This belief has been a source of contention with many people, even Christians, in the past. But the more I research, the more I find it to be the case that Christianity is the only viable worldview that is historically defensible. The central claims of the Bible demand historic inquiry, as they are based on public events that can be historically verified. In contrast, the central claims of all other religions cannot be historically tested and, therefore, are beyond falsifiability or inquiry. They just have to be believed with blind faith.
Think about it: The believer in the Islamic faith has to trust in a private encounter Muhammad had, and this encounter is unable to be tested historically. We have no way to truly investigate the claims of Joseph Smith (and when we do, they are found wanting). Buddhism and Hinduism are not historic faiths, meaning they don’t have central claims of events in time and space which believers are called upon to investigate. You either adopt their philosophy or you don’t. There is no objective way to test them. Run through every religion that you know of and you will find this to be the case: Either it does not give historic details to the central event, the event does not carry any worldview-changing significance, or there are no historic events which form the foundation of the faith.
This is what it looks like:
A few months ago, I was emceeing an apologetics event in Dallas hosted by the Christian Renaissance Apologia Conference. The scholars present were Dan Wallace, Darrel Bock, Gary Habermas, and Craig Evans. Each of these are men that I admire and trust, as I believe they are seeking truth and not a confirmation of their prejudice. I asked them during the conference if there are any other religions or worldviews that they knew of that had apologetics conferences the way Christianity does. In other words, can other religions pull together enough objective intellectual backing to form a solid defense for their faith? Each of them responded with the same: no. They went on to express the same sentiments of my present argument. “Even atheists,” Habermas said, “have nothing but ‘negative apologetics’.” In other words, Christianity has a significant amount of historically verifiable data which forms the bedrock of the faith. This is “positive apologetics.” An atheist conference, for example, does nothing but belittle the claims of other religions (primarily Christianity). “There is no positive defense that one can give for naturalism,” Habermas concluded. Therefore, the only thing available to the atheist is an attempt to overturn the massive amount of evidence that Christianity has.
This makes a lot of sense. If I decided to start a religion, deceptively or not, I would not make false claims to recent historic events that did not happen. Why? Because I know those claims could be tested. Also, I would not give details about the time, place, and people involved. More than that, I would not invite contemporaries to investigate these claims. For example, if I were to say today that in 1965 there was a man named Titus who was born in Guthrie, OK and traveled about Oklahoma City doing many miracles and gaining a significant following, this could easily be falsified. I would not say that Mary Fallin, the governor of Oklahoma, along with Tom Coburn, US Senator from Oklahoma, had Titus electrocuted. I would not detail that the electrocution was in Bricktown on January 13, 1968 at 9am. I wouldn’t claim that Titus rose from the dead and gained a significant following throughout Oklahoma City which has spread across America. Why wouldn’t I make these claims as the foundation of my new religion? Because they can be easily tested and falsified. This religion could not possibly get off the ground. If I were to make up a religion, all the events which support the religion (if any) would be private and beyond testing.
This is why you don’t have religions based on historic events. They are all, with the exception of Christianity, based on private encounters which cannot be falsified or subjective ideas which are beyond inquiry. The amazing thing about Christianity is that there is so much historic data to be tested. Christianity is, by far, the most falsifiable worldview there is. Yet, despite this, Christianity flourished in the first century among the very people who could test its claims. And even today, it calls on us to “come and see” if the claims are true.
The only reason why I can say Christianity survived in the midst of such historic volatility is because it is true. And this is exactly what I would expect if there were an all-powerful God who created and loves this world. When he intervenes, he makes a significant enough footprint that historic inquiry is demanded. Think about that next time you are critiquing the Christian faith. The only reason you can is because it is the only religion that has opened itself up to such critique. Simply put, Christianity is the most falsifiable religion there is and yet it has survived. Why?
