The Unconvinced Jew

If you witnessed someone walking on water, consistently and visibly healing the sick, casting out demons, spontaneously creating bread and fish, turning water into wine, calming storms, killing trees with a glance, and raising the dead including himself--wouldn't you be convinced that the guy is the son of God? Even the most atheist of atheists would have to admit that is some pretty extraordinary evidence. It certainly meets my conversion standards.

Imagine if you were not only present, but you had a vested interest in believing this guy was the messiah. If he was one of your people and fulfilled the prophecy you've been staking your entire worldview on. Imagine you were a Jew in the presence of Jesus.

Yet, many Jews did not buy what Jesus was selling. Many did, sure, but considering the Moses-level miracles...why not all? Or at least 99%? If there is something I'm not getting about history, please let me know, but the way I see it, how am I supposed to accept claims two thousand years removed with here-say records when so many of the contemporary neighbors weren't impressed.

Maybe, just maybe, the "miracles" just weren't impressive.

Extraordinary Evidence

Recently, I've seem some atheists post this flowchart as an indictment on theists' ability to discuss religion. You need not look far to see where most theists fail in this chart. In fact, it needs not "flow" anywhere. The first statement is: Can you envision anything that will change your mind on this topic?

Religious faith, by definition, makes the answer to this question no. If you have doubt, then you don't have faith. How different are atheists? We hang our worldview on critical thinking and the lack of compelling evidence and leave faith out in the cold. I am very certain that atheism is currently the wisest position. Still, we should ask ourselves what kind of evidence would be needed to change this.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. ~ Marcello Truzzi

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ~ Carl Sagan

The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness. ~ Pierre-Simon Laplace

In my recent interview series, you may have noticed that I'm consistently asking the question "Is there anything that would convince you that there is a god?" The answers can be paraphrased as "barely." A believer might think that Jesus returning would immediately bring all the infidels into the Christian fold. Not so much. The general consensus is that, atheists would remain skeptical. This new Jesus would be subjected to the scientific questions posed to all supposed evidence. Is he authentic? Are his miracles more than tricks and illusions? Does he provide some wisdom that could only come from God? Some of us go so far to posit he could be the product of other worldly technology. 

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. ~ Arthur C. Clarke

Nevertheless, I would at least consider a magical Jesus in the real world is authentic, but it wouldn't get me speaking in tongues as fast as some other extremely unlikely scenarios. Below is a chart of events that would make a believer out of me. I used Dawkin's Scale of belief to show what degree of belief I would hold for each event. This is an approximation because each event could be more or less convincing depending on the circumstances. Of course, combining events would also hasten my conversion. For example, a previously dead religious figure performing a large-scale miracle with witnesses might seal the religious deal.

History Isn't My Area

Science is awesome. It’s awesome because it’s methodology strips out biases better than any other academic area. Science works in such a way that one can take a rich field of study, like evolution, and be confident of it’s validity without the huge time commitment it requires to fully understand. I am less skeptical of a scientific consensus than I am of any other expert agreement because it involves a clear publication process, reproducible results and peer review. Unfortunately, this confidence can’t be applied to my current topic of interest.

History sucks. Okay, that’s unfair, but it was never my subject. My confidence of the accuracy of historical events goes down exponentially with the paper trail. The idea that history is written by the victors highlights the biases of the past. Books are burned. Records fade. Who should I trust for an accurate portrayal of events two thousand years ago?

That’s right, Jesus. Who provides the consensus on Jesus? New Testament Scholars is a decent choice. If you do a Google search for New Testament Scholars the first hit is Bart D. Ehrman. This doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s the best, but he is certainly the most controversial. Once a born-again fundamentalist, Ehrman’s Biblical investigations have turned him agnostic. His latest book, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, has brought on his usual criticism from believers as well as a negative review from atheist and ancient history expert Richard Carrier. (To be fair, here is Ehrman’s reaction to Carrier’s review.)

This is just the latest example of scholarly disagreement. From what I can tell, there is no consensus among NT scholars and ancient historians. Everyone has an agenda and, unlike in science, it is impossible to filter out the facts. If you think about it, who would most likely decide to become a Bible scholar? Those with a vested interest to prove the Bible right and, to a lesser extent, those with a vested interest to prove it wrong.

Sorry this post doesn’t do much in providing answers. I honestly have little knowledge as to whether or not Jesus existed. I tend to think he did, but then I have no idea if he resembled to man depicted in the Bible. I will read Ehrman’s book, but I doubt his perspective alone will answer my questions. The history is a vague and blurry landscape. Give me science any day.

Alien Jesus vs. Biblical Jesus

Picture this: Jesus returns from the dead in all his glowing, haloed glory with a choir of angels in tow. He may even sport Joseph’s Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat for affect. The exalted figure brings the expected good news and bad news. The faithful will ascend into heaven while the doubting collective will be left behind to die off under the regime of this or that Antichrist.

As an atheist, I’m asked what it would take for me to believe the literal word of the Bible. “Evidence and lots of it.” is my typical response. This Revelations-like scenario would seem to qualify. After all, the faithful’s claim of fulfilled prophecy would suddenly become a lot more compelling, but lets examine this further. Jesus’ arrival and call of acceptance of the Bible would still be a hard pill to swallow, even under the circumstances. I’d be forced to believe that...

