I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be a Christian

In their book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2004) Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek claim to prove that Christianity is true beyond a reasonable doubt (pages 25, 30-32, 134, 200, 203, 213, 231, 247, 273, 275, 293, 301, 354, 373, 383, 387, 388). Their foreword, written by David Limbaugh, claims that “powerful and convincing proof exists that Christianity is the one true religion...” (page 7). These are bold claims. Are they true? Let's find out:

Knock, Knock.

I answered the door. There was a talking book on my front porch. The book said, “Hi! I was written by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek. My title is I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. I was published in 2004 by Crossway Books of Wheaton, Illinois.”

“That’s a mouthful,” I said. “May I call you Atheist for short?”

“Um. Why don’t you call me G&T?”

“That’s short for Geisler and Turek?”

“Right,” said the book. “I’m from the church down the street.”

“I’m Kyle.”

“Kyle, do you mind if I ask you a spiritual question?”

“Go ahead.”

“Kyle, if you were to die tonight and stand before God, and God were to ask you, ‘Why should I let you into my heaven?’ what would you say?”

“I would ask him, ‘Who are you?’ and ‘What makes you think I want to get into your heaven?’ To tell you the truth: I don’t believe in God. I’m an atheist.”

“You’re an atheist?”

“That’s right.”

“Well, are you absolutely sure there is no God?” the book asked.

I paused and said, “Well, no, I’m not absolutely sure. I guess it’s possible there might be a god.”

“So you’re not really an atheist, then – you’re an agnostic,” the book said, “because an atheist says, ‘I know there is no God,’ and an agnostic says ‘I don’t know whether there is a God.’”

“My turn,” I said. “Are you a Christian? Do you believe in God?”

“Yes.”

“Well, are you absolutely sure there is a God?” I asked.

The book paused and said, “Well, I’m not absolutely sure. I guess it’s possible there might not be a God. My authors wrote on page 25, ‘Whatever we’ve concluded about the existence of God, it’s always possible that the opposite conclusion is true.’”

“So you’re not really a Christian, then – you’re an agnostic,” I informed the book, “because a Christian says, ‘I know there is a God,’ and an agnostic says ‘I don’t know whether there is a God.’”

“Yeah ... alright; so I guess I’m an agnostic then,” the book admitted.

Noticing the book’s bewilderment, I decided it was time to let it off the hook. I said, “By your definition, an agnostic is one who has the integrity and intellectual honesty to admit that he is not absolutely sure about the existence of God. Being agnostic, then, is a good thing. Anyone can be agnostic, no matter what conclusions he has drawn. You have drawn the conclusion that God exists, and because you also believe in Jesus, you correctly call yourself a Christian. I have drawn the opposite conclusion, and I correctly call myself an atheist. Yet we are both agnostic, too; we both admit the possibility, no matter how remote we think it is, that our conclusions are wrong. So you are an agnostic Christian and I am an agnostic atheist.”

“I would rather call myself Christian than agnostic,” murmured the book between its lines.

“And I would rather be called an atheist. So why don’t we drop the ‘agnostic’ moniker?”

"Good idea," the book sighed with relief. Then it continued, "So how did you reach the conclusion that God does not exist?"

“The same way I reached the conclusion that fairies don’t exist. Nobody has shown me any convincing evidence.”

The book launched its million-dollar question: “Would you be willing to look at my evidence?”

“For God or fairies?” I winked.

“God,” laughed the book.

I liked the book’s sense of humor, so I invited the book into my home. I poured a glass of ice water for myself. Because books don’t like water, I put some ink and whiteout on the coffee table. I was curious to see how G&T would use the liquids by the end of our discussion.

G&T (p 51): Have you ever asked yourself why people believe what they believe?

Kyle: That question perplexes me all the time. I think most people adopt the beliefs of their parents, friends, or their culture. They don’t even think about it. That would explain why you have entire countries that are predominantly Islamic, Buddhist or Catholic, for example.

G&T (p 51-52): I would categorize these as sociological reasons for belief. Do you think sociological reasons alone can lead you to the truth?

Kyle: No. It was only by chance that I was born into a Mormon family. I had no choice. If I had been loyal to the sociological default, I would still be Mormon. And the child who is born by chance into an Islamic society would still be Islamic. That has nothing to do with truthfulness.

G&T (p 51): Good. Why else do people believe what they believe?

Kyle: Some people accept certain beliefs that make them feel secure. They seek comfort, peace of mind, meaning, purpose, hope, or a sense of identity.

G&T (p 51-52): I categorize these as psychological reasons for belief. Are these good enough reasons to believe something?

Kyle: No, not if you’re looking for the truth. Reality is sometimes frightening and troubling. You can escape into a comforting fantasy from time to time, but if you don’t come out of it, you can become delusional. And that's a dangerous way to live.

G&T (p 51): I agree. Why else do people believe what they believe?

Kyle: Some people believe in holy scriptures, or churches, or pastors, priests, gurus, rabbis, or imams.

G&T (p 51-53): Let’s call these religious reasons for belief. Should you believe something just because some religious source or holy book says so?

Kyle: No. All these religions, with their books and leaders, contradict one another.

G&T (p 53): Right. So we have to judge which religion, if any, is true. But we can’t use sociological, psychological or religious reasons for judging religions. There must be something else.

Kyle: I prefer logic, reason, science and evidence.

G&T (p 51, 53): Let’s call these philosophical reasons for belief. Is something worth believing if it’s rational, if it’s supported by evidence, and if it best explains all the data?

Kyle: Yes, of course.

G&T (p 53): I agree. By exposing inadequate justifications for beliefs, the way is cleared for the seeker of truth to find adequate justifications. I will attempt to show you good reason and evidence to support belief in God and Christianity.

Kyle: I’m skeptical that you will succeed, but I applaud the attempt.

G&T (p 54): Thank you. You know, there are many false beliefs in the world – beliefs that are based on subjective preference rather than logic and evidence.

Kyle: Of course.

G&T (p 53-54): Well, I’m here to tell you that any teaching, religious or otherwise, is worth trusting only if it points to the truth. Are you ready to give up subjective preferences in favor of objective facts – facts discovered through logic, evidence and science?

Kyle: Yes. I will follow the truth wherever it leads. Will you?

G&T (p 66-69): I should hope so! Truth is vitally important. Apathy about truth is dangerous.

Kyle: I couldn’t agree more.

G&T (p 56): So, are you familiar with the basics of logic? Do you know, for example, what the Law of Noncontradiction is?

Kyle: Yes. It means a claim can’t be both true and false at the same time, in the same sense.

G&T (p 62): Good. How about the Law of the Excluded Middle?

Kyle: That means something either is or is not. For example, either God exists, or he does not. There is no third alternative. Now, it is possible that God exists in the imagination, but not literally, but these are two different claims. Either God exists in the imagination, or he does not exist in the imagination. Either God exists literally, or he does not exist literally.

G&T (p 63-64): You’ve got it. You know how a syllogism works? Deduction? Induction?

Kyle: Yes, I think so. They just make common sense. If I have any question about them, I’ll ask when we come to them.

G&T: Good enough.

Kyle: You're not like other missionaries. Most of them want me to believe them without evidence.

G&T (p53-54,159-160,213): Not I. I want you to discover the truth by reason, logic and evidence. I will prove that God exists without using the Bible.

Kyle: I like that. Let’s get started with some evidence.

G&T (p 74-75): One of the oldest and strongest arguments for the existence of God is the Cosmological Argument:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

G&T (p 94): Well, if you define ‘universe’ to include God, then no, the universe did not have a beginning, because God never had a beginning. If God had a beginning, we would have the impossible situation of something emerging from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing.

Kyle: So, how do you define the word ‘universe’?

G&T (p 79-80, 92-93): By ‘universe,’ I mean space, time and matter. I sometimes call this the ‘space-time universe.’ Everything that exists outside of space, time and matter is not part of the universe.

Kyle: Okay. So the “universe” consists of four dimensions – length, breadth, height and time. I've heard about String Theory, which suggests there are eleven dimensions. Assuming String Theory is correct, the remaining seven dimensions are outside of the space-time universe.

G&T: Do you have evidence to support String Theory?

Kyle: No. All I'm saying is that you have placed God outside of our four dimensions. Therefore, if God exists at all, he must exist in other dimensions. Whether String Theory is correct or not, you must believe in other dimensions.

G&T: That sounds like a reasonable conclusion.

Kyle: So it would be more accurate to restate your Cosmological Argument this way:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. Space, time and matter had a beginning.
3. Therefore, space, time and matter had a cause.

Kyle: I do. I think the word ‘universe’ is misleading if it doesn’t include everything that exists.

G&T: So, do you believe that space, time and matter had a beginning?

Kyle: I can understand matter coming from immaterial stuff. But a universe without space? That’s inconceivable. A universe without time is also counterintuitive. How could anything exist outside of time? It sounds too bizarre for belief.

G&T (90): If you think it through, a beginning of time is rationally inescapable.

Kyle: Really?

G&T (91): Yes. Our timeline is undeniably finite.

Kyle: I’m from Missouri. Show me.

G&T (p 90): Kalam is Arabic for ‘eternal.’

Kyle: According to William Lane Craig, kalam means ‘speech.’ I have a critique of Craig’s book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, on my website (http://www.heartoftn.net/users/shagbark/kalam.html). But go on.

G&T (p 90-91): The Kalam Argument goes like this:

1. An infinite number of days has no end.
2. Today is the end of history.
3. Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days before today.

G&T: Right.

Kyle: There are two classes of infinite time: Time that has a beginning, but no end is a potential infinite. The future is a potential infinite. Time that has an end but no beginning is an actual infinite. The past is an actual infinite.

G&T: Unless there was a beginning.

Kyle: Right. If there were a beginning, the past would be finite. But your argument fails to prove that there was a beginning.

G&T: How?

Kyle: Your first premise – “An infinite number of days has no end” – describes a potential infinite. It looks toward the future. It says nothing about the past as an actual infinite.

G&T: Oh!

Kyle: Neither of your premises mention the real issue – whether there was a beginning.

G&T: By golly, you’re right.

Kyle: Therefore, your conclusion is a non-sequitur. Your argument proves nothing. Would you care for some whiteout?

G&T (p 94): Not yet. I have too much invested in my position.

Kyle: The offer remains open.

G&T (p 91): Thanks. But what about this: You can’t add anything to something that is infinite, but tomorrow we will add another day to our timeline.

Kyle: Who says you can’t add anything to an infinite set? Of course you can. Ask any math teacher. What you probably mean is that the total number of days doesn't change. Add one day to an infinite set of days, and you still have an infinite number of days. But the new set of days has one unique day in it that it didn't have before. A day has been added to an infinite timeline.

G&T (p 91): Okay.... Let’s consider this argument from a different angle. If there were an infinite number of days before today, then today would never have arrived.

Kyle: The opposite is true. In an infinite number of days, every day must arrive.

G&T (p 91): But you can't traverse an infinite number of days.

Kyle: If you begin on a particular day and progress one day at a time, you're right. You will never traverse an infinite number of days. A beginningless timeline, though, doesn't begin on a particular day. By definition it has no beginning at all. It has been progressing day by day forever. Every day arrives precisely on schedule, and it's added to the infinite timeline.

G&T: I hadn't thought about it that way.

