Once Upon a Time....

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1993 / May-June:

by Farrell Till

Christian fundamentalists dismiss as liberal nonsense any interpretation of scriptures that is based on the existence of myths and legends in the biblical text, yet they themselves often take doctrinal positions that reflect a fairytale view of the Bible.

An example would be the miracles-have-ceased doctrine that is taught by all but the charismatic (Pentecostal and Holiness) churches. The New Testament describes a first-century church in which Christians could speak in tongues, prophesy, heal the sick, and even raise the dead. Such charismatic practices were apparently so commonplace in the early church that the Apostle Paul saw the need to regulate them in 1 Corinthians 14 .

How About An Unequivocal Miracle?

As someone astutely noticed, "God does not work in mysterious ways – 

he works in  ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence.” 

Anonymous. If there is a God and he has an important message for 

me--he knows how to get my attention. From the Errancy Discussion 

list, 8-31-97:

MICHAEL FACKERELL

Nothing has impressed me too much so far. Its true though that I'm out of >my depth on some issues. I don't speak Hebrew for example, although two >different people (one of whom I know to be a Jewess) claimed they heard me >quoting Scripture in Hebrew when I was praying in tongues in different >situations. (See Mark 16:17). 

BEN

Now, I could see how psychologically someone could convince themselves they saw a miracle, or even had a "personal experience" with God, but to actually believe that oneself has spoken in tongues is beyond my comprehension. Either you have really tricked yourself or you are lying to us. I don't know which. But certainly you have not spoken in tounges. That would mean for God to intervene in the laws of nature for the sole purpose of making his presence known. If he is going to do this, why wouldn't he do something that works? In an earlier post today, I talked about this. He really needs some help when it comes to making his presence known. If he's going to let you talk in tounges, why doesn't he let you talk so loud that everyone on earth hears you? I'll tell you the answer. The only possible theist answer. God is unpredictable. Unpredictability is the earmark of unjustness. So it looks like we are dealing with an unjust God. And what greater injustice is there than to tell someone they will receive eternal paradise, then to send them to hell for the fun of it. If he really gets all this glee out of burning nonbelievers, then what makes you think he will keep his promise to you? Personally, I don't agree with any of this scenario; however, it does make more sense than your just God.

TILL

If Michael doesn't know Hebrew and yet spoke in that language, there could be no explanation for this except that God intervened and caused it to happen. If so, why did God intervene just to cause a miracle that would have been known by only the two Jews who were able to recognize that he was speaking Hebrew? If God is going to perform a miracle, why not making it something that would be unequivocal to the world? Suppose that God spoke from "heaven" with a booming voice that was heard by every person on earth in his/her own language and that he said that he was going to settle once and for all the question of his existence. He could, say, inform us that he was going to suspend tragedy for an entire year and that during this time, there would be no illnesses of any kind and no deaths. Those who were ill at the time would be immediately cured no matter what their infirmities were. Those with cancer, heart problems, diabetes, etc., etc., etc. would experience immediate cures. Those who were afflicted with any kind of physical or mental abnormalities would be healed. Those who had missing or crippled limbs, for example, would have them restored. Those who were deaf would hear; those who were blind would see. This would happen all over the world, and for an entire year nobody would die, and there would be no traffic accidents, earthquakes, volcanic explosions, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., etc., etc. Hunger would disappear, and poverty would be suspended. Now if God would do something like this, there would be no unbelievers left. He could even say during his initial announcement that he was going to do this to prove not just his existence but that the Bible was his inspired word and Christianity the only true religion. Instead of something like this, however, we get from God only paltry signs like an occasion tongue-speaker, whose story is completely unverifiable. As a miracle-worker, God could take a few tips from me. He could use a good publicity agent. Preachers have proven that they aren't up to the task.

Farrell Till

Evidence Problems

I don't believe that miracle claims can be proven by testimony, however, I would be a lot closer to belief in the miracle claims of the Bible if the testimony for these extraordinary claims had reliable, disinterested, independent, contemporary corroboration. But, alas, there is none to be had. From the Errancy Discussion list, May, 1998:

TILL
You're still missing the point entirely. Commonplace, ordinary events of the past were often corroborated by records left by various sources, but in the case of extraordinary or miraculous events, with which claims the Bible is filled, not a single disinterested, independent, contemporary source ever corroborated any of them. Biblicists rave about the fact that Luke knew geography, topography, social customs, historical persons, etc., etc., etc., all of which can be considered only commonplace information. Miracles, however, would have been so extraordinary that they would have received wide attention. In Acts 2:22, Luke had Peter saying to an audience that numbered into the thousands that "Jesus of Nazareth [was] a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know," so the claim was that such deeds as these were done in the open and were witnessed by many people. If that is so, then why is there no disinterested, independent corroboration of them? 

