The Nature Of The Claim

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1997/March-April:

by Farrell Till

Christian apologists argue that skeptics are unreasonably illogical when they reject biblical miracle claims. They disdainfully refer to this as an "anti-supernatural bias." In my debate on the resurrection with Michael Horner, he said in concluding his first speech, "One cannot rule out the resurrection because of a prior assumption that miracles are impossible," and went on to say, "As long as it's even possible that God exists, miracles are possible" (The Horner-Till Debate, Skepticism, Inc., 1995, p. 8). Of course, Horner himself was arguing from "a prior assumption," because he was assuming that if a god exists, it is a god who intervenes in human affairs to perform miracles. Such a view would be contrary to Deism, a religious philosophy that believes in a creator who made the world to operate according to the natural laws instituted at the time of creation, so if assumptions are not allowed skeptics, we have to wonder why Christians think that they should be entitled to argue from an assumption that a god does exist and that he/it is their particular god. There is an inconsistency here that they need to explain.

Extraordinary Evidence

Farrell Till comments on a debate that he had with 
Michael Horner concerning extraordinary claims requiring 
extraordinary evidence. From the Errancy Discussion list 
18 Oct., 1995:

...you will remember that Horner would not agree that any of the nonbiblical miracles that I questioned him about had actually happened. He kept saying, "I would have to research that." Finally, you may recall, he simply said, "No," when I asked him if he could think of a single miracle not recorded in the Bible that he believed happened. So even though he chided me for saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," it turned out that he himself apparently accepts this principle as long as it is not an extraordinary claim that the Bible makes.

How, for example, could Horner possibly "research" to see if he can believe that a heifer being led to the temple altar in Jerusalem gave birth to a lamb or that a light glowed around the altar in the middle of the night so brightly as to give the appearance of daylight? Josephus made both extraordinary claims, along with others, but the only evidence for them is the mere fact that Josephus said that they happened. He, of course, *said* that others saw them, but I doubt if Horner would accept this, although he thinks it is "good" evidence when Paul said that Jesus appeared to 500 brethren at once. He will argue that Paul wouldn't have said this if it weren't so because people could have asked the 500 and caught him lying if the claim had not really been true. How exactly one could have gone about questioning 500 anonymous witnesses is a mystery, but, anyway, one could make the same argument about the claims of Josephus. If these miracles had not really happened, would he have said that people had seen them at a time when these people were still alive and could have been questioned?

My point is that what Horner et al consider "good" evidence in terms of "proving" the resurrection, they won't consider good evidence as they "research" the claims of Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, and others to decide if their miracle claims should be believed. I think that the criterion that I stated in the debate is valid: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And I have kicked myself a thousand times for not nailing Horner to the wall when he came at me with his counterargument that said, in effect, that my criterion makes it impossible to prove a miracle ever happened, because I was demanding miraculous proof that the miracle had happened. In other words, his admission that providing miraculous proof that a miracle had happened is impossible was an admission that miracles don't happen and so no such evidence would be possible. If no such evidence is possible because miracles just don't happen, then why is it logical to argue that the original miracle for which the evidence is being demanded had happened? His own argument would have backfired in his face if I had recognized the implications of it soon enough, but that is one of the hazards of public debating. The debater always thinks of things later that he should have said.

I really think that it is not at all unreasonable to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An extraordinary claim doesn't necessarily have to be a miracle claim, but if it is, I think it is reasonable to argue that such a claim can never be proven. That claim is justified by the simple fact that the past is inaccessible. If a miracle ever did happen, how could one possibly prove it because it would have happened in a past that is inaccessible to the present?

F. Till

Prophecy Fulfillment and Probability

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1993 / July-August:

by Farrell Till

Bible apologists love to use probability arguments, and most readers have undoubtedly encountered them in apologetic literature. Some situation perceived to prove either the existence of God (life developing from nonlife) or the inspiration of the Bible (prophecy fulfillment) is analyzed in terms of likeliness or probability. Most of these arguments, of course, are based on purely arbitrary factors selected to make the theistic or biblical position look good. I have yet to see one that can survive careful scrutiny.