Kyle: Of course, there was never a day when a finite number of days became an infinite number of days. The number of days has always been infinite.

G&T: Hmm....

Kyle: The Kalam Argument, which you called “rationally inescapable,” is false. Philosophically, there is no reason to limit the number of days before today.

G&T (chapter 3): Well, there is still a lot of scientific evidence. Do you believe there was a Big Bang?

Kyle: I’m not sure. Scientists seem to disagree among themselves. I could do exhaustive research and come to an informed conclusion, but that would take more time and effort than I’m willing to put into it.

G&T (p 42-43): So you’re agnostic when it comes to the Big Bang, right?

Kyle: I suppose.

G&T (p 76-84): To back up the Big Bang theory, we have what I call SURGE science:

S – The Second Law of Thermodynamics
U – The Universe is Expanding
R – Radiation from the Big Bang
G – Great Galaxy Seeds
E – Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity

G&T (p 62): According to the Law of the Excluded Middle, the science, as I present it, is either right, or it is wrong.

Kyle: If it’s wrong, your Cosmological Argument is weak. If it’s right, your second premise is proved: Space and time had a beginning.

G&T: So do you accept the science I presented as correct?

Kyle: I don’t have the training to refute it. Therefore, for the sake of our discussion, I accept it as correct. Space, time and matter had a beginning. It’s counter-intuitive; it’s difficult to grasp such a bizarre concept, but for the sake of our discussion, I accept it as correct.

G&T: Isn't it even more difficult to understand the past as being an actual infinite?

Kyle: No. The way I see it, a beginningless past makes much more sense than time beginning out of non-time.

G&T: Anyway, for the sake of the argument you accept both premises?

Kyle: Yes, assuming the science to be correct.

G&T: Does the conclusion follow logically from the premises?

Kyle: Yes.

G&T: Then you admit that space, time and matter had a cause.

Kyle: Yes, assuming your science to be correct, there was a Big Bang when space, time and matter came into existence.

G&T: Good. Then who is it that caused space and time to come into existence?

Kyle: Who!? Don’t you mean ‘what’?

G&T (p 93): Well, let’s look at the nature of whatever it is that exists outside of space and time: First, he ...

Kyle: ... or it ...

G&T (93): ... or it ... must be self-existent, timeless, nonspatial and immaterial.

Kyle: I understand that it must be nonspatial, timeless and immaterial because it exists outside of space, time and matter. But self-existent? What do you mean by that?

G&T (p 93): There are only two possibilities for anything that exists: either 1) it has always existed and is therefore uncaused, or 2) it had a beginning and was caused by something else. If space, time and matter had a beginning, then something outside of space, time and matter has always existed, uncaused. It is self-existent.

Kyle: I can accept that. Something had to exist forever. But so far, you have not given any good reason that the uncaused something is a personal god.

G&T (p 93): I’m getting to that. The uncaused something must be unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing.

Kyle: Wait a minute. Instead of ‘universe,’ I think you mean space, time and matter. Right?

G&T: Right.

Kyle: Now, what do you mean by ‘nothing’? Nothing comes from nothing.

G&T (79): ‘Nothing’ means no space, no time and no matter.

Kyle: So it would be more accurate to say it this way: Whatever made the Big Bang had to be sufficiently powerful to cause space, time and matter to emerge suddenly from other dimensions.

G&T (p 93): Okay. Also, the uncaused something had to be supremely intelligent, to design the universe with such incredible precision. But we’ll talk more about this in the next chapter.

Kyle: So this is a wash at the moment.

G&T (p 93): Yes. Just be patient. Finally, the uncaused something had to be personal, in order to choose to convert other dimensions into the time-space-material universe. An impersonal force has no ability to make choices.

Kyle: Now you’re begging the question. What makes you think the emergence of space, time and matter was a personal choice? Couldn’t it have been a natural phenomenon?

G&T (p 85): But there could be no natural phenomenon. Nature cannot exist outside of space, time and matter.

Kyle: Our particular laws of physics might not work in other dimensions, but the other dimensions surely have some kind of order to them – some parallel to our natural laws. Otherwise, the other dimensions would be total chaos, and not even your God could exist. So if a god can exist in other dimensions, then other phenomena can occur in them, and those phenomena would occur according to the nature of those dimensions.

G&T: Do you have proof that the Big Bang was caused by natural phenomena?

Kyle: No, but the burden of proof is yours. Do you have proof that the Big Bang was caused by personal choice?

G&T: Touché.

Kyle: Indeed. So we can throw out your final point. If I understand you correctly, the only evidence you offer that a Person – a “who” rather than a “what” – was responsible for the Big Bang is that it would take intelligence to design space, time and matter.

G&T (p 93-94): Looks like it. And we’ll discuss that in the next chapter. For right now, I have a question for you: If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing at all?

Kyle: That sounds like a rhetorical question. I’ll tell you the answer if you can answer this: Why is there a God rather than no God?

G&T (p 94): That’s a good question. That’s a really good question.

Kyle: But it doesn’t have a good answer, does it?

G&T: No, I guess not.

Kyle: Is there any significant difference between your question and mine?

G&T: No, mine doesn’t have a good answer either.

Kyle: So where are we? I agree that something caused space, time and matter to come into existence, assuming your scientific evidence is correct. But neither the Cosmological Argument nor the scientific evidence says anything about what existed before the Big Bang. It might have been a god, or it might have been another set of dimensions as complex, precise, varied and marvelous as space and time. We simply don’t know. Neither science nor philosophy tells us what may have caused the Big Bang. If you don’t mind my pointing out the obvious, you have failed, so far, to prove the existence of God.

G&T: I have other chapters. Let’s go on to the Teleological Argument.

G&T (p 95, 105): Perhaps the most powerful argument for the existence of God is the Teleological Argument:

1. Every design had a designer.
2. The universe has highly complex design.
3. Therefore, the universe had a designer.

G&T (p 95-96, 106-107): A designer is an intelligent being who intentionally plans and manufactures something.

Kyle: What do you mean by ‘design’?

G&T (p 95-96, 102, 104-105, 107): Design is precision ...

Kyle: ... and complexity?

G&T (p 95, 106, 111): Yes, and complexity.

Kyle: What else?

G&T (p 96, 104-107): Anything that has interdependent parts that appear to be fine-tuned or delicately balanced must be designed by an intelligent being.

Kyle: Because it’s complex and precise.

G&T: Yes.

Kyle: So we can plug your definitions into your syllogism, and clarify the Teleological Argument:

1. Complexity and precision require deliberate planning and manufacture by an intelligent being.
2. The universe is complex and precise.
3. Therefore, the universe was deliberately planned and manufactured by an intelligent being.

Kyle: The second premise is undeniably true. The universe is precise and complex. It has interdependent parts that appear to be fine-tuned and delicately balanced.

G&T: Good. Do you accept the first premise?

Kyle: No. Neither do you.

G&T: Don’t tell me what I accept and don’t accept.

Kyle: Sorry. Let me see if I can bring you around to admitting it yourself.

G&T: Good luck!

Kyle: What would you say if I told you God was a simple being? If fact, God is so simple that the raw forces of nature – wind, rain, erosion, or some combination of natural forces – could easily form a new God.

G&T: Perish the thought.

Kyle: Would you say God is too complex and precise to be formed by the raw forces of nature?

G&T: Of course!

Kyle: Who designed God?

G&T (p 92): Nobody. God exists eternally.

Kyle: So here you have an example of something that is complex and precise, but was not designed, right?

G&T: Right.

Kyle: So your first premise if false. Not everything that is complex and precise requires planning and manufacture by an intelligent being. In other words, not every design requires a designer.

G&T: Well, we’re not talking about God; we’re talking about the heavens and the earth.

Kyle: If you can have a complex and precise god who exists eternally without being designed, why can’t I have an entire universe that exists eternally without being designed?

G&T (p 92-93): But you’ve forgotten about the Big Bang. The universe can’t be eternal.

Kyle: No, we’ve already discussed this. Remember, it’s only space, time and matter that were formed by the Big Bang, assuming your science is correct. The other dimensions can exist eternally, can’t they?

G&T: Of course. Otherwise, God could not exist.

Kyle: You seem to think that God is the only thing that existed in the other dimensions. I think the other dimensions were as varied, complex and precise as space, time and matter.

G&T: You have no proof of that.

Kyle: We’re in the same boat, then. You have no proof of God.

G&T: Can you tell me how your universe was transformed from other dimensions to time and space?

Kyle: Can you explain the mechanics of how God created the heavens and earth out of nothing?

G&T: No, that’s a mystery.

Kyle: Then we’re in the same boat. My scenario makes as much sense as yours. Maybe more. According to the Principle of Uniformity, the pre-Big Bang universe should look something like our space-time universe.

G&T (p 117): Hey, you've read ahead. I don’t mention the Principle of Uniformity until the next chapter.

Kyle: Maybe you should use it more uniformly.

G&T (p 95-96): Okay, so maybe my Teleological Argument is not as persuasive as I thought it was. What about the diamond-studded Rolex watch? Isn’t that a convincing analogy?

Kyle: The story of the Rolex watch is a trick. You offer two alternatives for explaining the existence of the watch: either it was formed by non-living forces of nature, or it was planned and manufactured by an intelligent watchmaker. The answer is obvious. Watches are made by intelligent beings. If the story had ended there, it would have been fine. What follows, however, is a false analogy. You put the universe in the place of the Rolex watch. Then you offer the same two alternatives: Was it formed by non-living forces of nature, or was it planned and manufactured by the biblical Watchmaker?

G&T: What’s wrong with that?

Kyle: It’s a false dichotomy. There are other alternatives.

G&T: What other alternatives are there?

Kyle: I can think of six alternatives for explaining the existence of anything. First, it was formed by the raw forces of nature. Mountains and ravines are examples.

G&T (p 95-96): I offer that alternative in the Rolex story.

Kyle: Right. A second alternative is that some things are man-made. Intelligent beings, who are not gods, make watches, cars, buildings and computers, for example.

G&T (p 95-96): I also offer that alternative in the Rolex story.

Kyle: True. A third alternative is that God made the thing. You believe that God created Adam’s body by special creation. You believe that God created the heavens and the earth.

G&T: Of course.

Kyle: A fourth alternative is natural reproduction. After Adam and Eve, all people are produced by natural reproduction. They are not created individually by God.

G&T: Okay.

Kyle: A fifth alternative is that non-intelligent beings made some things. A spider’s web, a beaver’s dam, or a beehive are examples.

G&T: Good.

Kyle: A sixth alternative is that the thing is eternal. You believe God is eternal. I believe the universe itself is eternal – or at least the non-temporal, nonspatial dimensions.

G&T (p 95-96): So my Rolex story is not convincing?

Kyle: Right. Comparing a Rolex to the universe is a false analogy, and offering only two alternatives for the existence of the universe is a false dichotomy.

G&T (p 106): What about the mathematics? I show that the probability of all the anthropic principles combining in one planet by random chance is practically zero.

Kyle: Again, we’re dealing with a false dichotomy. You say that the earth’s characteristics either combined by random chance, or they were designed by God. I admit the earth is very precise and complex. It’s an amazing place. But I don’t see the necessity for divine design. I believe complexity and precision are eternal characteristics of the universe. If there was a Big Bang, the precision and complexity carried over from the other dimensions.

