Absurdity 1: Miracles

It seems to me that the primary objection of people who deny the authority of scripture is the fact that it records miracles or otherwise seemingly impossible events.

Mr. Darrow in particular cites the creation of woman, the tower of Babel, Balaam's talking donkey, the wise men's star, the resurrection of the dead, and many others. I'll go through a few of these to point out the logical flaws in his reasoning.

First, the resurrection of the dead: Paul makes it clear in 1 Cor 15 that if Christ has not been raised from the dead, we are still in our sins, unforgiven; therefore, I think that it would be reasonable to say that this is something Christians should take quite seriously! It is the cornerstone of our faith, and without it we are to be pitied above all other men (15:19). Additionally, it was a central theme of the preaching of the apostles during the earlier years of the church. It is THE primary reason the apostles gave to unbelievers so that they would believe in Jesus Christ and receive forgiveness of sins (read Acts).

So what reason does Mr. Darrow give for denying this real, literal, physical, historical, space-time event? He says it's impossible to believe that dead men can be raised to life if we use our senses. Presumably here is he employing the inductive method of obtaining knowledge. He views an event over and over again (death) with his senses and it always turns out the same way (they don't come back to life), so he concludes that it will always turn out the same way (no one can ever come back to life). But I have a question for Mr. Darrow, to see if it is really impossible to determine with our senses whether someone has risen (and therefore CAN rise!) from the dead.

If you watched your buddy get flogged, beaten, crucified (suffocated), and stabbed through the heart with a spear, is it possible to determine for certain from this sensory experience that he did in fact die? I would say yes it is! It doesn't take a genius to know when someone is dead. Especially after that kind of treatment. Is it possible then also to find his tomb empty some short time thereafter? I'd say yes as well! Why should that be impossible? Are humans inherently incapable of determining whether or not a body is present in a burial room? I think not. Third question, would it be possible to touch someone alive who you determined was this dead, and see their scars? I'd say that is also not logically impossible with respect to sensory perception. Let's say Jesus did rise from the dead; does this mean that it's impossible to determine that he is alive with your senses? This seems foolish to me. The disciples were invited to touch him, watch him eat, listen to him teach them. If you did this, could you not reasonably conclude that this man was indeed alive? I think you could, and there is no good reason to believe otherwise.

So why would anyone ever say that it's impossible to believe that someone rose from the dead if we use our senses?

He mentions Balaam's talking donkey, and takes for granted that this will seem absurd to his reader. Now I'm going to confess something to everyone. Talking animals are really weird. I don't think anybody would dispute this. I would also like to say that only two instances of this are recorded in God's Word. Two times! It's weird! But absurd? I am not convinced that this can be determined from a strictly agnostic worldview. What would he have to be assuming to say that miracles are absurd? He would have to assume naturalism - that is, that supernaturalism is false. God does not exist and is not available for performing miracles. Now, what does this sound like?

It sounds like atheism to me, not agnosticism! So here we have an agnostic who says the Bible is absurd, which he ultimately backs up with atheistic philosophy. This is very subtle, and the person participating in this juggle of worldviews may not even realize he is doing it. It needs to be pointed out graciously. I suppose my main point for this article would be: A person with no worldview of his own (agnosticism) has no rational grounds on which to say someone else's is absurd. Furthermore, a person WITH a worldview can at best say, "From the perspective of my own worldview, Christianity looks foolish." With this, I wholeheartedly agree.

Next: Addressing the (Alleged) Lack of Evidence

Absurdities of the Bible

A Response to Clarence Darrow’s Article Absurdities of the Bible
by Evan Winslow

I am writing this because I found a link from the Stand to Reason website (Christian apologist Greg Koukl's ministry), which encouraged me to visit some sites with arguments opposing Christianity, so I could get used to hearing arguments from opponents of Christianity. I have done this several times before, but this is my attempt to calmly and logically address some issues without getting noticeably frustrated. The Bible is clear that we need to “let [our] speech always be gracious” as we “answer each person” (Col 4:6). I was confronted with the fact that I fall seriously short in this area just recently, and this is my active attempt to correct that.

Clarence Darrow is an agnostic. As an agnostic, he has found it worthwhile and necessary to explain why he is convinced that Christianity is not a tenable option as a worldview. My “refutation” of his complaints will basically be an attempt not so much to prove him wrong about absurdities in the Bible, but to show that he is not actually an agnostic. Mr. Darrow smuggles in a naturalistic worldview, which is necessarily atheistic. Atheism is not agnosticism. He also smuggles in a theistic worldview. Theism is not agnosticism. How’s that for confusing? Yes you read that right. Mr. Darrow is not agnostic. He is atheistic when it suits him, and agnostic when it suits him, and theistic when it suits him. That’s a bold claim, but one that I think I can substantiate, if you’ll allow me time. I also think that if you pay attention, you’ll be surprised at how many people do this who hold to non-theistic worldviews (I hesitate to say non-Christian because it’s I’m not convinced it’s impossible for other monotheistic religions to be consistent in these areas). For the purposes of my article, atheism will be defined as the positive belief that there is no personal God (as opposed to the lack of belief in a God, which is an admittedly frustrating distinction that it seems more and more atheists are making these days).

Mr. Darrow’s main arguments about the Bible are very common objections to Christianity in general, so I think this will be a good exercise for anyone who might come up against them in a witnessing situation, or if someone just has genuine questions about the Bible. Rather than going through his article line by line, which would not be helpful for learning answers to certain objections, I decided to outline the main objections that he gives. I found seven basic objections in Mr. Darrow’s article, and they are as follows.

The Bible is absurd because…

1) The Bible records impossible events
2) There is no evidence for certain Biblical events
3) There are non-biblical accounts of miracles similar to the Bible’s
4) The people in those days knew next to nothing about science
5) Even some Christians don’t believe the stories are literally true
6) The God of the Bible does immoral things
7) Christians hate knowledge/rationality

I will address these issues one by one in subsequent blogs.