[net.religion] Converts from Evidence

notes@iuvax.UUCP (04/12/84)

#N:iuvax:1700018:000:4688
iuvax!dsaker    Apr 11 21:43:00 1984

Larry Bickford challenged me with four people who started out not believing,
but were converted, apparently, on the basis of evidence:

Frank Morison, author of _Who Moved the Stone_
Josh McDowell, of _Evidence that Demands a Verdict_
C.S.Lewis, _Mere Christianity_ and others
Lew Wallace, _Ben-Hur_, who was converted while working on a book "to
	forever destroy the myth of Christianity"

My reply became so long that I decided to post it here.  Also, the books by
Morison, Lewis and Wallace have been mentioned several times in this group,
so why not start discussing them.

REPLY:

Ben-Hur did not seem to contain any argument for the truth of christianity.

I haven't read J. McDowell's book.

Who Moved the Stone has flawed arguments and contains too many suppositions
about the nature of the relationship between the jews and the roman officials.
For example, Morison asks why, if Jesus' body was still lying in the tomb, 
didn't the Roman officials just take a bunch of these trouble-causing 
christians to the tomb and show them that there had been no resurrection.  
The trouble is that there is no evidence to suggest that the roman officials 
were in any way concerned about the christians at that time.  The bible gives 
the impression that people were converting to christianity in droves, but 
there is no other evidence for this.  I have read a couple of hefty  History 
of the Jewish People  type books for this period.  In the 100 year span 
around Jesus' time, Judea was full of crazy religious sects.  During this 
period, there were at least 8 people who claimed to be the prophesied messiah.
(By the way, these people all peformed various miracles and so forth.)
The romans generally ignored these people.  Presumably, they ignored the 
christians in the same way.
The problem is that we just don't know enough of what was going on at that 
time to reason out what people's motivations were for actions that might not
even have been performed.

I haven't read Mere Christianity.  The book recommended to me to get the
"real story" as to how and why Lewis became a christian was Surprised by Joy.
I was very disappointed by that book.  Lewis' main reason for becoming a 
theist seemed to be that the world and everything needed an originator.  As 
for his movement from theism to christianity, he just seemed to do it.  I
never could divine his reasons.  Now, this book had been described to me, by 
my christian friends, as the most transparent and detailed rendering of how 
and why a rational, thinking man became a christian.  When I pointed to the
pages and complained, these same christians countered by saying that the
conversion to christ is too hard to describe.  It seemed to me that none of 
them had ever critically read the book.  The same problem as when I presented
these friends with my criticisms of Morison's arguments.  My impression was
that they had only skimmed his book, feeling delighted with the idea that a
clear-thinking lawyer could be overwhelmed by the evidence for christianity,
but never troubling to critically examine what they read.

Now, I am not, at this point, trying to say that christians should give up
their faith because of lack of evidence.  What I am trying to say is that
the objective evidence is really not strong enough to be convincing.  
Thus, I, who have no subjective evidence for the truth of christianity,
despite praying and so forth, cannot possibly be expected to believe.

Actually, the objective evidence for christianity is so weak that I really
have trouble accepting that anyone is converted by that evidence alone.
As I stated in my note 171, whenever I have questioned a convert
closely, I have found that the evidence was not really the basis of his
conversion.  I can't help but wonder whether any of those who claim to be
convinced by the evidence are telling the truth.  If someone out there has
been convinced by the objective evidence alone, then I guess that all I 
can do is feel surprised.  But surely, even if someone was themselves
convinced by the evidence for the truth of christianity, they would have to
admit that the evidence is not compelling and that one can logically remain
unconvinced by the evidence.  That is, they could not demand of me that I
believe on the basis of the objective evidence.

I find the issue of objective evidence interesting because here is something
that can be discussed objectively (although the state of being convinced
by evidence is itself subjective -- like the state of being convinced by a
logical deduction).  I have more to say on this issue, but I will sit back and
wait for some more replies.

     Daryel Akerlind
  ...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker

rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/12/84)

It seems to me, from my modestly biased viewpoint, that advocates of
religion in this newsgroup are somehow changing their tune.  Originally,
discussions in this group were running rampant on the nature of
the evidence; now there seems to be a new theme in pro-religion articles.