G&T (p 106): Aren’t you impressed with the magnitude of the numbers?

Kyle: Not really. I could play the same numbers game to show that anything is equally improbable. For example, the improbability that I was born with my precise ancestry is staggering. Probabilities are useful for predicting the future, but anything established in the past has a probability of one hundred percent. The past is no longer a probability, but a certainty. Your numbers game is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

G&T: So is there anything in my fourth chapter that persuades you?

Kyle: No. The Teleological Argument is wrong because the first premise is false. Not everything that's precise and complex requires an intelligent person to plan and manufacture it. Not even a Christian can believe the Teleological argument unless he accepts that someone designed God. In your fourth chapter, you engage in false dichotomies, false analogies and mathematical illusions. You have no evidence that God designed the universe, and I don't have enough faith to accept it without evidence. Shall we see if your next chapter has anything better to offer?

G&T: Good idea.

G&T (chapter 5): Let’s talk about life on our planet. We know life exists here on Earth. How did it get here? What are its origins? My fifth chapter boils down to this syllogism:

1. Either life generated spontaneously, or an intelligent being manufactured life on Earth.
2. Life does not generate spontaneously.
3. Therefore, an intelligent being manufactured life on earth.

Kyle: Yes, the ‘either-or’ logic is valid. However, the truth of the conclusion depends on the truth of both premises.

G&T: Do you believe the premises are true?

Kyle: I’m inclined to believe the second premise. Unless evidence to the contrary surfaces, I don’t believe life can generate itself spontaneously.

G&T: Well, you’re ahead of the Darwinists.

Kyle: Thanks.

G&T: How about the first premise? Is it true?

Kyle: I’m having some trouble accepting the first premise. You offer two options: spontaneous generation or intelligent manufacture. Are those the only options?

G&T (p 121): Well, there’s the theory of panspermia, but that’s so crazy that I don’t give it serious consideration.

Kyle: What is panspermia?

G&T (p 121): The suggestion that aliens deposited the first life here.

Kyle: Isn’t that what you believe?

G&T: Come again?

Kyle: Did God deposit the first life here on Earth?

G&T: Well, yes.

Kyle: Is God a native of planet Earth?

G&T: No.

Kyle: Then isn’t God an alien?

G&T: Um. Well, no. He created the earth, so how could he be an alien to it?

Kyle: I see. So other than the minor point of how you define the word ‘alien,’ the panspermia theory is pretty close to your own.

G&T: But in panspermia, the aliens are not gods.

Kyle: You know what the Principle of Uniformity is, don’t you?

G&T (p 117): Of course. It’s the central principle in forensic science. By the Principle of Uniformity, we assume that the world worked in the past just like it works today, especially when it comes to causes.

Kyle: So, wouldn’t the Principle of Uniformity favor non-gods over gods?

G&T: Can you explain how non-gods would travel to Earth?

Kyle: Can you explain how a god would travel to Earth?

G&T: With God, all things are possible. He’s not hindered by a physical body. He’s immaterial – not made of matter.

Kyle: Well, maybe the non-gods are immaterial. Maybe they’re more intelligent and powerful than we are.

G&T: How could non-gods breach the gap between the immaterial and the material?

Kyle: How could God do it?

G&T: I see. Every objection I raise about your theory applies equally to mine.

Kyle: Right. We're both in the same boat. Origins are a mystery for everyone.

G&T (p 121): Okay, so maybe panspermia is not as far-out as I thought it was. The problem is, though, that panspermia doesn’t solve the problem of the origin of life.

Kyle: I thought this chapter was about the origin of life on Earth. Now you’re talking about life in the universe.

G&T: Well, my fifth chapter is a little vague on that distinction.

Kyle: I noticed.

G&T (p 121): But the point is, panspermia doesn’t explain how life began in the universe. It simply puts it off another step: who made the intelligent aliens?

Kyle: I can say the same thing about theistic creation. It doesn’t explain the origin of life. It only puts it off another step: who made God?

G&T (p 92): Nobody. God is eternal.

Kyle: Maybe the aliens are eternal.

G&T: You mean immortal?

Kyle: Not necessarily. They could be mortals, but their race could stretch back through an infinite number of generations.

G&T: What evidence do you have for that theory?

Kyle: What evidence do you have for God? Your Cosmological Argument doesn’t work. Neither does your Teleological Argument. You have set out to prove the existence of God without reference to the Bible. Where is your evidence?

G&T: I still think theistic creation makes more sense than panspermia.

Kyle: I suspect that’s your bias speaking. You’re accustomed to the theory of theistic creation, so it doesn’t seem strange to you. But an objective person who didn’t grow up in Sunday School would probably think panspermia makes at least as much sense as theistic creation. Besides those aren’t the only options.

G&T: We’ve mentioned three options so far: spontaneous generation, theistic creation and panspermia. What else is there?

Kyle: It depends on whether you’re talking about life in the universe or life on earth. As far as life in the universe is concerned, you believe that God is the first life, and he existed forever, without beginning.

G&T (p 92): Right.

Kyle: I think a more credible theory is that all life forms come from an infinite line of ancestors. Life itself – with all its variety – is eternal.

G&T: Then how did this great variety of life arrive on earth?

Kyle: One option is that the Earth is eternal, and life has always been here.

G&T (chapter 3): But scientific evidence tends to discredit that option.

Kyle: Right. Or life generated spontaneously on Earth.

G&T (chapter 5): Highly unlikely.

Kyle: I agree. Or maybe Earth life is the naturally reproduced offspring of life elsewhere in the universe.

G&T (p 121): Panspermia.

Kyle: Or God created life on Earth.

G&T: That’s my favorite.

Kyle: Or non-gods created life on Earth.

G&T: Don’t you think we can eliminate spontaneous generation and an eternal Earth?

Kyle: Sure. That leaves us with panspermia, creation by God and creation by non-gods. In all three alternatives, life existed in some form before coming to Earth.

G&T: I believe pre-Earth life was in the form of one person alone – God.

Kyle: And I keep my mind open to the possibility that pre-Earth life was as varied and complex as Earth life. None of the three theories contradicts the Big Bang and related sciences. Neither of us can explain how the pre-Earth life traveled to planet Earth from elsewhere.

G&T: It’s a mystery, isn’t it?

Kyle: Yes. In two of the three theories, Earth life is engineered and manufactured by super-intelligent creators. In panspermia, Earth life is the natural reproduction of pre-Earth life. Of course, we see natural reproduction every day. We have never witnessed a robot or a mannequin come to life. We can reproduce life through our genitals, but we cannot engineer or manufacture life by intelligent design. We have not discovered any being with the super-intelligence required for manufacturing life. Therefore, panspermia should be considered the most reasonable alternative.

G&T: Unless you consider the witness of the Bible.

Kyle: And that’s covered in other chapters. To this point, you have failed to prove by extra-biblical evidence that there is a god.

G&T (p 117): So you don’t buy the choice between the first life (1) being created by some kind of intelligence or (2) arising by natural laws from nonliving materials?

Kyle: No, your fifth chapter is a false dichotomy. You fail to consider seriously other alternatives.

G&T: Shall we move on?

Kyle: Sure, after one comment. What did you say near the bottom of page 132?

G&T (p 132): “Intellect, free will, objective morality and human rights as well as reason, logic, design and truth can exist only if God exists.”

Kyle: So far, I’ve been pretty good about addressing only the main points of your chapters. I have ignored irrelevant material. But I can’t let that statement go unchallenged. In my opinion, it’s offensive, arrogant and completely untrue. And while I’m at it, I also object to the harsh statements you make against atheists on page 68 and elsewhere. I’m not saying this to be unkind. I just want you to know that I disagree.

G&T: I understand. We’ll address those issues in chapter seven. Shall we go on to chapter six now?

Kyle: Sure.

G&T (chapter 6): We know micro-evolution occurs: a particular species of animal may develop and change over time, without turning into another species. But what do you think about macro-evolution? Do you believe one kind of animal can develop into another? Do you believe man evolved from apes?

Kyle: Not necessarily. I would have to see some scientific evidence before I believe that.

G&T (chapter 6): Well, the Darwinists don’t have any good evidence. In fact, there is evidence that macroevolution does not occur on Earth.

Kyle: I’ll take your word for it. For the sake of the argument, I deny that one species can evolve into another. I’ll keep my mind open, though, to further scientific evidence, should any come to my attention.

G&T (p 155): So, if there’s no natural explanation for the origin of new life forms, then there must be an intelligent explanation. It’s the only other option. There’s no halfway house between intelligence and nonintelligence.

Kyle: That sounds like the principle you mentioned earlier. What was it?

G&T (p 62): The Law of the Excluded Middle.

Kyle: Of course. I agree that new life forms were either created by an intelligent being, or they were not created by an intelligent being. Is that what you’re saying?

G&T: Exactly.

Kyle: But you speak as if macroevolution is the only alternative to creation by an intelligent being.

G&T: Isn’t it?

Kyle: No, of course not. Isn’t it possible that there are no new life forms? Maybe every life form has an infinite line of ancestors. If God can be eternal, why can’t every life form be eternal?

G&T: Can you explain how all these thousands of life forms arrived on planet Earth from the other dimensions?

Kyle: Can you explain how God arrived on planet Earth from the other dimensions?

G&T: Well, no.

Kyle: Neither can I. We’re in the same boat.

G&T: Which is more believable? On one hand you have a single person performing a marvelous feat by exercising incredible intelligence and unlimited power. On the other hand, you have thousands of unintelligent life forms that mysteriously pop into material existence. Which would you choose?

Kyle: You seem to regard intelligence as the most powerful force in the universe, and you seem to underestimate the forces of nature. I find this very curious. Humanity keeps discovering the awesome power of nature. We peek into natural phenomena, and we are overwhelmed with its intricate complexity. Science has barely scratched the surface of how the universe works. There are powerful forces within every atom that attract some particles and repel other particles. We have discovered that the entire blueprint of a person’s body is embedded in the nucleus of every cell. Maybe the blueprint of the entire universe is embedded in each and every atom.

G&T: But who created that blueprint? Surely a blueprint points to an intelligent source.

Kyle: The blueprint may be eternal. Nobody created it. It simply exists.

G&T: The same way I insist that God simply exists?

Kyle: Right. And maybe when natural conditions are right, the complexity of the other dimensions solidifies into space, time and matter. Compare it to water. When conditions are right, it transforms from a liquid to a solid. Other conditions cause it to transform from a liquid to a gas. It’s still water, but it changes form. That’s the power of nature. Intelligence is not required. Maybe the atmospheric and geological conditions of planet Earth were different during the Cambrian period than they are today, and the various life forms in other dimensions “solidified” into a material existence, purely by natural phenomena.

G&T: That sounds pretty far-out.

Kyle: No more far-out than your God theory. In fact, you mentioned a principle...

G&T (p 117): The Principle of Uniformity?

Kyle: Yes. The Principle of Uniformity favors natural phenomena, even if we don’t fully understand them, over a super-intelligence. Compared with the forces of nature, the intelligence of man is a trifling thing, and we have absolutely no scientific evidence for any intelligence greater than man’s. Intelligence itself is a natural phenomenon. Intelligence depends on nature – not the other way around.

G&T: Well, you would have a hard time proving your theory, and disproving the existence of God.

Kyle: I agree. And to the same extent, you would have a hard time proving the existence of God and disproving my theory.