Empiricism

From the II Errancy Discussion List, 1-1-07:

This is like the ivory-billed woodpecker example that I gave in an earlier reply to McDonald. If I were claiming that the ivory-billed woodpecker is extinct and McDonald knew that specimens of this species had been discovered in Arkansas, he wouldn't hesitate to counter my claim by producing an ivory-billed woodpecker or at least pictures of the discovery. The easiest way to prove the existence of gods or angels or miracles, then, would be to produce one.

You just can't beat empiricism for reliability. It beats all to heck holy books, visions, and such like.
-Farrell Till

More Of The Wit And Wisdom Of Mark Twain

In all the ages the Roman Church has owned slaves, bought and sold slaves, authorized and encouraged her children to trade in them. . . . There were the texts; there was no mistaking their meaning; . . . she was doing in all this thing what the Bible had mapped out for her to do. So unassailable was her position that in all the centuries she had no word to say against human slavery.  
~Mark Twain 

It is best to read the weather forecast before praying for rain.    
~Mark Twain

The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.

~Mark Twain

Supernatural Claims

Farrell Till responds to a believer in biblical supernatural claims (from the Errancy discussion list):

I accept historical records for which there is no good reason to think that they are inaccurate. When historical records claim the occurrence of the supernatural, I do not accept the claims, because it is more reasonable to believe that the records have exaggerated or lied or passed along unconfirmed tradition or rumors than that these occurrences actually happened.

Now I predict that this is exactly what you do EXCEPT for supernatural claims recorded in the Bible. Tell me if you accept the Mormon claim, for which firsthand testimony exists, that an angel delivered to Joseph Smith golden plates on which the Book of Mormon had been transcribed in "reformed" Egyptian characters. Now if you reject this claim, please tell me why you accept the NT claim, for which there is NO firsthand testimony, that an angel came down and rolled the stone away from the tomb of Jesus.

Farrell Till

A Better Way To Evaluate Miracle Claims

From the Errancy discussion list May, 1998:

TILL

[The Bible] is filled with miracle claims, some of which were such that had they actually occurred, independent, disinterested corroboration of them would have been left by the contemporaries of those to whom these events happened. But in all of the information ever found that corroborates biblical records, NONE of it corroborates any of the extraordinary information claimed in the Bible. Only extrabiblical confirmation of the very plain and ordinary claims of the Bible has ever been found. Strange indeed!

M.BELL

And of course in F.Till's mind strange equates with false.

TILL

No, not at all.  I think it strange that people who live in enlightened times could read the nonsense in the Bible written by people who lived in prescientific, superstitious times and believe that it all actually happened, yet it certainly isn't false that there are people who have this belief.  

I think this would be a better way to state what is in my mind on this matter: If it is more unlikely that the hundreds of miraculous events claimed in the Bible could have gone unnoticed by independent, disinterested parties than it is likely that the events actually happened, then it is reasonable to doubt the historicity of the completely biased claims that such events happened.

Farrell Till

What Would It Take?

What would it take for a skeptic to believe in Yahweh, the god of the Bible? I know the following would do it for me. So, is it Yahweh's will that I perish or not, 2 Peter 3:9? I'm ready to believe and repent. (From the Errancy discussion list, January 2, 2007):   SPENCER-DAVIS God could move stars around in the galaxy to create a new constellation that plainly spelled out "JESUS IS LORD", visible throughout the northern hemisphere, say. If God did that, which sceptic would dare to say that there was a naturalistic explanation? I'm sure I could think of a great many miracles that would be accepted by every sceptic on the planet (even Farrell!) as evidence of God's existence. Couldn't you?

 

TILL
I could. I have lived in the same house for 40 years on the edge of town. There is an empty field of about 30 acres behind my house, which is planted each year in corn or soybeans. If I woke up one morning and found all of this acreage filled with skyscrapers 40 to 100 stories high and clouds in the sky shaped to spell,"God did this," I think that would be pretty compelling evidence that a miracle had happened during the night, because common sense would tell me that all of these buildings could not have been put up overnight by natural means. An even better miracle would be if the skyscrapers suddenly appeared out of nothing while I was standing in my back yard looking over the empty field.