151 replies to "Christianity, the World’s Most Falsifiable Religion"
If Jesus was a god and really wanted to save the world, he would have appeared and delivered his Gospel personally to the whole world. He would not appear only to one small group of believers and one lone outsider, in one tiny place, just one time, two thousand years ago, and then give up. But if Christianity originated as a natural movement inspired by ordinary hallucinations (real or pretended), then we would expect it to arise in only one small group, in one small place and time, and especially where, as in antiquity, regular hallucinators were often respected as holy and their hallucinations believed to be divine communications. And that’s exactly when and where it began. The ordinary explanation thus predicts all we see, whereas the extraordinary explanation predicts things we don’t see at all
Margaret,
You’re on a valid, important “track” here; I agree in part. I’d encourage you to keep digging, if these issues intrigue you or you seek to influence traditional Christians. The “hallucination” claim will be impressive to few (or even remotely considered). For one, hallucination is not an appropriate term for what I think you are getting at… we don’t really have one, at least in English… some use “apparition” or “vision” as these avoid the more individual and pathological implication of “hallucination.” These terms are imprecise, too… I don’t think anyone knows the real nature of early disciples’ experiences of the “risen” Jesus. I see no real evidence to take it as encountering his special “quasi-physical” resurrected body. BUT, they seem, indeed, to have had profound experiences… Paul gives the only personal accounting, well later than the supposed Apostles’ (orig. 12) “visions.” Much of Christian theology has been built on his claimed “revelations” from Jesus, and he makes no claim of encountering Jesus physically re-embodied.
If people are still following this thread, I’d imagine someone is composing a response to your “hallucination” claim, and may post it before mine appears. What I see as the root issue in your comment is that you follow a fully “naturalistic” paradigm. Traditional believers follow a “supernaturalist” one, and “never the twain shall meet.”
As generally conceived, they ARE mutually exclusive. I’ve invested most of a lifetime learning/studying from both these paradigms and their “data points” (most heavily, Bible, psychology and theology, with other hard science and social science). Fortunately, there IS a “golden mean” alternative which honors data coming from one paradigm or the other, relatively equally: Process theology. You can start with the good Wikipedia summary and follow some of its many references to get a good intro. One of my fav’s is 114 pp: “Two Great Truths” by Griffin.
This blog deletes and deletes, I have to get up and down as I write, as I am in the hospital (I’m a chaplain). When I come back now, twice the whole thing is gone! Amazing this so-called techno stuff! I can quite remember the good old snail mail days myself! I even remember writing “free” in the corner, no stamps needed in the Nam!
Btw, the Body of the Risen Christ was no mere old body resuscitated, but a new body Resurrected! Both physical & spiritual! As Paul said! (1 Cor. 15: 42-44, etc.)
My dear brother Robert, is this your presuppositional side creeping out? 😀 What Michael has posted is excellent and I think there is room for a synthesis of presuppositional-evidential faith.
Howard,
I don’t have any problems with the historicity of the Gospel narrative . . . at least none that would take away from either their verifiability nor the stability of the central claims. Process theology would only be necessary, I suppose, if one were approaching this with too modernistic of a mindset. I am pretty far distant from the demands of modernism, even if I follow the same basic approach.
Margaret,
To claim that the NT record and all that surrounds it can be explained by mass hallucination is more faith than I have. As far as I can tell hallucinations are subjective. It would indeed be an incredible miracle for your theory to be true. In fact, worldview altering. But, there is simply no reason, scientific, psychological, biblical, historical, or religious, to believe such a theory. Can you give any examples where mass hallucinations have occurred with this many people, about something they are familiar with, over a long period of time (say, ten years—to be generous)? (And aliens or UFO’s won’t do as the type of hallucination does not parallel—i.e. there is no established base to evaluate a UFO but there was to establish the resurrection of a person these people knew, and when seen in mass, they are simply classified as an unknown object or event.)
On top of that, you really have to downgrade the intelligence of the original framers of this story to feel that every one of them could be self-decieved.
And, back to the original post… I don’t think anyone has demonstrated that any other religion has positive based apologetics for the central events of their religion. This was the only humble contention of this post. I have written on the historicity of the resurrection elsewhere.
In comment 53 you mentioned the resurrection.
A Common Hallucination
Mourning seems to be a time when hallucinations are particularly common, to the point where feeling the presence of the deceased is the norm rather than the exception. One study, by the researcher Agneta Grimby at the University of Goteborg, found that over 80 percent of elderly people experience hallucinations associated with their dead partner one month after bereavement, as if their perception had yet to catch up with the knowledge of their beloved’s passing. As a marker of how vivid such visions can seem, almost a third of the people reported that they spoke in response to their experiences. In other words, these weren’t just peripheral illusions: they could evoke the very essence of the deceased.
Margaret, it would be agreed that people experience such in a subjective way each having their own stories. But we are not talking about subjective experiences where each person has their own story about a different loved on, we are talking about all these people seeing the same person doing the same thing (appearing in the upper room, appearing at the sea, appearing and as sending into heaven, etc). This is in addition to the individual appearances. And these guys are not unintelligent hopefuls. Your parallel does not come close to explaining what we are talking about with Christ.