G&T: I have one more argument to prove the existence of God.

Kyle: Let’s go for it.

G&T: Okay, but before we do, let’s review the scientific evidence.

Kyle: Fine.

G&T (p 159-160): I have attempted to prove in chapters 3 to 6 that the Intelligent Design theory is not based on the Bible. It’s a conclusion based on empirically detectable evidence, not sacred texts.

Kyle: I’m glad you made the attempt. As an atheist, I require evidence outside the Bible. And what is the “empirically detectable evidence” you mention?

G&T (p 166): First, the universe exploded into being out of nothing.

Kyle: You mean, space, time and matter exploded into being out of other dimensions, assuming SURGE science and the Big Bang theory are correct, as you presented it.

G&T: Yes, of course.

Kyle: Which means that the other dimensions must be as marvelous and complex as space, time and matter.

G&T: Right. I believe that the other dimensions consist of one person: God.

Kyle: You have given me no reason to rule out the theory that the other dimensions are as varied and marvelous as the physical life forms we have here on Earth. You haven’t proved the necessity for a god. So your first line of evidence fails. What else did you have?

G&T (p 166): Second, this tiny, remote planet called Earth has over 100 fine-tuned, life-enabling constants.

Kyle: How do you interpret this fact?

G&T (p 96, 165): A super-intelligent being must have tweaked the laws of physics.

Kyle: I disagree. I believe the laws of nature have been marvelously complex forever. No tweaking was ever required.

G&T: You have no proof.

Kyle: Do you?

G&T: No.

Kyle: Okay. What’s next?

G&T (p 166): Life has been observed to arise only from existing life.

Kyle: This fact actually favors panspermia over creation. Life has never been observed to be created.

G&T (p 166): Life consists of thousands and even millions of volumes of empirically detectable specified complexity.

Kyle: That is a marvelous thing, but it does nothing to prove the existence of gods. Life has always been marvelously complex through all eternity.

G&T (p 167): Life changes cyclically, and only within a limited range.

Kyle: In the present conditions of our planet Earth, yes. This doesn’t prove the existence of gods. It only describes certain facts of nature.

G&T (p 167): Life cannot be built or modified gradually.

Kyle: The irreducible complexity of life is eternal – not created.

G&T (p 167): Life is molecularly isolated between basic types.

Kyle: Which could easily have been the case eternally.

G&T (p 167): Life leaves a fossil record of fully formed creatures that appear suddenly, do not change, and then disappear suddenly.

Kyle: That’s consistent with varied life forms in other dimensions, and natural phenomena which cause these life forms to manifest themselves in space, time and matter. Gods are not required.

G&T: Hmm....

Kyle: In these four chapters you have utterly failed to prove the existence of God. Your scientific evidence falls short of its mark. It proves that the universe is marvelous, complex and mysterious. It does not explain why. Thrusting God into the equation raises more problems than it solves. It seems more reasonable to live with the mystery, while exploring theories that are more consistent with the Principle of Uniformity.

G&T (p 171): The Moral Law Argument goes like this:

1. Every law has a law giver.
2. There is a Moral Law.
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

G&T: Do I sound like I’m joking?

Kyle: Just look at your first premise. What do you mean by “Every law has a law giver”?

G&T (p 171): Of course every law has a lawgiver. There can be no legislation unless there’s a legislature. Moreover, if there are moral obligations, there must be someone to be obligated to.

Kyle: I think we need to define our terms. Your seventh chapter doesn’t seem to deal with the laws of the land. Legislators write the United States Code, and judges write opinions in court cases. We’re not talking about such legislation or legal precedent, are we?

G&T (p 171): No, we’re more concerned about moral laws. When we say the moral law exists, we mean that all people are impressed with a fundamental sense of right and wrong.

Kyle: Exactly. And this fundamental sense of right and wrong is not a code written by legislators.

G&T (p 170, 177, 189, 192-193): I say it is. God is the legislator who writes his moral law on our hearts.

Kyle: I take that metaphorically....

G&T: Of course.

Kyle: Do you acknowledge that there’s a fundamental difference between laws written and enforced by human governments, and the moral sense within us?

G&T: Yes.

Kyle: Would you object if instead of moral “laws” we called them moral principles? That way we can more easily distinguish moral principles from the laws of the land.

G&T (p 80): By all means, let’s avoid equivocation.

Kyle: So your first premise would be less equivocal if it said, “Every principle has a source.”

G&T: I see you replaced ‘law giver’ with ‘source.’ I guess that makes sense. ‘Principle giver’ doesn’t sound right.

Kyle: So the new syllogism would look like this:

1. Every principle has a source.
2. Moral principles exist.
3. Therefore, there is a source for moral principles.

Kyle: If you want to rely on equivocation and jump to unwarranted conclusions, you can keep your original argument. But if you are honest and forthright, this is what your original argument boils down to. Am I right?

G&T: Sure.

Kyle: Now, I agree with the second premise. Moral principles exist.

G&T (p 172-181): How do you like my eight reasons that we know the moral “law” exists?

Kyle: Generally, I agree with them and I applaud them.

G&T (p 182-186): And what do you think about my six distinctions that clear up confusion about moral principles?

Kyle: Again, I agree with your major points.

G&T: You don’t sound completely convinced.

Kyle: Well, you do jump to some unsupported conclusions. You assume that God is the only source for morality. This is especially evident in your seventh reason.

G&T (p 180-181): You mean when I say, “atheists ... have no objective moral grounds,” and, “in a nontheistic world there are no rights”?

Kyle: Yes, I find those statements offensive.

G&T: But are they true?

Kyle: No! Absolutely not!

G&T: Where else can moral principles come from?

Kyle: From human interaction. Every child develops his “fundamental sense of right and wrong” as part of growing up. Interaction with other human beings teaches children that it’s more comfortable to cooperate with other people than to oppose them. Hurting other people brings negative consequences. When an infant bites his mother’s nipple, he’s likely to get a gentle slap. That starts to teach the child that other people should be treated with respect. This moral sense is refined and developed as the child matures. Some people develop their moral sense more completely than others, but all sane people attain the basics of morality. Morality is a human phenomenon, and it develops from the interaction of people with other people.

G&T (p 170, 177, 189, 192-193): But God writes the moral law on our hearts.

Kyle: (Stunned silence)

G&T: Well?

Kyle: Do you know the difference between an assertion and an argument?

G&T (p 191): Yes. An assertion merely states a conclusion; an argument, on the other hand, states the conclusion and then supports it with evidence.

Kyle: Where is your evidence for the assertion that God is the source of our moral sense?

G&T: Um ... the Bible?

Kyle: But in this chapter you’re attempting to prove God’s existence without reference to the Bible. Isn’t that right?

G&T (p 198): Yes, that was my intent.

Kyle: But you have no extra-biblical evidence that God is the source of our moral sense, do you? I could read and reread your seventh chapter until I’m blue in the face, and I will find many assertions, but no evidence.

G&T: You seem to have caught me empty handed. I have no evidence. Where is your evidence?

Kyle: For one thing, you are carrying the burden of proof – trying to prove the existence of God. All I need to do is expose your lack of evidence. For another thing, it seems to be self-evident that morality is taught and learned. If you want to question the obvious, go to the library. There are any number of scientific books on how children learn morality. For now, here's an excerpt from an article on "Child Development" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the 2005 version on CD:

Young children's growing awareness of their own emotional states, characteristics, and abilities leads to empathy—i.e., the ability to appreciate the feelings and perspectives of others. Empathy and other forms of social awareness are in turn important in the development of a moral sense. The basis of morality in children may be said to progress from a simple fear of punishment and pain to a concern for maintaining the approval of one's parents.

Kyle: So we both agree that every sane human being has a moral sense of right and wrong. We only disagree on the source of that moral sense. You say God writes it on every heart. I say we learn it – like language, social skills and customs.

G&T (p 177): Don’t you think morality is objective? Isn’t there an unchanging standard outside yourself?

Kyle: Yes. The consensus of society is the standard outside ourselves. Its most basic moral principles never change. If you were to rewrite your seventh chapter, replacing such words as ‘God’ and ‘theism’ with ‘society,’ I would find it instructive and acceptable. Let’s go through your summary and give it a try.

G&T (p 192): Alright. My first point is this: There is an absolute standard of right and wrong that is written on the hearts of every human being. People may deny it; they may suppress it; their actions may contradict it; but their reactions reveal that they know it.

Kyle: Well, there’s nothing particularly theistic about that point. I accept it as written. Go on.

G&T (p 192): Relativism is false. Human beings do not determine right and wrong; we discover right and wrong. If human beings determined right and wrong, then anyone would be “right” in asserting that rape, murder, the Holocaust, or any other evil is not really wrong. But we know those acts are wrong intuitively through our consciences, which are manifestations of the Moral Law.

Kyle: I would change ‘human beings’ to ‘individuals.’ Humanity in general does determine right and wrong. Individuals discover it. In addition, I would put ‘moral law’ in lower case letters. I notice throughout your seventh chapter you use capital letters to imply that God is the source of morality. Pretty sneaky of you.

G&T: I can’t slip anything past you, can I?

Kyle: Well, not that, anyway.

G&T (p 192): This Moral Law must have a source higher than ourselves because it is a prescription that is on the hearts of all people. Since prescriptions always have prescribers – they don’t arise from nothing – the Moral Law Prescriber (God) must exist.

Kyle: May I rephrase? These moral principles must have a source beyond individual opinions because it is a standard common to all sane people. Since common standards don’t just happen by coincidence, we all have a common source (society) for moral standards. What is your next point?

G&T (p 193): This Moral Law is God’s standard of rightness, and it helps us adjudicate between the different moral opinions people may have. Without God’s standard, we’re left with just that – human opinions. The Moral Law is the final standard by which everything is measured.

Kyle: Let’s see if I can rephrase that.... These moral principles are society’s standard of rightness, and they help us adjudicate between the different moral opinions individuals may have. Without society’s standard, we’re left with just that – individual opinions. The moral principles of society are the final standard by which everything is measured.

G&T: Where can I find these “moral principles of society”? Where are they written?

Kyle: Some of them are written, and some aren’t. Mankind has codified many moral principles as the laws of the land. Other principles are recorded in books of etiquette. Also, there are many writings on ethics and related philosophies. Some principles aren’t recorded at all, but we grow into them as part of our society’s culture.

G&T: That makes sense.

Kyle: So, what’s your next point?

G&T (p 193): Although it is widely believed that all morality is relative, core moral values are absolute, and they transcend cultures. Confusion over this is often based on a misunderstanding or misapplication of moral absolutes, not on a real rejection of them. That is, moral values are absolute, even if our understanding of them or of the circumstances in which they should be applied are not absolute.

Kyle: That’s good. I’ll accept it as written.

G&T (p 193): Atheists have no real basis for objective right and wrong. This does not mean that atheists are not moral or don’t understand right from wrong. On the contrary, atheists can and do understand right from wrong because the Moral Law is written on their hearts just as on every other heart. But while they may believe in an objective right and wrong, they have no way to justify such a belief (unless they admit a Moral Law Giver, at which point they cease being atheists.)

Kyle: Excuse me a minute while I try to keep my righteous indignation under control.

G&T: Why should my last statement make you angry?