At the debate in Portland, Texas, that Earle Beach referred to in the foregoing article, my opponent applied probability to the prophecy-fulfillment argument. He mentioned several times how truly amazing it was that so many Old Testament prophecies had been fulfilled precisely and exactly in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. His premise was that over 300 such prophecies were made and later fulfilled. At one point when he was under cross-examination, he stated that the probability of any 50 of these prophecies being precisely fulfilled was 11 sextillion 250 quintillion to one. The figure written out would look like this: 11,250,000,000,000,000,000,000. Since the statement was made under cross-examination, I could not respond directly to it without calling for a resumption of time, and at the moment I was pursuing a line of questioning that I wanted to continue. In reviewing the tapes, I was reminded that I forgot to return to this issue to show the absurdity of the statement, so I will do that now. If Mr. Dobbs wishes to respond to my comments, we will gladly publish his statement in the next issue. My prediction is that he won't respond. If he doesn't, I wonder what he would say the odds are that I could make a prophecy like this and have it fulfilled.

Evaluating Historical Claims

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1995/May-June:

by Farrell Till

The biblical characters presented as emissaries of God were almost always miracle-workers. They parted the water of seas and rivers; they walked on water; they commanded the sun to stand still in the sky; they healed the blind and the deaf; they raised the dead. Nothing, it seems, was impossible for them to do.

The Bible is filled with tales of such fabulous deeds as these, and fundamentalist Christians believe that every one of these stories of miraculous achievements is literally true. If the Bible says that the prophet Elisha retrieved an iron axe head that had fallen into the Jordan River by making the axe head float ( 2 Kings 6:7), then fundamentalist Christians insist that this literally happened. If the Bible says that the body of a dead man whom a band of Moabite marauders cast into Elisha's tomb revived and stood upon its feet when it touched the bones of Elisha ( 2 Kings 13:20-21), then fundamentalist Christians insist that this literally happened. If the Bible says that a donkey conversed with its owner in a human voice ( Num. 22:28-30), then fundamentalist Christians insist that this literally happened. If the Bible says that an earthquake opened the graves in a cemetery after which the dead people in the opened graves revived and went into the city of Jerusalem ( Matt. 27:51-53), then fundamentalist Christians insist that this literally happened. If the Bible says... but why continue? We could fill this entire issue with examples of other events just as fabulous as these that the Bible presents as actual historical occurrences--all of which fundamentalist Christians believe literally happened exactly as recorded.

The Problems in Bradford's Complaint

An excellent article by Farrell Till comparing the logical, empirical-based presuppositions of naturalists versus the illogical, unsupported suppositions of supernaturalists. From *The Skeptical Review*, Sept-Oct. 2001:

by Farrell Till

Mr. Bradford seems sincerely convinced that I have a prejudice that will not allow me to see that supernatural presuppositions are just as logical as naturalistic ones. Because of his apparent belief that I won't listen to any arguments in the articles he submits to me, I am asking another person to reply to his attempt to prove the existence of God. It will be published in a later issue, although the subject is not really suitable for The Skeptical Review.In the very first  issue of TSR, published in January 1990, I specifically stated that the paper would not debate the issue of God's existence, but if I had declined to publish Mr. Bradford's article, he would have accused me of being too prejudiced to give consideration to attempts to prove the existence of his deity by scientific argumentation. What Mr. Bradford doesn't seem to realize is that he doesn't really argue his positions. He just asserts them and then vents his frustration when we refuse to fall in line and accept his assertions without questions.

Although I am leaving the "God part" of Bradford's article for someone else to answer, he made some personal remarks about himself and me that I will reply to in this issue, because no one else would really be qualified to speak on some of the accusations he made about me.