It's almost as though, admitting that they have no convincing evidence
(Someone tried to say that they had "evidence" but not "convincing
evidence".  Hmmm..) for the existence of god and/or the veracity of their
religious claims, they are now saying:

	Look at this very logical rational person here (C.S. Lewis, scientists,
	author of the article).  He/she converted to Christianity!!  Isn't that
	evidence that there must be something behind all of this, some kernel
	of truth...

[The above was a paraphrase and not a direct quote from anyone in particular.]

Beyond answering the above question with a resounding "no", I have a comment to
make regarding Jeff Sargent's reply to my article "Who's attacking whom?"
I describe my efforts as an attempt to debunk, and Jeff responds that he
doesn't see much difference between "attacking" and "debunking".
American Heritage Dictionary (you knew it was coming) says:
	debunk, v. to expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated
			claims of
	attack, v. 1. to set upon with violent force... 2. to bombard with
			hostile criticism

As I've already stated in other words, though my criticism may at times seem
hostile, the intent is to expose the religious claims for what they are,
*unless* they can provide evidence to the contrary.  Thus, it should be seen
as a challenge to supply evidence or, by default, be debunked.  (Now let's
not rehash the argument about who should be supplying evidence. As someone else
said better than I did, the ones making the extraordinary claims have the
burden of proof.)

One last item:  Jon White sent a response to a Jeff Sargent article that
accused Jon and myself of being influenced by (or in league with) the
forces of darkness (or something like that).  Unfortunately, I never saw the
article, so I would greatly appreciate it if Jeff and/or Jon would send me
a copy of the original article.  Thanx in advance.

-- 
"An argument is an intellectual process.  It isn't the automatic gainsaying of
	what the other person says."
"... Can be."					Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr

aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (04/14/84)

Reply to Daryel Akerlind:

You do have a point that Christians should use their minds to the fullest in
either reading or writing books, articles, etc. supporting their faith.

Josh McDowell's book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" sets forth evidence
for the accuracy of the available Biblical manuscripts (i.e. for their being
the same as originally written), archeological evidence wherein the Bible
turns out to match reality, and several complex cases of fulfilled prophecy.
McDowell came up with a figure for the odds that all the prophecies he
quoted would have been fulfilled as they have been purely by chance; while
I thought some of his argument leading up to his figures included some hand-
waving, he still got across the point that the likelihood of all these things
happening, by chance, exactly as predicted is infinitesimal.  This doesn't
necessarily prove Christianity, but it lends credence to the idea that there
is a very perspicacious and knowledgeable Someone behind Biblical prophecy.
Be warned that this book started out as lecture notes, and thus is a bit
dry to read (besides being fairly large).

It is interesting that there were several self-styled Messiahs around the time
of Jesus.  If Jesus is the true Messiah, it would make sense for Satan to send
up several decoys around Jesus's time so as to distract people from Jesus.

I have to confess that you're probably right:  I also doubt that objective
evidence is enough to fully convince anyone to accept Christ or to follow any
other religious belief.  Some Christians even have said this explicitly.
There is a verse in Romans (I think) which reads "If you will confess with
your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him
from the dead, you will be saved."  The Biblical use of the word "heart" does
not mean emotion, but rather the central "you"; as one sermon expressed it,
the phrase "in your heart" in that verse might be taken to mean
"intuitively" -- i.e. a knowledge that is certain, but not based solely on
the reason.  As I've expressed before, it is an impenetrable mystery to me
why God has not chosen to give you that knowledge; I'm sorry.  I can think of
all sorts of things to say, but they all sound pious and insensitive and are
probably inaccurate anyway; so I'll just shut up for now.