Kyle: It’s so vitriolic, and so untrue. I am proud to be an atheist. I’m a consistent atheist, and contrary to what you assert in the last paragraph of page 193, I believe that murder, rape, genocide, torture and other heinous acts are wrong. I can justify my morality as well as any theist can. Probably better.

G&T: Well, I ...

Kyle: Excuse me, I’m not done. What you said is not only hateful and untrue, your rejection of ethical philosophy causes real harm. I have known people who had based their personal code of conduct entirely on obedience to God. When they discovered that God was a fantasy, they had not developed any reasonable foundation for ethics to fall back on. They went off the deep end and committed any number of immoral acts before they began to get grounded in a true philosophy of ethics.

G&T: So how would you rephrase my last point?

Kyle: I wouldn’t rephrase it at all. If I replaced ‘atheist’ with ‘anti-humanist’ or any other word, it would come off as hateful as the original. Let me just say that all people – no matter what they believe – have access to ethical philosophy. I would encourage people who believe in God to supplement their obedience with an understanding of why certain actions are right or wrong. Try to understand morality from a human standpoint. It could not harm your faith, and it would give you all the more reason and strength to live morally upright lives.

G&T: How can I argue with that?

G&T (p 197): Let’s review the evidence for the existence of God. First, we have the Cosmological Argument:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. Space, time and matter had a beginning.
3. Therefore, space, time a matter had a cause.

G&T (p 198): Then there’s the Teleological Argument:

1. Complexity and precision require deliberate planning and manufacture by an intelligent being.
2. The universe is complex and precise.
3. Therefore, the universe was deliberately planned and manufactured by an intelligent being.

G&T (p 198): Then there’s the Moral Argument:

1. Every principle has a source.
2. Moral principles exist.
3. Therefore, there is a source for moral principles.

G&T (p 200): So you don’t believe me when I say that I have proved the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt?

Kyle: Why should I? A collection of false arguments does not make your assertion true. Not only do you fail to meet the “reasonable doubt” standard, but you have failed to provide one scintilla of evidence for the existence of God. If this is the best non-biblical evidence you have to offer...

G&T (p 394): It is.

Kyle: Then the complete lack of evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist. The theistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not worthy of belief.

G&T: Ouch.

Kyle: Is there any reason to continue our conversation? You have established a pattern of deception. Why should I continue to entertain your fallacies?

G&T (p 213): Wait a minute. I’ve tried, but apparently failed, to convince you with non-biblical evidence that God exists. There’s still the Bible. If the Bible is true, God exists. I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible is true.

Kyle: Miracles and all, huh?

G&T: Yes. If a god exists, he can surely do miracles.

Kyle: I accept that statement, with a healthy emphasis on the ‘if.’

G&T: Good.

Kyle: So, how can you prove the occurrence of a miracle?

G&T (p 208): The only way to know for sure if a miracle has occurred is to investigate the evidence for each miracle claim.

Kyle: On a case-by-case basis?

G&T (p 210-215, 217): Yes. Of course, we must distinguish miracles from other types of unusual events such as providence, Satanic signs, psychosomatic cures, magic and anomalies.

Kyle: Of course. Don’t forget hoaxes and fraudulent claims. Do you admit that there are more false miracles than real ones?

G&T: For example?

Kyle: Images of the Virgin Mary on underpass stains and grilled cheese sandwiches, Benny Hinn’s pseudo-healings, Bible Codes, etc.

G&T: Of course, we have to use common sense and all our logical tools in evaluating miracle claims.

Kyle: As a matter of fact, if there is an omniscient God who wants to impress us with a miracle, he should understand that most miracle claims are false. He should understand that we know this. He should understand that we are justified in being skeptical about any miracle claim.

G&T (p 29): Good. You’re right to be skeptical.

Kyle: And if this omniscient God can see into the future ...

G&T (p 215): He can. That’s one way we know a miracle is from God. He predicts it.

Kyle: Then he should provide evidence that’s convincing enough to overcome our natural skepticism.

G&T (p 213): He does. That’s how I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible is true.

Kyle: Bring on the evidence, but be forewarned that I will subject it to rigorous testing.

G&T (p 321): Good. That’s what you should do. The evidence can withstand the most rigorous of testing. There is more than usual evidence for Biblical miracles.

Kyle: We’ll see.

G&T (p 222-223): First, let’s establish that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person – not just a fictitious character. There are ten non-Christian writers who mentioned Jesus within 150 years of his death. My favorite is Flavius Josephus.

Kyle: When did he live?

G&T (p 221-222): He was born in about A.D. 37, and he died about A.D. 100. In about A.D. 93, he finished his famous Antiquities of the Jews. In book 18, chapter 3, section 3 of that work, Josephus, who was not a Christian, wrote these words:

At this time [the time of Pilate] there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

Kyle: How certain are we that Josephus actually wrote those words?

G&T (p 424): That’s a good question. Most scholars believe that Christians changed the quotation.

Kyle: Changed? Isn’t it possible that Christians added that passage to Josephus?

G&T: I don’t know about that.

Kyle: G&T, I’d like you to meet Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2005 Deluxe. Let’s call him EB for short.

G&T: That’s an encyclopedia on CD?

Kyle: Yes. I like to refer to the Encyclopaedia Britannica because it has a good reputation, it’s cheap, and it’s readily available. I got these CD’s recently for less than forty dollars.

G&T: Cool.

Kyle: EB, what do you say about this passage in your article on “Jesus Christ: Sources for the life of Jesus”?

EB: Josephus wrote a paragraph about Jesus (The Antiquities of the Jews 18.63ff.), as he did about Theudas, the Egyptian, and other charismatic leaders (History of the Jewish War 2.258–263; The Antiquities of the Jews 20.97–99, 167–172), but it has been heavily revised by Christian scribes, and Josephus's original remarks cannot be discerned.

EB: The Antiquities contains two famous references to Jesus Christ: the one in Book XX calls him the “so-called Christ.” The implication in the passage in Book XVIII of Christ's divinity could not have come from Josephus and undoubtedly represents the tampering (if not invention) of a later Christian copyist.

Kyle: Notice, though, that at least one of the passages referring to Jesus was either invented or tampered with, or so heavily revised that we cannot discern what Josephus really said.

G&T: If that’s true, I can’t very well rely on it for evidence.

Kyle: Do some research, and you will find that EB is right. Let’s assume, though, for the sake of the argument, that the scholars are wrong, and Josephus really did write those passages. What would the passages prove?

G&T (p 223): They would affirm the general story of Christ and the early church.

Kyle: Not really. They would only affirm that the gospel story was in circulation in A.D. 93. They would not indicate that the story was true. Jesus died several years before Josephus was born. Therefore, Josephus was not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus. Whatever information he may have had about Jesus was acquired by hearsay.

G&T (p 221): But Josephus was the greatest Jewish historian of his time. Why would any historian include a story that he had not verified as true?

Kyle: Josephus may have been “the greatest Jewish historian of his time,” but by today’s standards, he would not be called a good historian at all. Josephus routinely included stories in his writings that were obviously fictitious. He made no distinction between historical fiction and historical fact. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that he exaggerated his facts and embellished the biblical narratives (“Josephus, Flavius: Josephus as historian” and “Josephus, Flavius: Assessment”). EB, what is your assessment of Josephus?

EB: His writings are not always accepted as totally reliable (“Antiquities of the Jews”).

G&T: Okay, so you have discredited my star witness. What about the other nine?

Kyle: Who were they?

G&T (p 424): I mention the ten non-Christian writers in my footnote 5. They were (1) Josephus; (2) Tacitus, the Roman historian; (3) Pliny the Younger, a Roman politician; (4) Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories; (5) Thallus, a first-century historian; (6) Seutonius, a Roman historian; (7) Lucian, a Greek satirist; (8) Celsus, a Roman philosopher; (9) Mara bar-Serapion, a private citizen who wrote to his son; and (10) the Jewish Talmud.

Kyle: How many of these ten ever saw Jesus?

G&T: I don’t know. Why don’t you tell me?

Kyle: Okay. You’ve already admitted that Josephus was born in about A.D. 37, several years after Jesus’ death. He had no personal knowledge of Jesus. What about Tacitus? EB, when was he born?

EB: A.D. 56 (“Tacitus”).

Kyle: So he had no firsthand knowledge of Jesus. EB, When was Pliny the Younger born?

EB: A.D. 61 or 62 (“Pliny the Younger”).

Kyle: How about Phlegon?

EB: I don’t know anything about Phlegon.

G&T: Phlegon was a freed slave of the emperor Hadrian.

EB: Hadrian was born in A.D. 76 (“Hadrian”).

Kyle: So it’s unlikely that Phlegon ever had personal knowledge of Jesus. How about Thallus?

EB: I know nothing about Thallus.

Kyle: A quick search on the Internet brings me to a web page by Richard Carrier (www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html), who says:

Of course, even if Thallus did mention the death of Jesus, we have already shown that he then probably wrote in the 2nd century, when we know this gospel story was already circulating nearly a century after the event. In such a case, Thallus is not an independent witness to the story, but is merely responding to Christian literature. This makes him of practically no use to apologists.

EB: He was born A.D. 69 (“Suetonius”).

Kyle: What about Lucian?

EB: He was born A.D. 120 (“Lucian”).

Kyle: What about Celsus?

EB: He lived in the second century (“Hellenistic religion: Religion from Commodus to Theodosius I: AD 180–395”).

Kyle: What about Mara Bar-Serapion?

EB: I don’t know about him.

Kyle: From a web page on “Early Christian Writings” (www.earlychristianwritings.com), we find that Mara Bar-Serapion wrote his letter sometime between A.D. 73 and 165. He didn’t claim to know Jesus or live during his time. What about the Talmud?

G&T: My own footnote 7 states that the Talmud was likely composed in the early second century A.D.

Kyle: That’s too late to contain firsthand knowledge of Jesus.

G&T: So none of my ten non-Christian writers had firsthand knowledge of Jesus. Does that necessarily mean they were wrong?

Kyle: Not necessarily. It only means that out of your ten non-Christian writers, none was an eyewitness. All of them received their information by hearsay. Some are known to have written legend and fantasy as if they were history. These circumstances are enough to raise a reasonable doubt that Jesus was an historic figure. Considering only these writings, the most that can be said with certainty is that Christians existed by the late first century, and those Christians propagated stories about a christ (or messiah) named Jesus.

G&T (p 221): So there is no “Gospel According to Non-Christians.”

Kyle: Right. Evidence for the life of Jesus comes only from Christian sources. Do you agree, EB? What do you say under “Jesus Christ: Sources for the life of Jesus”?

EB: There are a few references to Jesus in 1st-century Roman and Jewish sources. Documents indicate that within a few years of Jesus' death, Romans were aware that someone named Chrestus (a slight misspelling of Christus) had been responsible for disturbances in the Jewish community in Rome (Suetonius, The Life of the Deified Claudius 25.4). Twenty years later, according to Tacitus, Christians in Rome were prominent enough to be persecuted by Nero, and it was known that they were devoted to Christus, whom Pilate had executed (Annals 15.44). This knowledge of Jesus, however, was dependent on familiarity with early Christianity and does not provide independent evidence about Jesus. Josephus wrote a paragraph about Jesus (The Antiquities of the Jews 18.63ff.), as he did about Theudas, the Egyptian, and other charismatic leaders (History of the Jewish War 2.258–263; The Antiquities of the Jews 20.97–99, 167–172), but it has been heavily revised by Christian scribes, and Josephus's original remarks cannot be discerned.