Farrell Till



Luke, A Historian "Par Excellent"[sic]? (2)

From the Errancy discussion list, August 18, 1997:

TILL
Otsen has cited the amazing historical accuracy of Luke as an argument
for biblical inerrancy, as if he somehow believes that because one
biblical writer was accurate in some geographical, political, and social
matters, he was therefore right in everything he wrote and that the entire
Bible must, as a consequence, be inerrant. In an earlier posting, I listed
over two dozen references that Luke made in the book of Acts to
extraordinary events. I challenge Otsen to present to us some kind of
extra-biblical evidence to prove that at least some of these events actually
happened. Until he can do this, he is in effect arguing that because Luke
knew the geography of the region he wrote about and the names of some
public officials and such like, we can thereby know that Luke was also
accurate in his reporting of the various miracle claims found in his gospel
and the book of Acts.

Luke, A Historian "Par Excellent" [sic]? (1)

From the Errancy discussion list, August 17, 1997:

TILL

Otsen has posted the trite fundamentalist argument about Sir William

Ramsay, who was presumbably a biblical skeptic until he studied the

writings of Luke, after which he was so impressed by Luke's historical

accuracy that he became a dedicated Christian.  When Ramsay was

discussed earlier on the list Steve Carr noted in a posting to Errancy

date May 10th that Ramsay was actually a "Bible-believing historian." 

Carr made the following statement in his posting:

"In Ramsay's book, he describes how as a young man at Oxford ( a place

which *did* not accept religious sceptics), he studied the 39 Articles

of Faith for his Divinity exam. He corresponded with Bishop Lightfoot.

He spent months studying the NT and the OT (which he described as life-

giving). He describes the Epistle to Galatians as especially moving. He

was reminded often of his mother's love for Paul."

Credulity Or Critical Thinking?

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne

Is the phrase, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (with all due respect to Carl Sagan), sufficient to describe miraculous claims and the evidence needed to prove them? (miracle, "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency:") (extraordinary, "1 a: going beyond what is usual, regular or customary...; b: exceptional to a very marked extent," and is normally used to describe naturally occurring events that are out of the ordinary.) So it seems to me this phrase is lacking--the word extraordinary just seems too generic for this purpose.

We need a phrase that immediately and unambiguously gets to the heart of the type of evidence it would take to prove miraculous claims. Let's take the miraculous claim that a man came back to life after being dead for three days. It is more than a claim that something beyond what is usual or regular occurred; it is more than a claim that something exceptional to a very marked degree occurred. This claim is more than extraordinary it is miraculous. It is a ridiculously absurd, and preposterous claim if it is not accompanied by unimpeachable, unequivocal, irrefutable evidence. A more appropriate phrase in regard to miraculous claims such as a man coming back to life after being dead for three days, would be: Miraculous claims require unimpeachable, unequivocal, irrefutable evidence.

The New Testament  presents the miraculous claim that Jesus Christ came back to life after being dead for almost three days and says that if you don't believe it you will die in your sins (John 8:24) and suffer eternally in hell (Mt. 7:13-14). With allegedly so much on the line what kind of evidence does the New Testament give us that this miraculous claim actually happened? Unimpeachable, unequivocal, irrefutable evidence that would put an end to all doubt and thus prove this miraculous claim? Hardly. What the loving, merciful Yahweh, who allegedly is not willing that any should perish, has given us is completely inadequate hearsay testimony that this miraculous event happened.

If miracles were allegedly performed to "attest" (Acts 2:22) deity to humans in the first century A.D., in order "[to] provide...clear evidence" for them to believe in and obey this "divine agency", why would this type of evidence be withheld by God today? It is impossible for testimony (especially hearsay testimony) to even come close to the level of evidence needed for a rational person to believe miraculous claims. Is this what the God of the Universe wants from his intelligent creation--credulity rather than critical thinking? I don't think so. (By the way, I know my heart and if Yahweh is God he also knows my heart and both of us know what it would take for me to be a believer--so, what is Yahweh waiting on?)

Pro-Supernatural Bias (2)

Part two (of two) of Farrell Till's rebuttal of Dr. James Price's response to Jim Lippard's article "The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah":

TILL

Contemporary records were also strangely silent about the earthquake at the time of Jesus's death, which allegedly shook open the graves of many saints who then went into the city and appeared unto many (Matt. 27:52-53).  Like the supernatural darkness at midday, word of such a remarkable event as this would surely have been spread through the region, if not the known world, so that references to it would have been left in contemporary records, but none exist.  The historian Seneca was born in 4 B.C., the same year that most New Testament scholars fix the time of Jesus's birth.  He and Pliny the Elder, another contemporary of Jesus, wrote detailed accounts of all of the known natural disasters and phenomena, past and present, earthquakes, floods, meteors, comets, eclipses, etc., but neither one mentioned either a three-hour darkness at midday or an earthquake that shook open tombs and resurrected "many" dead people.  In chapter 24 of *The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,* Edward Gibbon refers to the silence of Seneca and Pliny on the midday darkness and accepts this as reason to believe that no such event ever happened.