Do I resort to "subjective ridicule rather than logic and evidence"? I have to answer this charge with both yes and no. Yes, I do ridicule the inability of biblicists to think rationally. Perhaps I should not do this, but it is somewhat difficult not to do it when a biblicist persists in clinging to an irrational belief when he has seen mountains of evidence that the biblical inerrancy doctrine just cannot be true. When biblicists argue that "soon"or "at hand" didn't really mean soon or at hand when they are shown New Testament promises that the return of Jesus was to happen imminently, it is difficult to be patient with their intellectual dishonesty or irrational determination to make faith more important than common sense. On internet forums, I have often said that a time comes in debates with biblicists to call a spade a spade, and when an inerrantist keeps trying to defend a position that has been shown to be untenable, I think it is time to say without apology that the inerrantist is allowing allegiance to an irrational belief to overrule his/her common sense. In a letter on page 15 of this issue, Tom Broom expressed wonderment that I have the patience to discuss biblical minutia with the likes of some inerrantists whose articles appear in this paper. Believe me, it isn't easy, so when I do at times show a lack of patience and resort to ridicule, it should be understandable. Anyway, if I am guilty as Bradford charges, his complaint would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, because look at his own subjective remarks about me. Saying that I resort to subjective ridicule rather than logic and evidence isn't exactly a compliment.

Do We Have A Deal? I Didn't Think So

Does "God" want people like Farrell Till and me saved 
or not? It seems like "God" would value skepticism in 
regards to outlandish claims that are contrary to all of 
our experiences over rank gullibility. I think I know my 
own mind and I know what it would take to convince 
me of Yahweh's existence. And if I know what it would 
take then certainly Yahweh, if he's really "God", would  
know too. So what is he waiting on, he allegedly doesn't 
want me to be lost, I Timothy 2:3-4? Well, I think we all 
know the answer to that question, don't we?

From the Errancy Discussion list, 8-10-96:

PATRICK

And the sovereign God of the universe can perform to satisfy

your petty ratiocination. And would you be convinced?

TILL

Why shouldn't the "sovereign God of the universe" perform to 
satisfy my petty ratiocinations? He didn't seem to mind 
performing for the petty ratiocinations of others. Have you 
ever read the following story from the "inspired, inerrant 
word of God"?

Judges 6:11 Now the angel of Yahweh came and sat under the

oak at Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, as his 
son Gideon was beating out wheat in the wine press, to hide it 
from the Midianites.

12 The angel of Yahweh appeared to him and said to him,

"Yahweh is with you, you mighty warrior."

13 Gideon answered him, "But sir, if Yahweh is with us, why then

has all this happened to us? And where are all his wonderful deeds 
that our ancestors recounted to us, saying, 'Did not Yahweh bring 
us up from Egypt?' But now Yahweh has cast us off, and given us 
into the hand of Midian."

14 Then Yahweh turned to him and said, "Go in this might of yours

and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian; I hereby commission 
you."

15 He responded, "But sir, how can I deliver Israel? My clan is the

weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family."

16 Yahweh said to him, "But I will be with you, and you shall strike

down the Midianites, every one of them."

17 Then he said to him, "If now I have found favor with you, then 
SHOW ME A SIGN that it is you who speak with me.

18 Do not depart from here until I come to you, and bring out my

present, and set it before you." And he said, "I will stay until you 
return."

19 So Gideon went into his house and prepared a kid, and

unleavened cakes from an ephah of flour; the meat he put 
in a basket, and the broth he put in a pot, and brought them 
to him under the oak and presented them.

20 The angel of God said to him, "Take the meat and the

unleavened cakes, and put them on this rock, and pour out 
the broth." And he did so.

21 Then the angel of Yahweh reached out the tip of the staff that

was in his hand, and touched the meat and the unleavened cakes; 
and fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the meat and the 

unleavened cakes; and the angel of Yahweh vanished from his 
sight.

22 Then Gideon perceived that it was the angel of Yahweh; and

Gideon said, "Help me, Lord GOD! For I have seen the angel of 
Yahweh face to face."

23 But Yahweh said to him, "Peace be to you; do not fear, you

shall not die."