G&T: Well, even if the New Testament stands alone, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

Kyle: I agree. But don’t you find it curious? I mean, here’s a man who was supposed to have worked miracles, gathered crowds of thousands and risen from the dead. Yet we have absolutely no eyewitness testimony from non-Christian sources.

G&T (p 233): Maybe that’s because everyone who heard about Jesus became a Christian.

Kyle: You can’t seriously maintain that position. According to the New Testament, many people heard the gospel and witnessed miracles, but did not become Christians.

G&T (p 254): Well, you’re right. The events of Christianity were “not done in a corner.” They were common knowledge and surely had not “escaped [the king’s] notice.” That’s what Paul said to Festus and Agrippa in Acts 26:24-28.

Kyle: Yet Festus and Agrippa failed to convert. Nor did they leave any indication that they had met Paul or even heard of Jesus. Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in sources that probably would have mentioned Jesus, had they ever heard of him: Jewish sources, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo, Justus of Tiberias, Pliny the Elder, Martial, Juvenal, Epictetus, Seneca, Plutarch and Quintilian. From such sources we get only silence. They didn’t know Jesus or his apostles.

G&T: What do you have there?

Kyle: A CD player. I’d like to play for you an excerpt from a lecture by Bart D. Ehrman, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This is from Lecture Three of “From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity,” available through The Teaching Company. You can look them up at www.teach12.com:

Ehrman: If we look at the sources on Jesus written by Romans – non-Christian Romans who were neither Jewish nor Christian – if we look at the sources written in the first century, we have hundreds of sources. We have writings of poets, philosophers, religion scholars, natural scientists, personal letters that people sent through the ancient equivalent of the mail system, inscriptions that were put up on buildings. If we examine all of these pieces of literature from the ancient world, from the first century, from the time Jesus died in the year 30 until the year 100 – if we examine all of this record from the Roman Empire, we will find that Jesus is never, ever mentioned at all. His name never occurs in any Roman source that’s neither Jewish nor Christian, from the first century of the common era. What were his enemies saying about him? We have no idea, because they left us no writings.

Why didn’t they talk about Jesus? Well, that’s an interesting question. I would assume that they didn’t talk about Jesus because he didn’t make as big of an impact on his world as he has made on ours.

The first time Jesus is ever mentioned by any pagan source is not until the year 112 of the common Era. The source is a letter written by a Roman Governor whose name was Pliny.

Ehrman: This was in the year 112, some 80 years after Jesus’s death, and he mentioned that there was a group of people called Christians who were gathering together illegally: “they’re called Christians because they worship somebody named Christ, whom they worship as a god.” That’s all he says about Jesus. It is the first reference to Jesus, though, in a Roman source, in the year 112. After that, Jesus’s name starts appearing in Roman sources, but if you want to look at Roman sources for what you can find out about what Jesus actually said and did, they simply don’t exist.

Ehrman: Within the first century A.D., [Josephus] is the only reference to Jesus outside of Christian sources. As a result, we are more or less left with accounts of Jesus written by his own followers if we want to know what Jesus said and did.

From within the first century A.D., these references by Jesus’s own followers come almost entirely to us from the pages of the New Testament. We have scarcely any Christian writings outside the New Testament that survive from the first century A.D., but even within the New Testament, stories of Jesus’s life are scarcely found anywhere except for in the four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

G&T (p 61): “That’s what happens when a beautiful theory meets a brutal gang of facts.”

Kyle: Yeah. That pretty much summarizes what just happened here. A brutal gang of facts has made mincemeat of your beautiful theory. When we look at the first century A.D., we don’t find any non-Christian verification that Jesus even existed. All you are left with is faith in the New Testament.

G&T: Well, I guess we’ll just have to examine the New Testament, then.

Kyle: Isn’t the New Testament story a legend? What makes you think it’s historically accurate?

G&T (p 223-224): To see if the New Testament is a record of actual history, we need to answer two questions: First, do we have accurate copies of the original documents that were written down in the first century?

Kyle: I think there is more room for doubt than you lead us to believe in your ninth chapter. However, let’s not get into that. I will accept, for the sake of the argument, that the Greek New Testament we have today is the same as it was when it was written in the first century.

G&T (p 224): Good. So we can skip pages 224-230. The second question is: Do those documents speak the truth?

Kyle: Ay, there’s the rub.

G&T: What?

Kyle: Never mind. It’s from Shakespeare. Hamlet’s soliloquy. What I mean is, that’s the main obstacle. That’s the question we need to answer. Is the New Testament an accurate history, or is it legend? What is its genre?

G&T (p 224, 230): In other words, is it truth, or a lie?

Kyle: I think your dichotomy is a little harsh. When Aesop wrote his fables, was he lying? After all, foxes and birds don’t talk.

G&T: No, he wasn’t lying, really. He was expressing true principles through fictitious fables.

Kyle: Was Jesus lying when he told parables that were not historically accurate?

G&T: No, they were parables.

Kyle: That’s what I mean by genre. When somebody writes fiction, legend, fables or parables, isn’t it harsh to call the author a liar?

G&T: Yes. I get your point.

Kyle: So what we need to find out is: What is the New Testament’s genre? Was it written as history or something else?

G&T (p 231-232): Good question. Do you believe history can be known?

Kyle: Yes. Of course.

G&T (p 233): Do you believe that the inclusion of miracles in the New Testament necessarily negates it as history?

Kyle: Not necessarily. But the miracles indicate that the genre is most likely something other than factual history. They raise a strong red flag, warning us that unless there is very good evidence to the contrary, the gospel stories are legendary.

G&T (p 28): I appreciate your caution. That’s healthy. If I can’t back up my claims with good evidence and good reasoning, you shouldn’t believe them.

Kyle: Fair enough.

G&T (p 233-235): Do you believe the New Testament writers were too biased to present objective facts?

Kyle: Not necessarily. A person who has a strong point of view can still be objective. The question is, were the New Testament writers even trying to present objective facts. It depends on the genre.

G&T (p 235): Well, let’s examine the evidence. First, how early are the New Testament writings?

Kyle: Let me save you some time. Although your dating is arguable, I’ll accept, for the sake of the argument, that the New Testament books were written as early as you claim.

G&T (p 241): So you agree that the earliest of our gospels was written within 25 or 30 years of Jesus’ death?

Kyle: Sure, I’ll accept that, for the sake of the argument.

G&T (p 243): And do you accept that the earliest of Paul’s writings was written about A.D. 48?

Kyle: Sure, why not?

G&T (p 244): So you accept that there is only a 15- to 40-year gap between the life of Christ and the writings about him?

Kyle: Yes, for the sake of the argument.

G&T: Good. We’re ready to go on to the next chapter.

G&T (p 251-253): Now let’s see if we can determine that the New Testament documents contain eyewitness testimony. First, I would like to point out that Peter, Paul and John all claim to be eyewitnesses. Luke and the writer of Hebrews claim to be informed by eyewitnesses.

Kyle: But are these claims true? After all, why should we trust that those writers told us the truth? It’s one thing to claim that you’re an eyewitness or have eyewitness testimony, and it’s another thing to prove it.

G&T (p 255): You’re taking the words right out of my pages.

Kyle: Okay, but you ask a valid question: What evidence do we have that the New Testament writers were really eyewitnesses or had access to eyewitness testimony?

G&T (p 255-256): Much more than you might think. Let’s look at Luke. He wrote one of the gospels and the book of Acts. Luke may not have been an eyewitness to the Resurrection itself, but he certainly was an eyewitness to many New Testament events. Luke includes more eyewitness details than the other New Testament writers. He displays an incredible array of knowledge of local places, names, environmental conditions, customs and circumstances that befit only an eyewitness contemporary of the time and events. Would you like me to list 84 details in Acts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research?

Kyle: No thank you. I’ll take your word for it. For the sake of the argument, I accept that the book of Acts accurately describes the historical background of its narrative.

G&T (p 260): Good. Now, Luke reports a total of 35 miracles in the book of Acts. All of these miracles are included in the same historical narrative that has been confirmed as authentic on 84 points. In light of the fact that Luke has proven accurate with so many trivial details, it is nothing but pure anti-supernatural bias to say he’s not telling the truth about the miracles he records.

Kyle: What’s wrong with an anti-supernatural bias?

G&T (p 260): If God exists, we should expect him to perform miracles.

Kyle: But you have failed to prove that God exists. Therefore, I think a reasonable person should be skeptical about miracle claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Besides, I think I can get you to admit that your argument is weak. G&T, I’d like you to meet The Pearl of Great Price.

Pearl: Hi. I’m a miscellaneous selection from the revelations, translations and narrations of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church.

G&T: Oh my stars, Kyle, you can’t be serious.

Kyle: Just listen a minute. We’ll make a brief point, and then I’ll put Pearl back on the shelf. Go ahead, Pearl.

Pearl: I contain a section called “Joseph Smith – History,” in which Joseph Smith tells his own story. In this short section you’ll find 38 details – the same kind of details you find in Acts. These details can be verified as accurate:

1. People have militated against the Mormon church (verse 1).
2. The Mormon church was organized in 1830 (verse 2).
3. Joseph Smith was born on December 23, 1805 (verse 3).
4. There is a place called Sharon, Windsor County, Vermont (verse 3).
5. Joseph Smith was a son of Joseph Smith, Sr., and Lucy Mack Smith (verses 3-4).
6. Palmyra, was in Ontario County, New York, and later in Wayne County (verse 3).
7. There was a place called Manchester in the same county as Palmyra (verse 3).
8. The eleven members of the Smith family are correctly named (verse 4).
9. An unusual excitement on the subject of religion swept through Manchester (verse 5).
10. There were Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists in that district (verse 5).
11. Four members of the Smith family joined the Presbyterian faith in about 1820 (verse 7).
12. The three predominate sects argued against one another (verse 9).
13. Smith quoted the King James Version of the Bible, which was popular at the time (verse 11).
14. The different sects understood the same passages of scripture differently (verse 12).
15. There were woods near Manchester (verse 14).
16. Smith used the term “preacher” in connection with the Methodists (verse 21).
17. Smith frankly confesses to foolish errors and foibles of human nature (verse 28).
18. The crowing of a cock was common in Smith’s setting (verse 47).
19. There is a hill of considerable size convenient to Manchester (verse 51).
20. The Smith family’s worldly circumstances were very limited (verse 55).
21. Smith’s oldest brother, Alvin, died in 1823 (verse 56).
22. There was a Josiah Stoal in Chenango County, New York (verse 56).
23. Spaniards had opened a silver mine in Harmony, Susquehanna Co, Pennsylvania (verse 56).
24. Joseph Smith had dug for silver in Harmony, Susquehanna Co, Pennsylvania (verse 56).
25. Joseph Smith was known as a money-digger (verse 56).
26. Isaac Hale lived in Harmony, Pennsylvania (verse 57).
27. Joseph Smith married Emma Hale on January 18, 1827 (verse 57).
28. Squire Tarbill lived in South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York (verse 58).
29. Joseph Smith was unpopular (verse 61).
30. Smith moved to Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania (verse 61).
31. Martin Harris lived in Palmyra Township, Wayne County New York (verse 61).
32. Professor Charles Anthon lived in New York City (verse 64).
33. Dr. Mitchell lived in New York City (verse 65).
34. Oliver Cowdery went to Joseph Smith’s house on April 5, 1829 (verse 66).
35. Oliver Cowdery had been teaching school in Manchester (verse 66).
36. There were woods in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania (verse 68).
37. There was a publication called Messenger and Advocate in 1834 (footnote).
38. The phrase “professors of religion” was common in Smith’s day (verse 75).