And I don’t think you really want to argue for a shared hallucination where the events, times, places, and people parallel. As I said, this would be almost as miraculous as the resurrection of Christ and demand a transcendent intervention as an explanation.
@tel, Yes, this is always my “presupposition”, the Authority of God’s Word, I don’t follow Van Til’s full apologetic, but I do follow this reality of the Reformed Divinity!
Note, the poor folk here that don’t have a clue to GOD’s most Sovereign Person, and thus surely can’t see the Word of God, Itself! Note, Christ is both the “Logos” & the “Rhema”! But this is ONLY seen “in spirit and truth”.
What? Mormonism was professed, in a court of law no less, that everything that Joseph Smith said was true. How is that not historically falsifiable?
Concerning Mormonism, I think you are understanding falsifiability differently than this post intends. The point is that the central events that form the foundation of Mormonism were not public, attested by the public, and flourishing amidst such falsifiable historic contention. One can testify in court about anything, but that does not mean their testimony should be believed. Esoteric times, dates, people, and places do not qualify for the type of falsifiability I am speaking of. I could very well attempt to make the same ripe of claims Joseph Smith made and expect it to gain some traction. But I could not do the same if I was following the model of the Christ story.
Margaret,
I hate to point out the obvious, but you just cited a study where the key is that elderly people have this issue. Keep in mind that the witnesses, or at least the apostles, were not elderly and had not been with Jesus for the amount of time that you would be suggesting with the use of this study. You then move to a “almost a third” and want to statistically move this third to be all of the apostles, Paul’s experience, the other witnesses, Mary, etc. Stretches it a bit, wouldn’t you say?
Michael,
Thanks for the response and your #62 re. the “only… contention.” Not sure anyone can demonstrate it. But as you said yourself, even if Christianity is unique in this regard, that does not make it “true” or valid (I forget your exact words). I’m not being merely “postmodern” when I say that the truth of Christianity, to me, lies elsewhere than in whether we can historically verify that a supernatural resurrection happened to Jesus. (Again, Process is my main model/guide… something more serious about the range of spiritual experiences in the Bible than is classical “liberalism.”)
I’m no longer convinced (tho I used to hold your position) that encountering Jesus up close, touching him, seeing him eat and such was the kind of experience that enabled the transformation of dejected, defeated disciples. I’m as certain as I allow for anything that Paul, for example, was transformed by a visionary and revelatory set of experiences, and subsequently laid out much of the theology Christians hold to today. Neither he nor Luke (in Acts) claims he encountered anything other than what could be called the spirit of Jesus. (Not making too much of this alone, but in Rom., if I recall rightly – maybe Cor., he says Christ IS the Spirit.)
Now, going just briefly further, Paul’s “gospel” (“my gospel”) differs, at LEAST in emphasis (I’d say in content as well, pretty clearly) from that of those who not only learned under the earthly Jesus, but supposedly were taught further by him for 40 days after the resurrection. In other words, even WITH resurrection appearances taken as real, basically valid (though seriously confused in differing accounts), they significantly do not demonstrate that the BELIEFS of the earliest Christians all came either directly from Jesus or from the Holy Spirit in the “Apostolic age.” On this key point it certainly appears that Christianity, though a wonderful breakthrough, developed in basically the same way…
Howard,
The reasoning, as you know, for all of us is varied and multifaceted and, justifiably, dynamic. I sat under Dan Wallace all week for a course on textual criticism. This continues to add significantly to my belief that the Gospels are early in dependent testimonies of this same basic story. I don’t see any reasons to believe the early church had a different understanding of history much less concern for its centrality. And that is my contention. I am as postmodern as one can be and remain evangelical. Yet my skepticism does have to cede then the evidence points in a definitive direction. When I look at the manuscripts of the first few centuries I find every reason to believe not only that these stories have an origin of such an early date that it would take greater faith to believe that they are embellishments (in any significant sense) but that the Gospel was and has always been (within the canon varitas) stable.
Again, this does not make it true, but it makes other possibilities more far fetched and faith-filled than believing its historically true.
But this post is really an attempt to help people to see the significance of trying to embellish the bog ideas of Christianity with so many historic details. It simply does not make sense if, at least, the framers believed these events to be historical.
Just out of curiosity, why is nobody talking about comparisons of living standards and information technologies between the death of Julius Caesar and 2013?