The silence of Josephus about such remarkable events as these is also hard to imagine.  His father, Matthias, was a priest in Jerusalem at the very time that Jesus was allegedly crucified and resurrected (*The Life of Flavius Josephus,* 2:7-12), so we can hardly imagine Josephus's father witnessing such phenomenal events as the midday darkness and the resurrection of "many" saints and not talking about them in the family circle as Josephus was growing up.  Likewise, we can't imagine Josephus not referring to these events if his father had indeed mentioned them. Josephus mentioned several minor Messianic claimants, whom history has now all but forgotten, but he made only two short, disputed references to a Messiah whose life was accompanied by truly amazing events. There is argument from silence; there is argument from unreasonable silence, and it is unreasonable to think that really remarkable events like these could have happened without any contemporary references to them having survived.

Pro-Supernatural Bias (1)

This is part one of a rebuttal by Farrell Till of 

part  of Dr.  James Price's response to Jim 

Lippard's  article The Fabulous Prophecies of 

the Messiah. It, along with part two which will be posted later,is an excellent short summary 

of many of the problems with the "evidences" Christian apologists give for Christianity. 

Regrettably, I have not been able to find the 

rest of Till's rebuttal. All Christians need to 

read this--a classic by Mr. Till from 1996:

From: Farrell Till

Subject: For M. Dawud: Response to Price 

Mr. Dawud: 

You have asked me to reply to Dr. James Price's response to Jim Lippard's article "The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah," which Lippard had posted on his home page.  You wanted me to respond to it in *The Skeptical Review,* but Price's response totals 130k, and it would require more than two complete issues of TSR just to publish the text of Price's article.  Since his response consisted of many unsupported assertions, to adequately rebut many of his points, I would need much more space than he took to make the assertions.

This requirement is due to the obvious fact that assertions are generally brief but rebuttals of assertions require  detailed analysis and support. For that reason, I will not be publishing Dr. Price's response, because I would probably have to devote more than an entire year of publishing space in discussion of this one issue.

As a compromise, I intend to respond to Dr. Price via the internet.  I will have to do this in a series of replies that I can see taking at least a year to complete, because I do have many other demands on my time.  I will probably post these replies on my "Errancy" list, and I will send CCs to Dr. Price and people who have challenged me to debate him.  Dr. Price, of course, will be entitled to respond to any of my rebuttals, and I will also post them on the errancy list. 

GENERAL IMPRESSIONS: 

My general impression of Dr. Price's rebuttal article is not at all favorable.  It is slightly better than many attempts I have seen to prove biblical prophecy fulfillment, and it is certainly better than Dr. Hugh Ross's article on the subject that I published in the January/February 1996 issue of TSR and responded to in a series of three rebuttals.  This, however, is not saying very much, because Ross's article was, in my opinion, incredibly simplistic.  Price did at least try from time to time to present evidence to support his supposition rather than simply make bald assertions, and for that he is to be commended.  This compliment should not be construed to mean that Dr. Price did not at times make bald, unsupported assertions, because he certainly did, as I will be pointing out.  I am merely recognizing that some of his rebuttal arguments were accompanied by supporting information.

Very Strange

Strange, that no disinterested, independent, contemporary corroboration exists from any of the many thousands of alleged witnesses to the signs and wonders that Yahweh supposedly used to attest the man Jesus of Nazareth--very strange. So strange in fact, someone who is honestly searching for the truth just might be led to believe that none of these "attesting" miraculous signs and wonders ever happened.

One would think that if Yahweh truly doesn't want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9) that he would have providentially given this type of supporting documentation. Instead, all we have is the biased testimony from the anonymous authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts.

From the Errancy Discussion list, June 14, 1998:

Commonplace, ordinary events of the past were often corroborated

by records left by various sources, but in the case of extraordinary 
or miraculous events, with which claims the Bible is filled, not a 
single disinterested, independent, contemporary source ever 

corroborated any of them. Biblicists rave about the fact that Luke

knew geography, topography, social customs, historical persons, 

etc., etc., etc., all of which can be considered only commonplace 

information. Miracles, however, would have been so extraordinary 

that they would have received wide attention. 

In Acts 2:22, Luke had Peter saying to an audience that numbered 

into the thousands that "Jesus of Nazareth [was] a man attested to 
you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did 
through him among you, as you yourselves know," so the claim 
was that such deeds as these were done in the open and were 
witnessed by many people. If that is so, then why is there no 
disinterested, independent corroboration of them?