24 Then Gideon built an altar there to Yahweh, and called it, Yahweh

is peace. To this day it still stands at Ophrah, which belongs to the 
Abiezrites.

25 That night Yahweh said to him, "Take your father's bull, the

second bull seven years old, and pull down the altar of Baal that 
belongs to your father, and cut down the sacred pole that is beside 
it;

26 and build an altar to Yahweh your God on the top of the

stronghold here, in proper order; then take the second bull, 
and offer it as a burnt offering with the wood of the sacred pole 
that you shall cut down."

27 So Gideon took ten of his servants, and did as Yahweh

had told him; but because he was too afraid of his family and 
the townspeople to do it by day, he did it by night.

28 When the townspeople rose early in the morning, the altar of

Baal was broken down, and the sacred pole beside it was cut 
down, and the second bull was offered on the altar that had been 
built.

29 So they said to one another, "Who has done this?" After

searching and inquiring, they were told, "Gideon son of Joash 
did it."

30 Then the townspeople said to Joash, "Bring out your son, so

that he may die, for he has pulled down the altar of Baal and cut 
down the sacred pole beside it."

31 But Joash said to all who were arrayed against him, "Will you

contend for Baal? Or will you defend his cause? Whoever contends 
for him shall be put to death by morning. If he is a god, let him 
contend for himself, because his altar has been pulled down."

32 Therefore on that day Gideon was called Jerubbaal, that is to

say, "Let Baal contend against him," because he pulled down his 
altar.

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? 

Absence Of Evidence

From the the Alt. Bible. Errancy discussion list, 4-22-03

DGM
Was it not Carl Sagan who said: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

LK
Absence of evidence means there is no evidence to believe it's true. I'll give you a simple test so you can prove this too yourself. File in court that Bill Gates owes you a million dollars. Go to court and when they ask for evidence tell them, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." see how quickly your case is dismissed.

TILL
Depending on the claim, however, absence of evidence can be compelling evidence against the claim. If, for example, someone should claim that an asteroid struck Sikeston, Missouri, last week, the absence of any evidence of such an impact would be compelling evidence that this did not happen. In the same way, absence of evidence of extraordinary claims in the Bible, such as the midday darkness during the crucifixion, is evidence that this event did not happen.

Biblicists like to talk about archaeological discoveries that confirm the accuracy of the Bible, and there have been some discoveries that corroborate SOME of the information in the Bible. However, the discoveries have confirmed only ordinary events. I have never heard of an archaeological discovery that corroborated any of the numerous miraculous claims in the Bible, yet if all of these events happened, surely there would have been some evidence left of their occurrence.

Farrell Till

Standing On Quicksand

This article is a follow-up to "Put Me Down For Myth"(3-12-16), which should be read first. From *The Skeptical Review*, 1996/Nov-Dec:

by Farrell Till 

I welcome Matt Perman's second attempt to prove the historicity of the resurrection. He is to be commended for having the courage to defend his belief in a forum like this. He is not to be commended, however, for the quality of his arguments. Most of them are as transparent as cellophane, and, like many fundamentalists, his primary defenses of the resurrection are based on (1) unsupported assertions, (2) the fallacy of the appeal to authority, and (3) an unwarranted assumption that the New Testament documents are historically accurate. His unsupported assertions are so many that I will not be able to respond to all of them in a single article, so I will publish a series of two, possibly three, responses, after which Perman may respond to them if he wishes. 

Put Me Down For Myth

An excellent article by Farrell Till on the lack of evidence for the alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ and the alleged events surrounding it. From *The Skeptical Review*, 1996 /July-August:

by Farrell Till 

On April 2, 1996, I attended the Horner-Barker Debate at Northern Iowa University, at which time I had the opportunity to meet Matthew Perman with whom I had been corresponding by e-mail for several weeks. Prior to the debate, I spent about four hours with Matthew and two of his friends talking about various issues related to biblical inerrancy. I found them to be particularly intense about their Christian beliefs, and it was very evident throughout our conversations that they had been thoroughly indoctrinated in fundamentalist Christian ideology. In many ways, Matthew, who was the most vocal of the three, reminded me of how I was at that age, i.e., young and idealistic and completely entrenched in inerrantist thinking.