Nobody among the general populace had even the beginnings of the mental discipline you all have, mainly because their diets were so poor and they received no formal schooling (tales from Ma about Samson… Lot’s wife… etc… don’t count).
Thus anyone who could pen quill to parchment, or had attended a Greek sophistry school, could quite easily make anybody believe anything.
Desperation was life… you all forget that at your peril. Ancient chroniclers, writing about the battles of Alexander the Great, ascribed his victories to the favour of Zeus… and since someone had to cut open live animals and divine the likely outcome before anyone would commit to combat, people simply declared that divine providence was with them (or against them, in cases beyond that of one over-arching figure like Alexander).
I admire and respect religion, but trying to use scholarly writings to support a metaphysical belief is attempting to fill a cup which has no bottom.
And since you’re right, that makes me wrong. Which means what? If you had uncontested political authority, what would that mean? I think I know.
Concerning LDS Christianity, are the dreams had, encounters had, or ideas had the central plot of that faith? Paul certainly had a private encounter, as did Joseph Smith, Jr., yet any Latter-day Saint will tell you, the central facet of LDS religion is the atonement of Christ. There are other prophets of Christian and LDS-Christian faith(s) that include private interaction with God. If the resurrection of Christ was public and well attested to, we can easier disprove Islam than LDS or Christianity. Unfortunately, I remember Josephus being used by Christian apologists to attest to Christ, yet my Christian professor proved (as best as a scholar can prove) that Josephus’ bit about Christ was a later insertion.
William, about LDS, are you saying that Joseph Smith’s revelations are not central to the Mormon faith?
Mr. Hayden: If it was so easy to start a new religion among those first century rubes, why did none of the others who claimed to be the Messiah succeed? Why did this one group of Galileans succeed in starting a religion that has a billion adherents today? People back then would believe anything, so why did they not believe something besides Christianity? Where are the followers of Zeus today?
As far as shared hallucination goes, let’s assume this theory is correct, and Mary, the eleven disciples, and the many witnesses (Incidentally, there aren’t many “elderly” recorded in this bunch), all hallucinated an appearance of Jesus out of grief and longing. That would mean, then, that the BODY was still in the tomb.
As these deluded disciples began telling their story of “seeing” Jesus alive, all the Pharisees would have needed to do was roll away the stone from the tomb (remember, He never resurrected, so He’s still in there), throw Jesus’ body on a cart and parade it through Jerusalem crying, “Behold your ‘Savior’!” That would’ve instantly stopped this ridiculous sect from spreading.
They didn’t though. Why?? BECAUSE THEY COULDN’T. The body was gone! He had risen just as He said He would. And should your argument be that the disciples “obviously” stole the body away (which doesn’t explain how they overpowered the elite Roman troops guarding it), how could they “imagine” seeing him, KNOWING His rotting corpse was hidden in the basement? And then eagerly march back into town to proclaim His name under the imminent threat of death, knowing He was a fraud. I’m sorry, but “shared hallucination” requires more faith than I have.
Thank God for a risen, living Savior!
The hallucination theory is so in-creadible that it is hard to believe that it could even be suggested. Could you imagine something like this being used by a defense attorney? Yes, there were many eye witnesses to the crime, but we are going to suggest, without any evidence, that everyone hallucinated seeing my client commit the crime.
Yet, again, the in-creadibility of the alternatives shows how historically verifiable the resurrection of Christ truly is.
Christianity being open to critique does not make it true. You criticize that Mohammad having a private encounter is not testable, but Jesus being the son of God is? Jesus rising from the dead is? You immediately lost me on your argument when you said this. Jesus was not declared divine until nearly 400 years after he lived (historically testable, as you state), yet it is accepted fact by Christians now. Why the 400 year lag? There’s a lot of speculation, historically, about the use of changing the Bible to assess control on a population. But Christians don’t seem to care about this. Why, because they want it to be true, fact doesn’t matter. This post seems to be forcing a square peg into a round hole; there are so many holes in your argument it’s not even worth dissecting because you’re preaching to the choir, not presenting a true argument. Bottom line, Christianity, like any religion, exists because people want it to exist, not because of fact. If Christians want to continue to argue that it’s ‘fact’, you’ll always lose preaching outside the choir. To an outsider, God, Allah, Zeus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are all the same, a part of mythology.
