated. Not only was this common for speakers back then, but the gospels themselves show some evidence of this. The story of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances gets increasingly more elaborate and fantastical as you look at the later accounts. Based on the evidence, Mark is most likely the first gospel, followed by Matthew, Luke, and John. Mark (aside from 16: 9-20 which was likely a later addition) gave a very simple account of the resurrection. John, on the other hand, had Jesus appear multiple times to the disciples and dine with them. So for these reasons, and others, I think it is much more likely that a few of the apostles had dreams or visions of Jesus than that he was actually resurrected.

And to such an extent that not just the 12 but all the other disciples sudden start behaving in a wierd way?

Under the circumstances, I do not think that it is that weird for the apostles to have dreams or hallucinations of Jesus. I heard an interesting conversation on the resurrection between Michael Licona, a somewhat well-known New Testament historian and author of The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus and a young atheist blogger. Licona feels that Jesus’ supposed experiences in group settings are the hardest to explain, though I disagree as I explained above. However, he recognizes that the disciples were probably in a mental state that made hallucinations very likely (transcribed from archive.org/download/ConversationsFromThePaleBlueDot002-MikeLicona/002-MikeLicona.mp3 about 25 minutes from the beginning):

Now take something like a hallucination hypothesis, it accounts wonderfully for Jesus’ death by crucifixion which would certainly have put the disciples in a frame of mind that would have made them candidates for hallucination because they were grief stricken, it was sudden, it was brutal, they were fearful, now they were confused, they were prime candidates for a hallucination. Throw in Peter’s denial of Jesus and now he has guilt. Wow, so that fits wonderfully with the hallucination hypothesis.

So I have looked into this a little bit, and I currently don’t think that the beliefs of the apostles provide good evidence that Jesus was resurrected. But if there’s something important that I’ve missed, let me know.

 

[Cinette]

Hello EvilAtheist!

In a nutshell here are my reasons to believe:

CREATION – the evidence of a Higher Being is all around us and within us

LOVE – the powerful force of love is overwhelming.

MIRACLES – evidence of supernatural occurrences have been studied and documented
“Lourdes”, “Fatima” “Guadaloupe” - strong evidence

CERTAINTY – I have a certainty within me that God exists and that is FAITH

There is much more: Jesus’ death on the Cross for love of humanity; the Resurrection; life experiences which include amazing evidence of miracles!

All these are gifts from God. I have a friend who loves the Church and defends it vigorously and yet he is an Atheist. He tells me “I have tried”. That is his cross and I am sure God will be there at the hour of death to embrace him and take him home. He gives generously to the poor, he cares, but………. It is a mystery.

I have a book on my bookshelf waiting to be read when I have the time. It is called “Reasons to Believe” by Scott Hahn. He is a convert to the CC and has written many books and his witness is powerful. Take a look.

I also believe that you “EvilAtheist” will one day believe also. You’re a good person and you care. Didn’t I tell you that I saw my husband transformed from a committed atheist to a believer who today attends Daily Mass? Faith is catchy - like a virus!

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hello again.
Thanks for sharing your reasons.

Hello EvilAtheist!

In a nutshell here are my reasons to believe:

CREATION – the evidence of a Higher Being is all around us and within us

LOVE – the powerful force of love is overwhelming.

I also think the world is a wonderful place and know how powerful love can be, but for me it seems like it could be this way regardless of whether there’s a God.

MIRACLES – evidence of supernatural occurrences have been studied and documented
“Lourdes”, “Fatima” “Guadaloupe” - strong evidence

I’ve looked into all three of these in the past. From what I’ve heard so far, they all seem to have reasonable natural explanations. I would like to look into Fatima more and maybe I’ll start a thread on it at some point.

CERTAINTY – I have a certainty within me that God exists and that is FAITH

I just don’t think I could force myself to believe in something when everything I’ve seen so far makes me think it doesn’t exist.

There is much more: Jesus’ death on the Cross for love of humanity; the Resurrection; life experiences which include amazing evidence of miracles!

I agree with you that all of these would be incredibly impressive. I guess that’s why I want to see decent evidence before I believe in them. It’s a bit like how I’d believe someone if they told me their name, but I’d want to see very good evidence if they said they had invented a teleportation machine.

I have a book on my bookshelf waiting to be read when I have the time. It is called “Reasons to Believe” by Scott Hahn. He is a convert to the CC and has written many books and his witness is powerful. Take a look.

I’ve read some of it, mostly the parts intended for atheists or skeptics. I just thought that his arguments were the standard arguments for God that I’ve already encountered. None of them seem to be really solid.

I also believe that you “EvilAtheist” will one day believe also. You’re a good person and you care. Didn’t I tell you that I saw my husband transformed from a committed atheist to a believer who today attends Daily Mass? Faith is catchy - like a virus!

If there is a God, I sure hope I find out before I die (and if he’s omnibenevolent, I think I will). Yeah, you mentioned your husband, and I thought it was pretty impressive. If faith is a virus, maybe God should have made it more of a pandemic.

 

[WesleyF]

From what I’ve read, there’s pretty good evidence for Peter, Paul, and James, but the others are more uncertain.

The story of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances gets increasingly more elaborate and fantastical as you look at the later accounts. Based on the evidence, Mark is most likely the first gospel, followed by Matthew, Luke, and John. Mark (aside from 16: 9-20 which was likely a later addition) gave a very simple account of the resurrection. John, on the other hand, had Jesus appear multiple times to the disciples and dine with them. So for these reasons, and others, I think it is much more likely that a few of the apostles had dreams or visions of Jesus than that he was actually resurrected.

When something is well known, you don’t need to elaborate so much on it. The same is the case with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. It was not until the 3rd century, when objections were being raised, that the church had to explain and document this doctrine. It doesn’t mean that the doctrine was invented at that time! In the same way, John, who is writing the last book of the gospel, makes sure that he puts as much detail as he possibly can, for the benifit of the future generations.

Throw in Peter’s denial of Jesus and now he has guilt. Wow, so that fits wonderfully with the hallucination hypothesis.

This reveals the double standards of Mr. Licona. How did he know that Peter denied Jesus? It’s through the gospels! The same gospels whose authenticity he denies. How can he do a selective reading of the book, like Peter’s denial, and reject all the other facts, like Jesus’ miracles, or the very fact that Jesus himself said he would be crucified and rise on the third day? Also, if Jesus did not rise on the third day, then where is his body?