Pearl: Good. Now, this history of Joseph Smith also contains visitations from God the Father, Jesus Christ, an angel named Moroni, and John the Baptist. Joseph Smith also claimed to translate golden plates by the miraculous working of peep stones called the Urim and Thummim. These visitations and miracles are included in the same writing that is confirmed as authentic on 38 points. In light of the fact that Joseph Smith has proven accurate with so many trivial details, it is nothing but pure anti-Mormon bias to say he’s not telling the truth about the visitations and miracles.

G&T (p 254): Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Mormon?

Kyle: No, but I do expect to persuade you that your argument is invalid.

G&T: Yes, I get the comparison. My argument is pretty weak, isn’t it. Or maybe it means that Mormonism is as true as Christianity.

Kyle: Oh, my. How about a non-religious example: Allow me to introduce Victor Hugo’s Notre-Dame de Paris. In his novel, Hugo describes the buildings and streets of Paris in painstaking detail. King Louis XI also figures in the novel, and he was a real person. So does that make you believe Quasimodo was a real person who did everything Hugo wrote about him?

G&T: Quasi- who?

Kyle: Quasimodo. You know. The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

G&T: Sounds like a football player to me.

Kyle: Very funny.

G&T: Seriously, I get your point.

Kyle: My point is that the setting of a narrative can be accurate while the story line is fictitious. Your 84 points fail to establish that Luke’s stories were true.

G&T (p 261): But what about Luke’s gospel? Luke writes, “I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:3). Isn’t that statement worthy of belief?

Kyle: Not necessarily. Look at the Author’s Preface to The Life & Adventures of Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe:

The Editor believes the thing to be a just history of fact; neither is there any appearance of fiction in it....

Kyle: Exactly. And the Preface to The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas says, “... the heroes of this history which we are about to have the honor of relating to our readers have nothing mythological about them.” The Preface goes on to describe the search for evidence and the discovery of a manuscript described as historical. The manuscript turns out to be the novel itself. Do you believe The Three Musketeers is historically true?

G&T: No.

Kyle: You're right. My copy has an introduction in which J. Walker McSpadden writes:

But the reader will become interested in each period as he reaches it through the medium of the particular story; and having finished the story, he will be sorely tempted to study history and find out for himself how much is fact and how much fiction. He will be astonished to find how closely Dumas hedges upon real characters and real occurrences; how ingeniously the imaginary occurrences are made to explain the genuine ones; and how vitally the novelist has interested him in names which before greeted his eye meaninglessly upon musty records.

Kyle: I think it is. At least I have demonstrated that a veneer of historicity is possible, and a veneer does not make a narrative historical. Writers often use real settings – real places, real people and historical events – as a backdrop to their fictitious stories.

G&T (p 262): I thought my logic was inescapable.

Kyle: Well, let’s check your logic by reducing your argument to a syllogism:

1. Luke told the truth about his journeys.
2. A writer who tells the truth about his journeys always tells the truth about miracles.
3. Therefore, Luke told the truth about miracles.

Kyle: I accept the first premise. Luke gave an accurate travelogue. The background to his narrative is historical.

G&T: But you don’t agree with the second premise.

Kyle: Right, I don’t. Joseph Smith is an example of a person who told the truth about his journeys through Vermont, New York, and Pennsylvania. Yet his visions, revelations and other miracles are unbelievable.

G&T (p 262): So, since I failed to establish the historicity of Luke’s story, I can’t establish the historicity of Mark and Matthew by pointing out that they tell the same story?

Kyle: Right. That would be an invalid argument.

G&T (p 263-268): And it wouldn’t do any good to argue the historicity of John with similar evidence?

Kyle: Right.

G&T (p 269-271): Doesn’t it impress you at all that there are at least thirty characters in the New Testament who have been confirmed as historical by archaeology or non-Christian sources?

Kyle: No more than it impresses me that The Three Musketeers has so many historical characters in it, including King Louis XIII, Anne of Austria, Cardinal Richelieu and Monsieur de Treville.

G&T (p 271): But the New Testament can’t be just a historical novel.

Kyle: Why not?

G&T (p 271): For one thing, independent non-Christian writers collectively reveal a storyline similar to the New Testament.

Kyle: We debunked that assertion in the ninth chapter. The fact is that we have absolutely no non-Christian commentary about Jesus until 80 years after his death. We have absolutely no eyewitness testimony corroborating the New Testament.

G&T (p 271): Well, why would the New Testament writers endure persecution, torture and death for a fictitious story?

Kyle: Because the gospel stories were more than your average fiction. They were the legends that united congregations of Christians in fellowship. But this is the topic for the next chapter, isn’t it?

G&T (p 271): Yes. Let’s discuss this point later.

Kyle: Okay.

G&T (p 271): My third objection is that novelists usually don’t use the names of real people for the main characters in their stories.

Kyle: Neither does the New Testament. Name one main character in the New Testament who is cited by non-Christian writers or confirmed through archaeology.

G&T (p 270): The most prominent character is Jesus.

Kyle: But he isn't corroborated by non-Christian sources. How about the apostles?

G&T (p 270): None.

Kyle: Not even Peter or John?

G&T (p 270): No.

Kyle: What about Paul? Or Mary Magdalene?

G&T (p 270): No to both. But there was John the Baptist, Herod and Pilate.

Kyle: Are they main characters?

G&T: Maybe.

Kyle: It seems to me that your list is made up of peripheral characters. But it would be pointless to argue about what makes a main character. Let’s get back to your objection.

G&T (p 271-272): Yes. If the New Testament writers had used real people in fictitious stories, those real people would deny the story, destroy the credibility of the authors, and maybe even take punitive action against them.

Kyle: Now, wait a minute. By the time the New Testament books were written, most of the real people mentioned in them were dead.

G&T: Can you prove that all of them were dead?

Kyle: No, but even if some were alive, what would motivate them to correct a few insignificant cults? There were many, many cults in the Roman empire. Only a few of them were Christian.

G&T: How do you know that?

Kyle: EB, what do you say?

EB: [In] the early empire, the mystery cults, ranging from the Eleusinian mysteries of Greece to those of the Anatolian Cybele and the Persian Mithra,together with philosophically based religions such as Neoplatonism and Stoicism, had the greatest vitality. The patterns of religious belief were complex and of different levels, with various types of religion existing side by side. Into this situation Christianity was injected.... (“religion, study of: History of the study of religion”)

G&T: Not particularly.

Kyle: Then why would they waste their precious time trying to correct rumors about them in a few little cults? Your objection doesn’t carry much weight, in my opinion. Do you have any other objections to the theory that the New Testament is an historical novel?

G&T (p 272): One more. The New Testament was written by nine authors spread all over the ancient world, over a 20- to 50-year period. The historical novel theory would require an implausible grand conspiracy among these writers.

Kyle: I agree.

G&T: You do? Chalk one up for Jesus!

Kyle: Not so fast, G&T. You seem to be engaging in a false dichotomy. You seem to be saying that the New Testament was either an historical novel or a true history.

G&T: Is there another alternative?

Kyle: Well, you do consider another by implication – that the New Testament is entirely fictitious – but you do an admirable job of debunking that suggestion.

G&T: Thank you.

Kyle: A novel is usually concocted from the imagination of one author. The gospels are different.

G&T: How?

Kyle: When Jesus died, his disciples did not simply give up their new religion. They continued to meet, and the teachings of Jesus developed into teachings about Jesus. The Christian doctrines developed according to the necessity of the times. Their stories were embellished and exaggerated as they were passed around from mouth to mouth. The apostle Paul preached and wrote his epistles before the gospels were written. By the time the gospels were written, the stories had spread and developed in different directions. Among the early Christians were such divergent cults as Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnostics and others. The various scribes who set the oral traditions to writing did not just make everything up like a novel. Each set down the tradition as it had developed in his particular congregation. That’s why you have some similarity among the gospels and some differences.

G&T: That’s an interesting theory, but isn’t it just your opinion?

Kyle: Not at all. Let me play some more from the CD of Bart D. Ehrman’s lecture. Here he’s speaking about the four gospels:

Ehrman: These books, in fact, did not appear to have been written by eyewitnesses. They are written about Jesus and his followers. They are anonymous. They’re written in Greek. Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic. They’re written decades after the facts that they narrate.

Ehrman: These are books that are written not by eyewitnesses, and in a different language from Jesus. They’re written decades later, and are based largely on oral traditions of Jesus. Where did these authors get their stories from if they were not there to see these things happen? Well, after Jesus died, his followers told stories about him, in order to convert people, in order to educate those who were converted. In order to provide edification for people, stories of Jesus were told day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, until these Gospel writers, who apparently were living in some other place – they’re writing in Greek, not Aramaic (the language of Palestine) – hear these stories and write them down.

G&T: So where does that leave us? Were the New Testament writers eyewitnesses or not?

Kyle: I don’t deny that the authors of Luke and John knew something about the culture of first century Jerusalem. It seems likely that the author of Luke or one of his sources really did travel to the places described in Acts. So I guess you could say they were eyewitnesses to the historical setting of the New Testament stories. However, I have shown you examples of writers who used historical settings as the background for their non-historical stories. It seems reasonable to me that the New Testament is the same. You have failed to prove that the New Testament writers were eyewitnesses to the stories they tell.

G&T (p 271): What else could the New Testament writers have done to prove that they were eyewitnesses who were not making up a story?

Kyle: Surely they realized that reasonable people would be skeptical about healing, multiplying food, turning water into wine, walking on water and resurrecting from the dead. They could have taken measures to ensure that their stories were accurate. Instead we have conflicting versions of the same stories. They could have collected legal affidavits from witnesses. Instead, we have hearsay assertions that other people had seen these things happen. They could have proven their case to the courts, the media of their time, or the non-Christian world in general. Instead, the first century world is silent, as if Jesus never existed at all. From all appearances, the New Testament writers were not the least bit worried about convincing future skeptics that their stories were true. The reasonable conclusion is that the stories were legendary. There were no eyewitnesses, because the miraculous stories about Jesus never happened in reality.

G&T (p 274): Well, maybe my next chapter will convince you.

Kyle: Give it your best shot.

G&T (p 275): I can give you ten reasons why I believe the New Testament writers told the truth.

Kyle: I’m listening.

G&T (p 275-277): First, the New Testament writers included embarrassing details about themselves. People don’t normally do that when they make up a story.

Kyle: I have several responses to that. For one thing, you have fallen back into a false dichotomy. You assert that the writers either concocted the story out of thin air, or told the truth. A reasonable alternative is that they accurately recorded the legends that had developed about Jesus.

G&T: Oh, yeah.

Kyle: For another thing, in a religion that places high value on humility and self-abnegation, a person can show his dedication to the cult by abnegating himself. In doing so, he exalts himself in the minds of other believers.

G&T: I hadn’t thought of it that way.