I ask again how Mohammad’s private encounter is any different than Jesus being the son of God? Because it’s documented that Jesus said he was? That’s only proof he said it, not that it’s proof he was. There is NO proof of God, only faith. The authors own arguments would support this because there is no documented evidence of God, only of Jesus. Resurrection? How does a resurrection answer very specific details about who God is, including the eternal reward or punishment of heaven and hell? It’s a ridiculous conclusion. Just because someone was wowed by a magician doesn’t mean it was real magic. All Christian arguments end in faith, not fact. I would challenge you to find a factual argument of the existence of God, not Jesus. Without it proof of this (based on the author’s own rules of concluding from written fact), Jesus was just another man.
Mere word and proclaimations are undemanding alone. The difference is that Jesus accompanied his teaching by raising from the dead. Again, the the cartoons above and it should be clear.
Jennifer, written “proof” of the existence of God:
Genesis 1:14: “Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years…'”
Ps. 19:1-2: “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.”
Romans 1:18-20: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”
Nature itself is created to reveal the existence, the divine nature, and the eternal power of God. Nature depends upon patterns and systems that reveal design and the presence of information. Information cannot be random but requires intelligence. Nature reveals God’s existence and eternal power.
Day unto day pours forth speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge.
Thank you Michael for responding so kindly. No arrogance just thoughtful comments.
@ Jennifer
1. “I ask again how Mohammad’s private encounter is any different than Jesus being the son of God? Because it’s documented that Jesus said he was? That’s only proof he said it, not that it’s proof he was.”
Hmm miraculous signs and wonders displayed for all to see vs. private encounter in a cave. I fail to see the similarity.
2. “he authors own arguments would support this because there is no documented evidence of God, only of Jesus. Resurrection? How does a resurrection answer very specific details about who God is, including the eternal reward or punishment of heaven and hell? It’s a ridiculous conclusion.”
Let’s see 1) Man claims to be God 2) Man performs public signs and wonders to authenticate his claims culminating in his rising from the dead 3) man tells us what God is like and the nature of eternal destiny. Seems to me that this would, hypothetically speaking at least, tell us quite a bit about God and heaven and hell.
3. “Just because someone was wowed by a magician doesn’t mean it was real magic.”
So what is your claim here? Jesus faked his own crucifixion and somehow got the Jewish AND Roman leaders to go along with it?? How and to what end?? This is perhaps the most fantastical explanation I have ever heard. Can you name a single person with a doctorate in a relevant field, who is published in peer review journals, and holds a professorship at a accredited school who will support this position (there are thousands who meet these criteria, the majority of whom are Atheists by the way)?
4. “I would challenge you to find a factual argument of the existence of God”
A) I would challenge you to make a factual argument for the reliability of science in determining truth without using circular reasoning.
B)
1) Everything which begins to exist has a cause
Fact: Things don’t just pop into being, uncaused, out of nothing. You do not worry when you go to work that a elephant is magically going to appear in your living room and destroy your house. To deny this is to appeal to something worse than magic. At least with magic you have a hat and the magician that “cause” the rabbit to appear.
2) The universe began to exist
Fact: The universe began around 14 Billion Years ago at the Big Bang.
Fact: An actual infinite of past moments is a logical absurdity
Fact: As Peter Vilenkin put it at Stephen Hawkings 70th Birthday Party “All the evidence we have says the universe had a beginning” after showing that every proposed theory requires an absolute beginning to the universe, or even if the universe is part of a larger multiverse, that must have a absolute beginning as well
3) Therefore the universe has a cause
Fact: This follows inescapably from Premises 1 and 2
Fact: There are three types of explanations; Logico-mathematical, Scientific, and that of a Personal Agent.
Fact: Logico-mathmatical explanations are by definition abstract and therefore cannot have any causal relationship to anything.
Fact: Scientific explanations are great within the universe, but cannot be used to explain the universe coming into being out of nothing. When there is nothing there is no matter, no energy, and no physical laws for science to work with. Not even a vacuum of empty space, just nothing.