Farrell Till

Men Becoming Civilized

"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
~ H. L. Mencken

"Unequivocal, Unimpeachable, Convincing Credentials?"

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne

The following is a reply I made to an article on a church of Christ website. My comments are in blue and the church of Christ preacher's comments are in black (except for two quotes from Thomas Paine):

In a previous article, this writer made the statement: “The message of the Bible is such that any rational person will want to believe it.” (April 8, 2007)

And the rest of the quote was, "And, wanting to believe it, he will look for rea­sons to be­lieve rather than reasons to dis­believe." You admit that you only look for reasons to believe that the message of the Bible is true. But you only use such illogical reasoning when it comes to the Bible. You would never use such a system for investigating the truth of a claim, especially an extraordinary claim, in any other area of life. Is there any wonder that you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that Paul and the rest of the apostles actually performed miracles to "confirm the word"?

What is the message of the Bible? It is, simply, that there is something far better in store for those who believe the Bible than that which is experienced by all mankind in this life.

There very well may be an afterlife, but is the Bible an inspired message from God concerning this possible afterlife? Because of the absence of evidence for it and the abundance of evidence against it, one must answer no. And no matter how much you want to believe that it is--if the evidence is against it--that's just the way it is and you'll have to accept it. Remember BW's Characteristics of Truth? This would be a good one to add to his list: Truth is not determined by how much you want to believe something. As usual I'm in agreement with Thomas Paine:

"I trouble not myself about the manner of future existence. I content myself with believing, even to positive conviction, that the power that gave me existence is able to continue it in any form and manner he pleases, either with or without this body. I leave all these matters to Him, as my Creator and friend, and I hold it to be presumption in man to make an article of faith as to what the Creator will do with us hereafter."(The Age of Reason)

"I consider myself In the hands of my Creator, and that he will dispose of me after this life consistently with his justice and goodness". (Private Thoughts on a Future State).

But if God can establish order in creation, He can surely suspend order in a miracle.

Of course He can. But is there any evidence that He has chosen to do this after establishing order in creation? No.

Of course, Jesus did not expect anyone to accept the reality of the resurrection on the strength of testimony alone but gave to the apostles “unequivocal, unimpeachable, convincing” credentials so that those who heard—honest or not—would have “no choice but to believe it.” (Acts 4:14-16) 

Okay, let's see these "unequivocal, unimpeachable, convincing 'credentials' " so that I would have "no choice but to believe it." But, of course, the claim is that these "credentials" (i.e., having the ability to perform obvious miracles) allowed the apostles to "confirm the word" in the first century so that it needs no confirmation today. But how can this possibly convince a rational person today? All a person has today is the testimony of biased writers (so we are back to only having testimony, and biased at that) who claim these miracles were performed. No rationally thinking person would even begin to entertain such a claim as being true from such writers. So, again, we are back to needing unequivocal, unimpeachable, convincing evidence--which, alas, is conspicuously missing. Thus, I have no choice but to disbelieve.

Kenneth

No Respecter Of Persons?

"...Thomas did not believe the resurrection [John 20:25], and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas." ~ Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

And if Yahweh is "no respecter of persons" as the Bible claims him to be, then I am well within a reasonable level of expectation that Yahweh present me also with ocular and manual demonstration of Jesus' resurrection. Especially when consideration is given to the advantages that Thomas allegedly already had: he knew resurrection was possible; he had seen Jesus raise people from the dead on several occasions and Jesus had given him the power to raise the dead himself!

Bible "Prophecies" Of Jesus Christ

It is claimed by fundamentalist Christian apologists that there are over 300 prophecies about Jesus Christ in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the New Testament. One Church-of-Christ preacher even had this as his number one reason that one should consider the Bible the inspired word of God. But when one critically examines this extraordinary claim one finds that it, like all other miraculous claims by these fundamentalist Christian apologists, is all wishful thinking. The following post is taken from chapter 13 of Joseph Wheeless's, *Is It God's Word?*:

THE "PROPHECIES" OF JESUS CHRIST

The Miraculous "Virgin Birth" of Jesus

Matthew, whose gospel was written later, comes first in the order of gospels in our printed collections, for the reason that he gives a detailed "revelation" of the manner of miraculous conception and virgin birth of the Subject of his biography. He begins his book with the genealogy of Jesus, which we elsewhere take notice of. He then proceeds with inspired pen to record:

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of Yahveh appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." (Matt. i, 18-21)

The foregoing is pure fiction; here follows the crowning instance wherein "the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely":

"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord [Heb., Yahveh] by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."