Bolt and Dickson on Biblical contradictions and Historical Errors

Conservative political journalist Andrew Bolt ventures onto writing about the Bible and John Dickson responds.

Lewis's Trilemma

C.S Lewis's Trilemma is probably the most famous argument in Christian apologetics.

The argument is thus:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."^[5]

The logic appears sound. It is hard to imagine someone going around claiming to be the Son of God, whilst just being a regular human male, unless they were either 1. totally deluded and suffering from seriously bad mental illness or 2. A complete liar.

But as with most arguments, the value of the argument depends on who it is addressed to and the underlying assumptions that are brought to the table.

The "trilemma" on it's own can only be addressed to people who already accept all of Jesus's teachings as being historical words that the historical Jesus actually spoke. In other words, the argument doesn't address the possibility that Jesus did exist but that he didnt say everything that was attributed to him OR that he didn't exist at all. Before you can use it, you need to either 1. assume or prove that Jesus made his various claims of divinity , or 2. you need to know that your audience already accepts this. Having said that, there are good historical reasons to suggest that Jesus did make claims to divinity- therefore once you've done that groundwork, then the argument may be put to use and could be effective to some degree, to a wider range of people than those who Lewis was originally addressing.

 

Lewis claims that people "often" say that Jesus was just a teacher, but his argument still isn't wholly effective even to that target audience. Many people in that category would have the objection that they simply can't accept any supernatural stuff- and that is why they stick to the moral teachings. I think that kind of objection requires philosophical arguments against naturalism per se, in addition to a historical argument such as the Trilemma. For someone who has a strong naturalist outlook that they bring to bear on the Jesus question, and who believes they have good independent reasons for believing naturalism, it is difficult to imagine them being convinced of Jesus's divinity merely by the Trilemma, even if they already accept the historicity of Jesus's claims to divinity. However in this instance, the Trilemma could form a part of an overall argument or set of arguments.

 

With the above qualifications in place, we can see that the Trilemma can have some value in showing that Christianity is reasonable.

Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Notes from.....

Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? The Smith Lecture 2011. 

John Dickson. Available at Koorong Bookstores

(Points emphasised by Dickson, or considered by me to be worthy of note, are bolded. Headings organised as Dickson laid out his talk. Quotes are in italics and are generally paraphrased)

Title of the lecture taken from a debate held in 2008.  

Christianity overwhemingly lost both counts- beginning and end of the night. The motion "we would be better off without religion" won convincingly. Christianity was the focus of the debate. Made Dickson realise: Christians used to be criticised as moralistic, self righteous. Now it is becoming just as popular to label Christians as immoral, evil and poisonous. 9/11 played a part, sociologically.

Only 2 groups consider 9/11 to be a purely religious phenomenon:

-Wahabi Islam

- New Atheists

New Atheism makes Christianity their main target. This has affected people and filtered into the common psyche- it has become a far more popular criticism of religion to claim that religion is evil, poisonous and responsible for violence.

1. How Serious this claim is

The religion causes violence argument has shot from top ten, to the number two reason for rejecting Christianity in recent times.

Dickson recounts story from dinner party- successful, self made businessman was convinced that ‘Christianity started most of the wars of history’.

Hitchens quote- Ethical life can be lived without religion. Corollary- Religion has given people permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel keeper/ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow. (Paraphrase).

Hitchens Quote- Ireland- Killing and Torturing – simply for membership of another confession. (Paraphrase)

This claim is partly right- as a student of history, confronted with primary sources. Christians HAVE done terrible things in the name of Christ .

Protestant problem, not just Catholic:

-          Luther: 1543 The Jews and their lies. Vile document.

-          Calvin: Pressed for someone’s execution for having wrong view of trinity.

Christians have failed to live up to Christ’s standards. Christians should have no problem admitting this, however, because they are the only ones left who do not hold to the view that we are inherently good, through and through.

2. What is wrong or incomplete about the claim

2.1   Retellings of the evils of Christendom frequently involve gross exaggerations.

DB hart. in Atheist Delusions demonstrates how each era retells the story of the previous era in a way which makes itself look really good, by making the past look really bad in comparison. This happened in the 18^th century with popularisation of the term “Dark Ages”. Enlightenment vs Dark Ages. The tale told by enlightened popularisers is “false in every identifiable detail”. The tale of the birth of the modern world and deliverance from the age of faith to the age of reason has "disappeared from respected academic journals and now principally survives at the level of folklore, intellectual journalism and vulgar legend". This is true, no one refers to "Dark Ages" in academic journals and nor should they.

Examples:

-          Spanish Inquisition. Elizabeth Farrelly “Millions” of secular martyrs.  Fact? 350 years, 6000 deaths. Edward Peters.

-          Nth Ireland 30 year conflict. Lets assume this was entirely religious (a debated point), 30 years, 3,500 people dead. Compare to French Revolution- 1793-94 great terror. 3,500. 1 year fighting for secular liberties vs 30 years warring religious parties.