Fact: This only leaves a personal agent as a explanation for the beginning of the universe (further analysis shows that this agent must be timeless, immensely powerful, and immaterial, that is God for all practical…
i didnt base any of what i said of of any of Dan Browns Novels but it is true that he used actual facts in the cheating of his books
one of my many sources is http://www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm
to answer you bible thumping biases about the creation of the universe in fact there was mater that existed before the “creating of the universe” but the matter was compressed into one singularity with incomprehensible mass in and intensely small area, and at extreme heats and anyone that has passed 8th grade science can tell you that heated atoms accelerate and when 2 or more atoms collide at high speeds under high heat it creates a little thing everyone knows as nuclear fusion, which as i byproduct of this fusion releases large amounts of energy usually in a radiation form.
i am not denying the existence of god(s) im am simply stating the Christianity that you people choose to fallow is a 1700 yr old political scam in an attempt to stabilize the collapsing roman empire, and there sadly is no way to know the REEL parts of modern Christianity from the actual Christianity started by the dispels
Michael,
It just hit me I don’t know one important thing about what your exposure is to what I’ve been “plugging” here and you have responded about, namely a “process” view of understanding God, revelation, etc. You seem familiar with it… what have you read of direct Process authors (I’ve not read a wide variety myself, but some Cobb, Griffin, Williams, M.E. Moore… mostly the Claremont folks)? I realize it’s a real leap from “orthodoxy” but certainly not like the one to naturalism, atheism or even agnosticism (like, say Ehrman). Also what about Mack, Maccoby, Carmichael, L. M. White, Fredericksen, Horsley, Crossan, Borg, etc., etc.? (Some being worshipful, dedicated Christians or Jews and terrific scholars.)
http://www.evilbible.com/common_lies.htm
Joseph Smith had no proof of anything to begin a religion upon he was nothing but a man with a weird imagination and attention issues.
Jews and Muslims have a better shot of getting in to “heaven” than Christians.
Fwduck,
I understand and don’t have any problem with the nature of your objections and concerns. They are not too far from historical validity, but just far enough that I think I can do you a favor with a bit of advice. Now, I disagree with the main point of this thread and much of the blog’s aplogetics and specific theology, as do you, but I have tons of study of both the bible and the subjects Michael raises… so for what it’s worth: take some time (will be many, many hours) to read widely in some related areas, such as theology, NT studies, Christian origins, textual criticism and transmission, canonization, historical criticism, etc. THEN compose your critiques and questions and you will be more credible. Referencing a few websites and/or popular writers won’t do it. Not critical for your well being, but if you do want to interact meaningfully and in an informed way, it will take some serious reading over a period of time.
Mr. Patton #77: The restoration is certainly central, yet the restoration is second fiddle to the atonement. As a young man, I attended the LDS Church, and we always spent more time on Jesus than on Joseph Smith.
For the atheist or non-religious person, one has to, at the very least, recognize that the “story” of Christianity is unique among other religions as is suggested by this post. Interestingly, I am reading white fang and have come to a place where London is describing the reverence wolves have for humans: “Unlike man, whose gods are of the unseen and the over guessed, vapors and mists of fancy eluding the garmenture of reality, wandering wraiths of desired goodness and power, intangible outcroppings of self into the realm of spirit- unlike man, the wolf and wild dog that have come in to the fire find their gods in the living flesh, solid to the touch, occupying earth-space and requiring time for the accomplishment of their ends and their existence. No effort of faith is necessary to believe in such a god; no effort of will can possibly induce disbelief in such a god” (beginning of chapter 10).
The fact is that there is evidence that this person Jesus existed. There is evidence that He claimed to be God-not just that he had ideas about god or had been told by a messenger about god. There is evidence that the reverence and awe His presence inspired by people around Him was similar to that of the wolf to man in London’s story. Jesus is a unique. What conclusions we come to about that, in the end, is our choice. However, the facts still remain.
[…] “Christianity, The World’s Most Falsifiable Religion,” Parchment and Pen […]
I’m having a little trouble understanding how the author claims Christianity to be a falsifiable? Definition: “1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science.”
The claims in christianity have 0 independent references from other writers of the day. So, how can the claims be tested? (they cant). Proven? (again, can’t). And therefore Falsifiable? (it’s not.)
Black, you are acting as if the documents Christians call the NT are one. They are not. And from the historian’s perspective they all must be taken independently. So we have all of these first century documents. How many more do you need? Would 28 do? 29?
Think of this compared to all of the other documents of antiquity for the lives of great men and you will see that the claims of Christianity has more documentation than any other ancient event.
THEN add to that Josephus, the early church father, and some references with general support from some roman historians and we have more. Then extend our time period into the second century and dozens more emerge.
There is more than enough.
