Evidence

I'm always fascinated by the dialog of skeptics against Christianity. Now, atheists will tell you that Christians are skeptics in terms of every other god; atheists go just one god further. But, oddly enough, you rarely see (in truth, I have never seen) an atheist arguing on a Hindu or Buddhist or even Wiccan site regarding their beliefs. An Islamic site? Highly unlikely. But the kind of arguments that pass as arguments baffle me.

Most often is the argument that says, "There is no evidence ..." The rest of that argument varies. No evidence for God. No evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus. No evidence for the existence of the Apostle Paul or other biblical disciples. And so on. Now, consider a typical courtroom. In a standard criminal case, a prosecutor will present evidence that he or she believes proves the guilt of the defendant, and the defense attorney will present evidence that he or she believes proves the innocence of the defendant. Both present evidence. So if the Prosecutor stood before the jury and said, "There is absolutely no evidence that the defendant is not guilty", the Prosecutor would be a liar. And yet, this is the "proof" offered against theism, Christianity, Christ, Paul, or whatever.

The truth is that the skeptic simply chooses to reject the arguments and evidence. What I've actually heard from them is essentially "Your evidence is invalid because our evidence is valid." They (like anyone) will go to sources that agree with their view and cite them, as if this is all that is needed to prove the point. Citing sympathetic sources is all well and good, but I would like to point out that sources that deny (for instance) the existence of an historical Jesus will also admit that "Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself" referring to Paul's epistles. "But," I would ask, "didn't you just deny that there is any evidence for the existence of Paul?" "No, no," they will never say, "we're going to keep to our standard mode. We'll deny evidence when it suits us and accept it when it suits us." That is, however, what they will appear to do. (In the article I just cited, the author references the Epistles of Peter while discussing the evidence for an historical Jesus. He indicates that Peter couldn't have written the epistles because Peter was "an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this)." Acts 4:13 says, "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus." Are you sure you want to offer a biblical reference to Jesus in an article rejecting the existence of Jesus? That's the way it works.)

The truth is that there is evidence and reason for Christian faith. The truth is simply that not everyone accepts that evidence and those reasons as compelling, but this doesn't negate the fact that they exist. The truth is that the mainstream position is that Jesus existed. Even Bart Ehrman, an agnostic New Testament scholar (go figure), admits that "The view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet." (That's called "evidence from a hostile source", which is generally regarded as a good thing.) Although the primary sources for Jesus's life are the Gospels (which skeptics are required to reject out of hand), there are multiple references to Jesus in extra-biblical sources. And having admitted that there was an Apostle Paul and that he did write at least most of his epistles, since Jesus is his primary topic and Paul knew the disciples of Christ, it would seem necessary to conclude that Paul knew there was an historical Jesus.

Look, none of this will convince you that there is a God, that Jesus was real, or that Christianity is true. Not the point. What am I trying to say? I'm telling you that you will hear from those who oppose God that your beliefs are without evidence, rationale, or support. Please don't buy that lie. It is a lie. The evidence exists. The arguments are there. Faith and reason are not in opposition. And while you will certainly come to whatever conclusions you will come to on the evidence and arguments, please don't accept the lie that they don't exist. That is not true.