-- 
-- Jeff Sargent
{allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
One man's data are another man's garbage.

pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (04/14/84)

I think Daryel's suspicion about former atheists or "anti-religionists"
not having been converted by objective evidence alone, to be valid.  In
particular, C. S. Lewis' conversion was *not* for this reason, as many
Christians like to assume.  Lewis was a brilliant apologist and communicator
of his faith and many believe that the rational argument that Lewis
presents in his books to be his own means of converson.  His books have
helped many to give Christianity serious consideration (which is why
Christians recommend them to non-believers) but I think the thoughts
worked out in most of his books came after his conversion, not before.
Lewis, like all others, had to "meet God" for the conversion to take
place.  If there is no real God behind all the rhetoric, the rhetoric
is worthess no matter how well developed.  Of course, a divine "experience"
without rational doctrine is also worthless.  There are no external
criteria by which the experience may be judged.  There has to be a balence.
One can't be emphasized to the exclusion of the other.

I too question the claims of any Christian who gives objective evidence as
the sole reason for their conversion.  The whole idea seems absurd.  It may
be a major factor in the conversion of some, but there is no way that it
can be the only factor.  As I have said before, when we consider Christianity
we consider a relationship (involving non-rational means of understanding)
not just a philosophy.

Rich Rosen seems to suggest that the Christians have "changed the tune"
of their argument, as if they have been backed into a corner and now
appeal to the non-rational aspects of religion to save them.  Well, speaking
for myself, my "tune" hasn't changed.  I don't fall into the trap of thinking
skeptics will be convinced on objective evidence alone.  You see, just
as it is foolish for Christians to point to McDowell, Lewis or others and
say "see they were converted by the *evidence* for Christianity", it is
just as foolish for skeptics to pretend that they would surely convert if
only they were presented with enough evidence and rational argument.
Much of the "evidence" that skeptics demand would either require that the
God of Christians contradict his unchangeable character or become a servant
of the whims of man.  All this with no gaurentee that the skeptic will not
find an explaination for the evidence that suits him better.

There is no getting around the necessity of having to "*taste* and see that
the Lord is good" and "you shall find me when you have sought me with your
whole heart" in order to be personlly convinced of the truth of Chistianity.
I know that non-believers like to call this "brain washing", but I think
that charge can be thrown around with equal weight from both sides, each
assuming the other are either decieved or liers.  It doesn't mean much.

Evidence definitely has an important place in obtaining knowledge, but I
think too much faith is often placed on "evidence", as if, just by the fact
of its existence, it constituted "proof" for something.  This makes the
mistaken assumption that our interpretation is always, or completely, correct.
All this is not to deny that there is good evidence for the truth of
Christianity.  But many make the mistake of equating evidence with proof.
They are not the same.  Evidence supports a claim, but it is subject to
interpretation and is often very incomplete.  To demand, or claim, that every
aspect of Christianity has the support of irrefutable evidence is foolish.
I would suspect that the belief systems many skeptics of religious belief
do not rest on the quality of "evidence" that they demand of religion.  But,
of course they are under no obligation to support thier own philosophy of
life here, only to intimate that they know better than the religious ones
by "debunking" religious belief. :-)

I don't think that the recognition that evidence and reason have limited
value in understanding something or someone necesitates that we disregard
or distrust them completely.  Recognizing a tool to have limited abilities
does not take away its value.  It only helps us not to demand that the
tool do what it can't.  I do not think the examples of non-rational means
of understanding to be an evasion of the issue of whether or not the
Christian religion is valid.  They are a simple statement of the obvious.
They apply to all of us.  We use them all the time (especially where
understanding of a *person* [such is the Christian God] is concerned) and
never stop to question whether or not we are being rational.  (See my
last response to Darrell Plank "More Skepticism of Skeptics" for those
examples).

To the skeptics who say that it is the burden of the religious ones
to support (totally by evidence and logic) their religious claims I
would remind you that this *is* net.religion.  People who make such
claims here are not out of line.  They are not forcing you to believe
them or even to read the articles they post here.  You can unsubscribe
and not be bothered.  If you want to dominate the discussion in a
newsgroup with attacks on religious belief then create net.anti-religion
and do it there.  Rich, you and others with your attitude seem to believe
that religious people have no right to say the things they say in this
newsgroup without defending every word of it.  Why don't you walk into
a church (mosque or synagogue for that matter) and tell the speaker that
he must defend every thing he says to the people gathered there with
"evidence" if he is to say it at all.  Like I said, people who write here
aren't banging your door down, demanding that you listen.

