Christianity And History
“The uniqueness and the scandal of the Christian religion rests on the mediation of the revelation through historical events. Christianity is not just a code for living or a philosophy of religion. It is rooted in the real events of history and is bound up with the truth of certain historical facts. And if these facts should be disproved, Christianity would be false.
This, however, is what makes Christianity unique because, unlike other world religions, modern man has means of actually verifying Christianity’s truth by historical evidence.”
George Ladd (1911-1982)
smijer
on July 31st, 2009
He’s speaking here of the Shroud of Turin?
Teasing! Teasing! … Seriously, I would be ashamed of a statement like this, so dubious in substance and so confident in its claims.
If it were the case that the historical claims made by Christians were compelling to historians who were not committed to the religion - then it would be fair to say that we are dealing with “real events of history” and that there exists a “means of actually verifying Christianity’s truth by historical evidence”.
Such a claim, answered by a request for such evidence, generally appeals to the “general” reliability of ancient documents which suggest that some of Jesus’ contemporaries believed (perhaps so strongly as to be willing to accept martyrdom for the notion, though this isn’t entirely clear) that he had been seen after his death, and that, together with Paul and a number of other Christian writers, the emerging story of Jesus had an impact on civilization afterward.
Never are we given real historical evidence that verifies the truth of Christianity’s claims.
rogermorris
on July 31st, 2009
“Never are we given real historical evidence that verifies the truth of Christianity’s claims.”
Smijey, that is the point. Most of the purely historical claims of Christianity ARE supported by even secular historians. There is enough substantiative material about now to make an extremely good case for the historicity of the NT documents. In all truth, probably more supportive evidence than is available for many other historical happenings that we happily accept as “real events of history”.
I think it is more of a case of “evidence I like” and “evidence I don’t like” rather than an objective lack of supporting evidence for the historicity of the NT compared to other ancient documents, and other accepted events in history. We wouldn’t even be having this discussion were it not for the nature of the content of the NT texts and the existential challenges it contains. Accepting the historicity and reliability of the NT documents means that one needs to then seriously consider the worldview and truth claims contained within.
But no, I don’t think accepting the historical accuracy and reliability of the NT “proves” Christianity nor does it prove that the Bible is the Word of God, or that Jesus was the Son of God. But it does silence the intellectual neanderthals who try to dismiss the NT by claiming Jesus never existed and that the Bible was written by medieval Catholic monks. Rejection of the Christian message has to be based on more than the simplistic notion of mythology and that it was all just made up.
smijer
on July 31st, 2009
The broad strokes - yes … You’d be hard pressed to find a secular historian who thought there was good evidence, for instance, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. In fact, I think most would agree that the weight of the evidence from within the New Testament is on the other side of that question.
But the key words are “purely historical” claims.
The religious claims… not so much.
You’re right. My reason for rejecting it is the insufficiency of the evidence in favor of it.
rogermorris
on July 31st, 2009
” My reason for rejecting it is the insufficiency of the evidence in favor of it.”
Well, I think we both agree that it is unlikely that you can irrefutably “prove” any religious claim. I ‘m not suggesting that it is possible - whether through science, philosophy or history.
If you’re waiting for knock-down scientific, philosophical or historical proof of the existence of God, or that Jesus was the Messiah and the risen Son of God, you will not get it. Like I’ve said before, that position - requiring irrefutable evidence - is unlikely to be satisfied, and is essentially non-falsifiable.
Christian belief is based (for me at least, and many others) on the weight of evidence from all available sources, including history, philosophy, the sciences, ethics/morality and many other everyday sources and experiences. That is then combined with well-considered faith (that dirty word) - essentially a mindful trust in matters that I’m unable to possess all of the facts about. And maintaining a sensible, but open-minded approach to the supernatural - the possibility that there might be more to reality than what we can see, hear and touch, rather than a closed-minded naturalistic view.
But then again, if you’re honest Smijey, there are many things in everyday life that we all accept “on trust” without possessing or even requiring irrefutable proof, knock-down arguments or exhaustive evidence. It’s just intellectually dishonest and stubborn to say otherwise.
The refusal to believe in God and the particular claims of Christianity without “irrefutable proof” is a psychological “safe-house” that no one will ever be able to break into. It protects the considerably more flimsy emotional, moral and psychological reasons that people reject the Christian God and the claim of Christ on their being and their life. At least some atheists like Thomas Nagel are honest in the reasons they reject the notion of God - they don’t WANT the Christian God to exist because of the implications this would have on how they live.
http://www.faithinterface.com.au/notable-quotes/thomas-nagel-on-atheism
smijer
on July 31st, 2009
If you’ll notice, I didn’t say anything about irrefutable proof. I said that the evidence was insufficient to justify assent.
There are a number of things in life that approach due to their transient and uncritical nature with a low levels of certainty, but with the assumption that they are true without much further thought. That does not require me to do the same for life-long commitments to the various stories that are told to me by various religious people - and, even if I did, I don’t think the low levels of certainty and the willingness to abandon belief as soon as it was shown to be problematic would help qualify me as a True Christian.
By the way - I don’t know Tom Nagel, but I would be surprised if you are representing his viewpoint correctly. He may not “want” for God to exist, but I doubt seriously it has anything to do with implications for how he lives. I’m fairly certain he’s talking about philosophical preferences. Maybe you could check the context of his quote.