At the debate, survey cards were distributed that among other things offered a complimentary article about the resurrection. I indicated that I would like to receive it, and two days later, the foregoing article arrived in the mail. When I requested it, I had no idea that it had been written by none other than Matthew Perman. It was a pleasant surprise.

A Discussion On The Believability Of Alleged Bible Miracles

The following is a discussion between Farrell Till and a Christian on the believability of miracles. I have not used the Christian's actual name rather I've used "CHRISTIAN" as the designation for this person. The Christian's irrational logic is amazing--I doubt this person uses such logic in other areas of their life:

       CHRISTIAN 
     Your reasoning is circular.

theist - there are examples of miracles in both biblical and nonbiblical historical accounts - and here are some specific examples.  The presumption in reading historical accounts must be first in favor of the accounts. 

Till - miracles are unbelievable.

theist - why is that? 

Till -   I don't accept proof for miracles. 

theist - why is that? 

Till - because the credibility of any proof is impeached by the claim itself. 

theist - why is that? 

Till - because miracles are unbelievable

TILL

No, no, you are misrepresenting my position, so I will have to rewrite your little script.

CHRISTIAN  

No, I think I got it right.

TILL
Yes, we know you think you are **** on a stick.  (That's a saying from the 1940s that you may not understand, but it isn't a compliment.)

Till: Miracles are unbelievable. 

Theist: Why is that? 

Till: Because no verifiable miracle has ever been demonstrated.

CHRISTIAN
First, you must define what you mean by "verifiable."

Introducing A Christian To Rational Thought

Farrell Till introduces a Christian to rational thought. From the Errancy Discussion List, 8-9-99:

TILL
Well, okay, Eric, let me revise the answer that I gave to your question, because I can now see that your answer is much better than mine.  In order for me to believe that the Bible is the word of God, God himself would have to tell me that it is. So all he has to do is appear in a POOF here in my office, and then he'll have me on your side. When can I expect this to happen?

(DAVE 8/7)
Does this mean that for you to accept that anything exists it must appear in your office? (POOF). With that kind of criteria you: (a) don't accept that very much exists or (b) you have faith in an awful lot.

TILL
What a stupidly false analogy. I have never seen Tokyo, Japan, but I have seen countless cities and towns, and I have known people who have been to Tokyo and tell me that it is there. Hence, there is nothing irrational about thinking that Tokyo is a real city.

(DAVE 8/8)
You rely on eyewitness accounts for your beliefs and except them as fact (as well as accepting the reliability of the witnesses). Does this mean that you accept everything you are told just because you have seen a similar occurrence or phenomenon?

TILL
Certainly not. There are some people I wouldn't believe if they told me the sun rises in the east. You're simply setting up a straw man with another false analogy in which you are trying to compare the acceptance of testimony to the commonplace and ordinary with the acceptance of testimony to the extraordinary. Try to get this through your thick skull, Dave. There is a difference in accepting the report that John Doe died and in accepting the claim that he later returned from the dead. When a claim is entirely contrary to reality as one knows it to be from his lifetime of experiences, then he is being entirely reasonable to reject the claim. That is entirely different from believing Jane Doe when she tells me that she saw a car wreck on her way to Peoria this morning. I have also seen car wrecks on the way to Peoria, so it is reasonable to accept her claim as truth. If she is lying about it, so what? That wouldn't be the first time that I believed a lie that could easily have been the truth. If, however, I believe my former student, whom I think I have mentioned on this list, who claims that she is routinely visited by alien beings and has an alien living inside her body to guide and direct her in her crusade to enlighten the public about alien visitations to earth, then I will deserve every bit of ridicule that is heaped onto me for being so gullible.