• A boat built in a relatively short time by one man can fit every animal on earth and suddenly the net H2O of the planet increases enough to flood every land everywhere.
• The Force-like parting of the Red Sea is a task that Moses can pull off even when I doubt Yoda could.
• A talking snake convinces a woman made from a man’s rib to eat from the one tree the confirmed Creator told them not too--even though said creator made them perfect and never made any talking snakes.
• The raising of Lazarus is the second most impressive non-zombie resurrection in history.
• The spontaneous duplication of rolls and seafood for a stadium-sized crowd is a sustainable business model.
• The divine transmogrification of a woman to salt, water to wine, and a virgin to mother all occurred at one time or another.

I’d have to accept all this, right? The frickin’ King of Kings is eyeballing me! What else could I believe? Well, I could believe that...

• Aliens, biological or artificial in nature, have done basic research into our world and concluded that the most efficient way to gather a manageable population of compliant humans would be to pose as a popular deity. In a diabolically easy plan, the aliens wouldn’t even need an invading army. A single alien could pull this off. He’d probably need a cloaking mechanism for the ship, a holographic projector for the light show, Jesus, and the angels, and maybe a tractor beam to “ascend” the willing believers. This technology would be a given for any intelligence that is able to travel between solar systems. In fact, this technology, aside from the tractor beam, is being researched today and is just far enough from our own scientific ability to appear divine. If you believe we could ever make contact with extra-terrestrials, it is a small jump to believe this could happen.

So what’s the point? Firstly, this is an awesome movie idea and I want credit if it gets produced. Secondly, the alien scenario, while being very unlikely, is still more likely than the more extravagant stories in the Bible.

Picture this: In the future everyone will believe what is consistent with reality.  No, that’s just ridiculous.

Quora Question Round-Up #2

Why does it seem that certain atheists' understanding of Christianity is ironically similar to that of Christian fundamentalism?

Most atheists are aware of the different variations of Christianity. They focus on Christian fundamentalism because it is among the most damaging. This focus makes it seem like that's all atheists know of Christianity.

I, for one, will voice my arguments against the belief in God when asked, but see no need to voice it constantly. I don't see most people's belief in God as something that absolutely needs to be corrected, even though I think it is misled. However, for example, teaching creationism in school is just factually wrong, so I do speak out against that whenever possible.

If Jesus Christ came back to life what impact would it have?

I think it depends on where he comes back to life. In the USA, I imagine that he would be met with constant news coverage. If his miracles were continuously caught on film, a world-wide pilgrimage to see him would occur. The US would probably have to limit this influx of people, especially from the largely Christian population of bordering Mexico. The government might even restrict Jesus’ movements for this reason.

If this incredibly documented Jesus could not do miracles on camera because it would no longer require faith from his followers, he probably would not do miracles at all. (Meaning no one would need faith, they would have visual, witnessed proof.) In this case, he would be met with massive skepticism. Jesus would amass some followers, but would eventually lose the public eye. Once he lost the public eye, maybe he could perform miracles and thereby regain the public eye, only to once again not be caught on camera.

Jesus would make a stir either way. Once he eventually died, either by civilian assassination, government intervention or old age (if Jesus can die of old age,) whatever good he achieved would pass in time. New churches would pop up to challenge existing churches’ claim on him. Wars would be fought over where ever the new holy land has become. Atheism, Islam, and Judaism would massively decrease in size; Hindu, Buddhism and other belief systems as well, but not as much. Otherwise, things would go back to normal.

All this is assuming that he doesn't come back Revelations-style.

Which people or organizations stand to gain economically or in other secular ways if the American public becomes more religious?

Whatever company makes those eucharist wafers, cross manufacturers, and Republicans.

The Case for Raising Children with Religion

Christians are often Christian because their parents were Christian and raised them Christian. The same can be said for Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and just about every other faith. It’s tradition, and tradition is a lousy reason to believe anything. It’s barely a reason at all. It’s just, well...tradition.

Don’t get me wrong, if I was raising my kids in a cultural vacuum, I’d never introduce Allah, Vishnu or the Force into their education. Fortunately, the U.S.A. is not a vacuum. It’s rich, diverse culture includes not one, but all possible deities. I can’t pretend this doesn’t exist. Therein lies the problem.
I have two choices.

1. Indoctrinate my children in a new tradition of atheism.
2. Allow my children to reach their own conclusion regarding the existence of gods.

Indoctrination into reality is preferable to indoctrination into myth, but why pass up the most important critical thinking lesson of their life? I plan on introducing my kids to God (the Christian one, because he’s most popular around here) in the same way I will introduce them to Santa. When, not if, they ask questions like:

• How does Santa travel to every house in one night?
• How did God part the Red Sea?
• Why don’t we see miracles like in the Bible anymore?
• How does Santa get back up the chimney?
• Why are there different Santas at different malls?
• Why are there different gods at different churches?

I will help them reason their way to the their own conclusions. If they decide that the most likely outcome is, yes, magic is real and allows for jolly gift-givers and personal deities, then I will accept that. Somehow I doubt they will.