@fwduck
It sounds like you are describing the so called “Emergent Universe” theory in which there was a eternally existing cosmic egg of sorts which then at a point began to expand. Now I honestly am not qualified (I’m a lawyer) to discuss this, however Alexander Vilenkin is and he does starting at minute 16 of this talk at Cambridge. His conclusion is that it is impossible because of quantum instability.
RE: William #93,
“As a young man, I attended the LDS Church, and we always spent more time on Jesus than on Joseph Smith.”
The Jesus of Mormonism is VERY different than the Jesus of Christianity. The Jesus of Mormonism is nothing more than who Joseph Smith said he was. So even if you spend time on “Jesus” in LDS, it’s still nothing more than another manifestation of Joseph Smith. Very far removed indeed from the true, historical Biblical Jesus Christ.
[…] C. Michael Patton: […]
[…] The central claims of the Bible demand historic inquiry, as they are based on public events that can be historically verified. In contrast, the central claims of all other religions cannot be historically tested and, therefore, are beyond falsifiability or inquiry. They just have to be believed with blind faith. – Parchment & Pen Blog […]
[…] C. Michael Patton: […]
I struggle after a ‘Reverend’ taught a “Religion and Philosophy” course where he convinced me the Bible was man written with errors. I then mocked the Bible from 1957 to 1977 until Dr. Morris III presented the “Authenticity of Scripture”. After 9/11/01 I struggle to tell others about the evil of the Koran and concluded that after we know the absolute truth, the errors will expose themselves.
I then worked for several years as a retired consultant, scientist, engineer, and Biblicist to provide this one (1) page absolute proof that God authored the Bible. Please visit http://jc.does-it.net.
People, if you think Christianity, the only ONE religion, is falsifiable but haven’t been disproven, I challenged you to read an atheist book. Richard Dawkin’s “The God delusion” is one of them. They talk about the evidence and reasons why the bible is untrue.
And on what grounds can you say all religions in the world are based on non-historical context? And ASSUMING that your context is indeed true, you cannot say that the people who see Christ were truthful without a hidden agenda. Just take a look at how politics work and you know that we cannot trust a group of people with vested interest.
So this god just decided to show up to a group of Jews to prove himself and decided not to do that thousands of years later. Really?
Strider,
A lot of interesting statements there. In stead of asking what you sounds so persuasive in Dawkins book or asking what agenda you suppose the apostles had, let me try to stay focused on the subject of this post (as it was not meant to either prove or give evidence for the actual resurrection).
What other religions have their central founding truths based on testable (public, times, dates, multiple witnesses, etc.) history AND it survived in such an environment?
Oh yes, also, this/these events must be significant enough to affect one’s worldview. In other words, winning a battle or seeing an angel does not necessarily communicate anything.
There is a white elephant in the room. It’s name, judaism.
The jews have been persecuted more than any other people, yet still remain. Biblical prophecy is being fulfilled now for the jews. The jews have been re-gathered to their land, Israel was a desert, it now blooms. There language was extinct, it now lives. The evidence is happening now in israel that testifies to the truth of judaism.
Zechariah 8:23 says :In those days ten men from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, ‘Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you’.
The jews have more nobel peace prize winners per capita than any other group. You will find jews disproportionately represented as doctors fighting disease, lawyers fighting for justice and economists fighting poverty.
Why?
No doubt dawkins is an extremely intelligent scientist who has come to a conclusion about the world in which we live and has a vested interest in promoting it. I have not read his book but am familiar with his conclusions. I am, though, an avid reader of science literature. As i learn, it is easy for me to see how people who devote their whole lives to certain branches science, particularly quantum and atstro physics and cellular/molecular biology, would either be of the type that naturally does not “feel” the presence of God or how the nature of their studies can preclude the idea of God. But science and religion agree on the fact that life, particularly human life, is the highest form of existence. We are not merely a combination of elements. There is something more to us- our experience tells us this.
And evidence shows that humans have always had a concept of god. National geographic had an article a couple of years ago about finding a temple in Turkey. This site of worship predates the age of agriculture and has challenged the notion that humans devolved a “need” for religion after we began to localize for farming purposes. The finding suggest that humans began congregate for purposed of worship and then started farming. This should make one question the notion that religion was formed as a political strategy to control people.
Dawkins “The God Delusion” is one of the more laughable books when it comes to these matters that there is. There is no doubt that Dawkins is a capable scientist, but when he starts to foray into philosophy he is quite the fish out of water. He is simply speaking on matters that are outside of his field, much like having a doctor give you legal advice. The God Delusion isn’t a one time thing either. For instance Dawkins once make a objection to a group of philosophers concerning the Ontological Argument and then complained that they “resorted to modal logic” to disprove his objection, not realizing the entire time that the Ontological Argument itself is an exercise in Modal Logic (and that Modal Logic is a highly established field in the philosophical arena). To quote Alvin Plantinga on the matter.
“Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he’s a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of [Dawkins’] forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. ”
Long story short I don’t believe that there are any great arguments against Theism or for Atheism, however there are certainly much better argument then those purveyed by Dawkins in the God Delusion.
This is so funny …
My fictitious God is better that your fictitious God!!!
Wake up to yourselves people.
It’s 2013.
There is no Easter Bunny and NO GOD!
There are merely wealthy religious organizations who extract money from naive people such as you who are seeking a higher power to solve their problems for them.
Ask yourself … Why do I believe in God … if you answer truthfully its because you are too afraid not to!
Wise up and take control of your own destiny while you still have a life left to enjoy.
Don’t throw money into a collection plate … get of your butt and help another human being!
Religious people make me laugh.
Bob, you know that the “There is no Easter Bunny and NO GOD” is both a non seq and a guilt by association. Piling up the argumentative fallacies may make good sound bites but terrible logic.
[…] You can read Michael Patton’s post here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/07/christianity-the-worlds-most-falsifiable-religion/ […]
@C Michael Patton. fwduck is referring to the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD). He wrote like an asshole, but is actually (somewhat) right.
Early Christians were banned from Rome simply because they refused to fight in any war. You can the Christianity and violence page in wikipedia. Lots of nasty rumors were spread about them to ostracize them from society: they ate children (they took in the homeless. Leaving newborn babies on the streets was the established form of abortion then), practiced incest (called each other brother and sister), etc.
Suddenly, Christianity became the roman state religion. And soon Christians were fighting in wars everywhere (Constantine’s army adopted the Christian cross before the council). “In 336, prince Narseh invaded Armenia (a Christian kingdom since 301) and installed a Persian client on the throne. Constantine then resolved to campaign against Persia himself. He treated the war as a Christian crusade, calling for bishops to accompany the army and commissioning a tent in the shape of a church to follow him everywhere.” -Quoted off wikipedia.
—
Anyway i want to bring up something. Whether Jesus was historically resurrected or not (he existed, see below) he is still a great man whom one should respect for his universal teachings. Those who truly follow him are ALL saints.
He definitely existed, it is known that the Romans gave his execution order – the Jews recorded it in Sanhedrin 43a:
On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. … , a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy ….” But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! – … With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government for royalty. Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah.
note: Yeshu is still the name the Chinese Christians use to refer to Jesus
[…] Christianity, the World’s Most Falsifiable Religion by C. Michael Patton […]
Dear Michael,
Myself Jishar from a small room,
Do u really think other religion originated from some one dreaming about God? This is a false concept.
So u believe Jesus without any message from God he created Christianity. Again u are wrong .Jesus was a messenger of God? Did in any place in Bible he telling that that he is God and pray for only Jesus? Like other messengers of God he also get the message from God and he tried to spread the message of God In this world. But he was not completely success in spreading the message so God sent again messengers to the Earth .The process continued and The last Messenger was Muhammad (sawa) for Muslims. Anyway Bible was rewritten by many peoples but Book of Islam -Quran Remained the same . The RED and BLACK letters of Bible means the changes made in it ,who given them the authority to make changes in Book of God ? In the Bible it was clearly mentioned in more than 3 places regarding not to drink ALCOHOL and not to eat pig/Pork meat. But Christians in the world fail to follow this words of God written in Bible. Because they are misleaded by some private ideas . Private peoples rewritten Bible according to their wishes , for example they want to drink ALCOHOL and eat PORK . So they made changes in bible favoring their ideas. so my dear friend you are following a religion of private ideas because GODS book Bible was rewritten by private peoples( GOD given any authority to rewritten the book ? NO). So you are believing in private ideas and following it. (ALCOHOL AND PORK IS JUST AN EXAMPLE). A real christian has to follow the words of God and Jesus not the ideas of private peoples. Dear friend do you know which religion is following the real ideas of Jesus – Its ISLAM! Are you SHOCKED ? You ask Muslim that – do u believe in Jesus and his virgin birth? Muslims will say ‘YES’ because for them he is their messenger and he is not dead, he is raised to heaven by God & will return to kill ANTICHRIST an rule the world.