Absurdity 2: No Evidence

Welcome back to my apologetic series concerning the absurdity of the Bible. Last time I talked about why miracles cannot be proof that the Bible is absurd. The second major objection that Mr. Darrow brings up is the claim that there is no evidence to support many events in the Bible. For this article I'm just going to focus on the virgin birth. He also mentions an afterlife, but it basically merits the same response, so here we go.

He mentions the virgin birth, and asks evidence for it. Now that is quite an interesting request, if you think about it. What evidence could there possibly be for this event other than the evidence he already has: the testimony of the people involved? What artifact could conceivably be left behind for us to discover? Why would you request such evidence, and when it cannot be given, pretend you’ve come out victorious? True, a virgin birth leaves no evidence behind other than the testimony of those involved, but to say that the virgin birth is “without a scintilla of evidence of any sort” is simply not correct.

Another question: why is Mr. Darrow’s standard for absurdity so high? He seems to think that if you can’t convince anybody at any time of the truth of a supernatural event that happened 2000 years ago, then the testimony of the event is absurd. If he wants to say he’s unconvinced, then that’s fine. I can deal with that. But he has not demonstrated that it is absurd, which is what I assumed was the point of the article. Furthermore, where is his standard for absurdity coming from? It seems unreasonable to me.

Actually, his request for evidence in the first place begs the question: what kind of evidence would he accept for such an event? This is definitely something you need to clear up before you try to prove anything to anyone inductively (i.e. with evidence). Before you waste your breath rattling off all the internal and external implications to the trustworthiness of the accounts, check if your hearer is willing to accept such reasoning! If people cannot tell you some standard of evidence that would convince them, most likely no amount of evidence will! And I think it is on this point that Mr. Darrow really trips up.

He says it would be impossible to bring evidence in today for such an event, and, excepting eyewitness testimony, I’d have to agree with him! He then goes on to say that “no one would believe it anyway.” Wait… so he’s saying that even if evidence were given for this event, no one would believe it? Woops! It sounds to me like this “agnostic” is revealing again his true worldview assumptions: naturalism therefore atheism. All evidence he encounters is filtered through this worldview, and therefore can never point to a miraculous event. Keep this in mind, Christian, when you attempt to use evidence to prove the Bible to an atheist (or agnostic).

Mr. Darrow asks for evidence, however I’m convinced at this point that putting forth any evidence will be dismissed because the idea of a miracle is already absurd. His worldview does not allow for a supernatural virgin birth to occur, because he isn’t really agnostic; he is atheistic. He is thoroughly convinced that the natural is all that exists, and any evidence to the contrary won’t be believed anyway, as he admitted. So, Christian, fear not when critics go to the “no evidence” objection. What they mean by this really is that there is no evidence that has convinced them, as we can see is the case with Clarence Darrow. And if they stick to their worldview, then there is no evidence that you can give them that will convince them.

Next time: Addressing Similarities Between Christianity and Pagan Religions

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.

Doubled Up

Has anyone ever heard the same message twice and said to themselves, "Ugh, not this again. What is the deal with the Pastor, doesnt he realize he just taught this 6 months ago?!" Has anyone ever wanted to say something, but then thought to themselves, "What's the point? It's all been said before, they don't need to hear it again." Has anyone ever heard the same message twice and said to themselves, "Wow, I don't think I could ever get tired of that message! God is so good!"

Personally, I've fallen into all three categories, so I'll let you in on a little secret: The first two happen when we're not giving our all to God! For whatever reason and with whatever excuse we have decided that something or someone else takes priority in our lives, and 'magically' that translates into a lack of excitement or even hostility toward the teaching of God's truth. It's actually quite simple; we are just too blinded by our sin to realize it. If we feel like God is boring or repetetive or far away, it's because we are actively doing something wrong (i.e. we are sinning, and God isn't pleased with it). In my life, the most common two things that I miss are Bible reading and prayer. The importance of these two activities has probably been stressed to me thousands of times, yet here I am, stressing it again to myself and to my readers.

It's amazing how quickly such joyful activities can become a burden, or get excused away due to other religious activities. I am a member at quite a few Bible studies, so it's easy for me to say to myself, "Dude, Evan, you are so spiritual. God is pleased with you. I mean, you get into the Word prolly twice as much as 99% of the world, so reading it every day is not that big of a deal. Just take a break tomorrow and worship him by doing what you love; go take a break and have some fun!" Wait what!? Red Flag! Sounds more like my sinfulness and complacency than Christ talking; wouldn't you agree?

The Bible takes no such stance with meditation on Scripture. Psalm 119 is a great psalm for the importance of the Word and way of God. Psalm 119:10-11 says

"With my whole heart I have sought You;
Oh, let me not wander from Your commandments.
Your word I have hidden in my heart,
That I might not sin against You."

I need to seek God with my whole heart, not half way. So diligently should I seek it and meditate on it and read it continually that it is hidden in my heart. Memorizing something takes time and effort and repetition. I'm sure making that transition from knowledge to application (head to heart) doesnt require any less effort. Besides, if God is the principle thing, the one thing we want in life and our only hope, then we will already be devouring His words like there's no tomorrow. I know a few people like that - they absolutely love the Lord and are a continually an encouragement to me to keep focusing on Him.

Once we get this down, the same message over and over again doesn't get boring. Instead it is encouraging! I hope this message was encouraging to you. But if it's same old same old "God is important, read the Bible, blah blah..." I'd do some soul searching. I know I had to before I wrote this one. I didn't know what to write, because I'd heard it all before. Hah. No more.

"But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness." - Hebrews 3:13