Kyle: Also, do you know why bridesmaids wear ugly dresses?

G&T: Are you changing the subject?

Kyle: Not really. Bridesmaids wear ugly dresses in order to make the bride look more beautiful by contrast. The Jews had the “bridesmaid principle” figured out from the beginning of their history. Scour the Old Testament for a perfect human being. You won’t find one. In order to accentuate the perfection of God, the Bible describes its mortal heroes as less than virtuous. Look at King David. He was one of the most revered kings, but he committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered her husband, Uriah. Solomon was a serial polygamist. Moses himself committed murder, doubted God, lost his temper, and was not permitted to enter Canaan. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob committed various foibles and dishonest acts.

G&T (p 362): I agree that the heroes of the Old Testament were Olympic-quality sinners. But that indicates the Old Testament was telling the truth.

Kyle: Maybe – maybe not – but that’s beside the point. The point is that the New Testament writers had plenty of precedent for depicting their heroes as less than perfect.

G&T: Interesting.

Kyle: By the time the gospels were written, there were divisions and disagreements among the Christian sects. Not all of them revered the Twelve Apostles. It’s understandable that some Christian sects had no interest in flattering the apostles, but only wanted to glorify Jesus. It’s possible that the gospels arose out of such sects.

G&T: Well, that brings us to the next reason.

Kyle: What is it?

G&T (p 277-279): The New Testament writers included embarrassing details and difficult sayings of Jesus.

Kyle: What are some of the embarrassing details?

G&T (p 277-278): Jesus is considered “out of his mind” by his own family (Mark 3:21,31); is not believed by his own brothers (John 7:5); is thought to be a deceiver (John 7:12); is deserted by many of his followers (John 6:66); makes “Jews who had believed in him” want to stone him (John 8:30-31, 59); is called a drunkard (Matt. 11:19); is called demon-possessed (Mark 3:22; John 7:20, 8:48); is called a madman (John 10:20); allows a prostitute to wipe his feet with her hair (Luke 7:36-39); and is crucified, which the Jews take to be a curse of God (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).

Kyle: Interesting.

G&T (p 278): Why would the gospel writers invent such incrimination if it weren’t true?

Kyle: The gospel writers did their best to portray Jesus as a man of sorrows. Being misunderstood and falsely accused is one of the most humiliating things a person can experience. Therefore, the writers may have had a strong motive to include these details, even if they weren’t historically accurate.

G&T (p 278): Okay, but there are also difficult sayings that the writers would not have invented if they wanted to portray Jesus as God.

Kyle: For example?

G&T (p 278): Jesus said, “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Jesus seems to predict incorrectly that he’s coming back to earth within a generation (Matt. 24:34). Then he denies that he knows when his second coming will occur (Matt. 24:36). Jesus curses a fig tree for not having figs when it wasn’t even the season for figs (Matt. 21:18ff). He seems unable to do many miracles in his hometown (Mark 6:5).

Kyle: Which team are you playing on?

G&T (p 278-279): Yeah, it sounds like I’m poking fun at Jesus, but I’m not. There are reasonable explanations. The point is that the writers would be unlikely to invent such things if they wanted to prove Jesus was God. The best explanation is that the New Testament writers were not playing fast and loose with the facts but were extremely accurate in recording exactly what Jesus said and did.

Kyle: I disagree. That’s not the best explanation. We know the gospel writers made no attempt to be “extremely accurate in recording exactly what Jesus said and did.” The discrepancies among the gospels prove that point. The “difficult sayings” that you list are consistent with the theory that the gospel stories developed as they were repeated by word of mouth. Only after decades of embellishment were the stories recorded as the written gospels. The writers didn’t necessarily “play fast and loose with the facts.” They may have been extremely accurate in recording the legends, but the legends themselves were inaccurate.

G&T: But why would legend develop in a way that makes Jesus so imperfect?

Kyle: You need to realize that the early Christians were not unified in their beliefs. Some believed that Jesus was fully God, and there was nothing human about him. Others believed that he was fully human, and not divine at all. Others thought he was partially human and partially divine. Such conflicting views caused schisms in the early church. If you wanted to prove that Jesus had human characteristics, wouldn’t you emphasize stories that make him less than a god?

G&T: I suppose.

Kyle: So your second reason fails to convince me. You assume too much when you say the writers intended to portray Jesus as beyond accusation and fully divine.

G&T (p 279-280): The New Testament writers left in demanding sayings of Jesus. For example, Jesus said, “Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has committed adultery” (Matt. 5:28); “Give to the one who asks you” (Matt. 5:39-42); “Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44-45); “Be perfect” (Matt. 5:48); and “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth” (Matt. 6:19-21). All of these commands are difficult or impossible for human beings to keep and seem to go against the natural best interests of the men who wrote them down.

Kyle: Thanks. You make an excellent point for the atheists. I agree that the Sermon on the Mount is not fit for human consumption.

G&T (p 280): That’s not my point. I’m only saying that the writers are not likely to invent commandments that are so difficult for them to keep. Therefore, they must be from God.

Kyle: I disagree. People are always putting impossible demands on themselves. Some religious people take vows of celibacy and poverty. That’s against human nature. Do you believe such vows are from God? Some people flagellate themselves – punishing their own flesh until it bleeds, to make them feel holier. Did God inspire such behavior? Some churches forbid smoking, drinking alcohol and even caffeine. Some churches demand vegetarianism. Did God command such things? Other people feel holy about crashing airplanes into buildings. Is that from God? According to your logic, yes!

G&T: I guess I’d better rethink this one.

Kyle: The Sermon on the Mount, from which you take all your examples, is a small step from the Pharisaical traditions. The Pharisees are an ancient example of men imposing impossible laws on themselves. Do you realize that Paul never once quotes the Sermon on the Mount?

G&T: Oh, really?

Kyle: Why didn’t he? Was it considered so unimportant that the other apostles failed to tell him about it? Or maybe it developed in the legends of the Ebionites, which Paul opposed. Either way, it is curiously suspect. You might want to consider the possibility that Jesus never uttered the Sermon on the Mount.

G&T (p 280-281): Well, that brings us to number four. The New Testament writers carefully distinguished Jesus’ words from their own.

Kyle: How does this indicate that they told the truth?

G&T (p 281): It shows that the writers were very clear about which words they attributed to Jesus, and they resisted the temptation to attribute more words to him than they did.

Kyle: That sounds really goofy to me. No matter how many sayings they attributed to Jesus, you could say the same thing. Some of the sayings might have been spoken by Jesus. Others might not. The Sermon on the Mount, for example, is questionable. If Jesus spoke those words, why didn’t Paul ever hear about it? Don’t you have any better reasons?

G&T (p 281-283): Sure. My fifth reason is that the New Testament writers included events related to the resurrection that they would not have invented – the burial of Jesus, the first witnesses, the conversion of priests, and the explanation of the Jews. If these were lies, they could easily have been exposed.

Kyle: You’re still indulging in a false dichotomy. You assume that the gospel writers either invented stories that they wanted to pass off as real in order to deceive everyone, or they recorded actual history. What about this: The gospel writers recorded the legends that had evolved around a preacher named Jesus. Like other legends, they were neither airtight nor historically accurate. They were based on a real person, but the legend overtook the reality.

G&T: The legend theory does seem to solve the problem of unlikely inventions. But there are still problems related to the resurrection that I would like to address.

Kyle: Isn’t that what your next chapter is about?

G&T: Yes. Let’s discuss the resurrection in the next chapter.

Kyle: Okay. What’s your next reason for believing the New Testament writers told the truth?

G&T (p 283-284): The New Testament writers include more than thirty historically confirmed people in their writings.

Kyle: We went through this in the last chapter. When a real person is in the background of a New Testament story, the historical setting might be accurate. That doesn’t prove the story.

G&T: The real people don’t always remain in the background. John the Baptist and Pilate, for example, play important roles in the gospels.

Kyle: The development of legend adequately explains that. But let’s suppose Jesus really did rub shoulders with such people. So what? John the Baptist might have baptized Jesus, but that doesn’t prove the heavens opened or a dove came down or a voice was heard. Pilate might have condemned Jesus, but that doesn’t mean Jesus resurrected from the dead. Real elements in a story do not prove the entire story. The world is full of half-truths.

G&T (p 284-286): The New Testament writers included divergent details. In light of the numerous divergent details in the New Testament, it’s clear that the New Testament writers didn’t get together to smooth out their testimonies. This confirms that the New Testament writers wrote independently from one another.

Kyle: I agree that the writers did not completely agree with one another before they wrote. It seems apparent, though, that the authors of Matthew and Luke had access to the gospel of Mark. Or it’s possible that all three authors had access to a common source that has been lost. The number of similarities among the three synoptic gospels makes it difficult to argue that they were completely independent. On the other hand, the contradictions among them make it obvious that they can’t all be true.

G&T (p 285): Now you’re contradicting yourself. You claim that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are too uniform to be independent sources. On the other hand, you claim that they are too divergent to be telling the truth. So which are they? Are they too uniform or too divergent?

Kyle: That’s not a contradiction. They’re too uniform for one thing – to be independent sources. They’re too divergent for a different thing – to be telling the truth. It’s like saying I’m too old to get a child’s discount, but I’m too young to get a senior citizen’s discount. Which am I? Too young or too old? There’s no contradiction between the two statements.

G&T: Okay, you caught me in another false argument.

Kyle: Touché.

G&T (p 285-286): But all the Gospels agree on the same major fact – Jesus rose from the dead. Only the details differ. And even if one could find some minor details between the Gospels that are flatly contradictory, that wouldn’t prove the Resurrection is fiction. It may present a problem for the doctrine that the Bible is without any minor error, but it wouldn’t mean the major event didn’t happen.

Kyle: I agree. But the contradictions do prove that the gospel writers were careless about their stories. They shot from the hip when they wrote, not bothering to verify the facts. They weren’t historians, but preachers. They were not above exaggerating and embellishing their stories. Therefore, it’s evident that they were not eyewitnesses of historical events, but recorders of legend.

G&T: You do understand the difference between complementary details and contradictions, don’t you?

Kyle: Of course. Allow me to bring a flat contradiction to your attention. Where did the Eleven first see the resurrected Jesus?

G&T: According to Matthew 28, Jesus commanded his disciples to go to Galilee and meet him there. That’s where they saw him for the first time.

Kyle: What about Luke?

G&T: According to Luke 24, Jesus met them for the first time in Jerusalem, and commanded them to stay in the city.

Kyle: These contradictory accounts of a very important event – not just a minor detail – cannot be reconciled without doing violence to either Matthew or Luke. Both gospels cannot be completely true.

G&T: Well, I don't know how to resolve that apparent discrepancy, but I’m sure someone can.

Kyle: It’s one thing to theorize that an explanation exists. It’s another thing to produce an explanation. Reasonable people demand explanations, not just theories.

G&T (p 313): You’re beginning to sound like me.

Kyle: Yes, in a way. Here’s another contradiction that would be difficult or impossible to reconcile. How many times was Jesus crucified?

G&T: Only once, of course.

Kyle: What day and hour was it?

G&T: According to Mark 14:12 and 15:25, it was the third hour, on Passover day.

Kyle: What about John?

G&T: According to John 18:28 and 19:14, it was after the sixth hour, on the day before Passover.

Kyle: Can you reconcile this contradicti