I know you are prone to believe that all this is a evasive excuse for not
taking part in your debate.  But I don't really care if you believe that.
I have already given my reasons in previous articles.  I can't make
anyone believe that they are valid reasons if they don't want to.
The truth of the Christian faith doesn't rest on the ability of any
Christian to convince people with that kind of attitude.   God help us all
if it did.  Indeed, if only intellectuals could understand Christianity
enough to become Chistians, there are many millions for whom there is no
hope.


Paul Dubuc

seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (04/17/84)

> I have to confess that you're probably right:  I also doubt that 
> objective evidence is enough to fully convince anyone to accept 
> Christ or to follow any other religious belief.  Some Christians 
> even have said this explicitly.
>
>		-- Jeff Sargent

Yes, but a sufficient amount of evidence can be a reason to
"try it out", to tentatively accept God (/god/gods).  Then
God (/god/gods) may decide to demonstrate to your satisfaction
that you *have* made the right choice.  (Or may not, and I don't
know why not either.  :-(   )

If you don't want to wade through _E_v_i_d_e_n_c_e _t_h_a_t _D_e_m_a_n_d_s _a _V_e_r_d_i_c_t,
McDowell has a much shorter, lighter book called _M_o_r_e _t_h_a_n _a _C_a_r_p_e_n_t_e_r.
This may provide sufficient evidence to either "give Christianity
a try", or to read his longer works.
-- 
	_____
       /_____\	   	    That auto-crossing beagle,
      /_______\			      Snoopy
	|___|		    BMWCCA, Windy City Chapter
    ____|___|_____	       ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert

rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/17/84)

>> I have to confess that you're probably right:  I also doubt that 
>> objective evidence is enough to fully convince anyone to accept 
>> Christ or to follow any other religious belief.  Some Christians 
>> even have said this explicitly.  [SARGENT]

> Yes, but a sufficient amount of evidence can be a reason to
> "try it out", to tentatively accept God (/god/gods).  Then
> God (/god/gods) may decide to demonstrate to your satisfaction
> that you *have* made the right choice.  (Or may not, and I don't
> know why not either.  :-(   )  [SEIFERT]

Sorry, but part of being rational involves not "trying out" things
because they seem to be the thing to do at the moment.  Such tentative
"acceptance" involves entering a tautological and self-referential
belief system which it is extremely difficult to escape from.  Rationality
demands that one know the nature of such a system before even tentatively
accepting it.  The self-referential assumptions surrounding logic and
rationalism are far fewer (are far more understandable) than those of
such belief systems.  Once inside such a non-rational belief system, it is
very easy to explain anything in any way that is desired.
-- 
"An argument is an intellectual process.  It isn't the automatic gainsaying of
	what the other person says."
"... Can be."					Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr

liberte@uiucdcs.UUCP (04/23/84)

#R:iuvax:1700018:uiucdcs:33000039:000:1339
uiucdcs!liberte    Apr 22 20:20:00 1984

/**** uiucdcs:net.religion / pyuxn!rlr /  6:32 pm  Apr 17, 1984 ****/
Sorry, but part of being rational involves not "trying out" things
because they seem to be the thing to do at the moment.  Such tentative
"acceptance" involves entering a tautological and self-referential
belief system which it is extremely difficult to escape from.  Rationality
demands that one know the nature of such a system before even tentatively
accepting it.
/* ---------- */

Admittedly, "trying out" things is ambiguous.  On the one hand it may
involve dropping everything and moving into a new, captivating mode.
On the other hand, it may be as simple as saying "If <whatever> were
true...".  In order to do so, you have to entertain the idea of it.
There is a broad range of "trying out" between these extremes.

I like Marilyn Ferguson's (Aquarian Conspiracy) notion of "experimental
belief" in which you try it out to the extent of finding out how it works
for you.  If it works, that doesnt make it "true" in some objective sense
but it is subjectively "true" for you.

At the same time, I believe it is possible to gain objective evidence for
the existence of God and other mysteries.  But you have to be looking for
it to find it.

Daniel LaLiberte,  U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Computer Science
{moderation in all things - including moderation}