 Any death in the name of Christ or over theological belief is blasphemy, but the question is: How did these become viewed as the pinnacle of the ferocity of Christianity?

2.2   Misses significant point: The violence of Christendom is dwarfed by the bloodshed of non-religious or irreligious conflicts.  

World War 1- 8 mil. World War 2- 35 million. Neither in any way religious conflicts.  How can anyone say most of the wars or deaths in history were caused by Christianity?

20^th century atheist regimes were not improvements on Christendom:

-        Stalin’s project killed 20 million. 6,000 a week. More in a week than the Spanish Inquisition killed in 350 years. Mao- between 10 and 50 million. Pol Pot was responsible for the deaths of 2 million of the 8 million population.  

-         Atheists respond to the claim that atheism leads to bloodshed with two objections. 1. Stalins atheism was a grand ideology, therefore religious in nature. This is an ingenius avoidance strategy. 2. Stalin’s violence was unrelated to his atheism. Hitler was a vegetarian, after all, this does not mean vegetarianism is responsible for the holocaust. This is disinegenous. To say that Stalin’s ardent conviction that religion is false and regressive was unrelated to his systematic eradication of religion people is taking things too fr. Stretching credulity.

Not saying that Atheism necessarily leads to violence. Both Atheism and Christianity can AND have led to violence. Religion or irreligion isn’t the problem. Problem is human heart in possession of a passion unrestrained: A passion for land, wealth or honour, amongst other things.

3.  Jesus's solution to the Problem

Jesus was relentless in his promotion of humble service and his rejection of the use of power. Luke 6, from the Q Document. Accepted front and centre by all mainstream historical Jesus experts- Love your enemies. Do unto others as you would have others do to you.
 
At most, the criticisms of the New Atheists could only prove that Christians haven’t been Christian enough. Christians admit this.

Dismissing Christianity due to a violent history is a bit like dismissing Johanna Sebastian Bach afer hearing a 5 year old attempt one of his Cello pieces. You have to distinguish between the original composition and it’s sometimes poor performance.
 
All historical Jesus experts agree that Jesus preached the love of enemies, hence, he played a beautiful composition. The solution to Christian evil is not less Christianity but more.

Albert Einstein in a letter to German nationalists: “Honour your master Jesus Christ. Not only in word and song but foremost in your deeds”.

Final concern with this issue, an extension of part 2: The arguments given concede nothing of the great good that Christianity has brought into the Western world.

-   Jerusalem Food Roster in the first year of Christianity.

-     Paul’s Ten Year collection in Turkey, for famine ravaged Judea. First recorded international aid project? 

-    Poverty Roll- 1500 ppl fed every day in an era where the Roman church was still illegal, persecuted and being killed. This made it the largest association in Ancient Rome.  

-    In time of great persecution during the first decade of 4^th century, authorities raided a church, expecting to steal it's treasure (like the banking systems found in Pagan temples). In this small church in Cirta (Libya) they actually found: 16 tunics, 82 dresses, 13 mens shoes, 47 womens shoes, storage room for poor, etc etc.

-    Emperior Julian Augustus (AD 331-363) was an opponent of Christianity, was worried they would “take over the world by the stealth of their good deeds”. In a letter to a Pagan priest, he demanded they institute a welfare system imitating the Christians. “Christian deeds have done the most to increase this atheism*”...”Disgraceful that they support not only their own poor but ours as well. All men see that our people lack aid from us”.  *ie: Christianity. Atheism from emperor’s perspective.

-    Human Rights- Canon Lawyers, working through the New Testament and it’s views on the rights of poor and aliens. This is where our modern HR language first developed.

-     Wilberforce- ended slavery out of his Christian evangelical convictions about men being equal and all made in the image of God.

-      Lord Shaftesbury.

-      Martin Luther King.

-      Desmond Tutu Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

-          “Research and philanthropy in Australia” report - Department of Families, community services and indigenous affairs, 2004. Found that the more religious a person is, the more giving they are.

-     According to 2005 data, 18 of the 22 largest charities in Australia by revenue are Christian.

This does not make Christians better people than atheists. Would not even be going down this path and giving this lecture were it not for the claim that they are worse. CS Lewis: Christians are not better than non Christians, they are just better than they would be without their Christianity.

A mass murderer and Mother Theresa can be Christians. But only 1 is logically compatible with Christianity. Only 1 is inspired by Christianity. Only 1 is continuing to sing the tune that Jesus sung.

Movement of 1 vote in the 2008 debate, towards the Christians. A young man told Dickson he’d changed his mind. Think of the one person you know who is really sincere about their faith, and ask if the world would be better off with or without their faith. He thought of his aunty, and the answer persuaded him. Challenge to spectators: Don’t just accept truisms from culture, instead see if it rings true in the lives of those around you. Challenge to Christians: Be the kind of person that changes minds on this question.

The Problem with "Universal" Values

Atheists regularly claim that they support "Universal values". This claim is often made in the context of a Christian arguing that they support "Christian values" like love, goodwill and caring for each other. The atheist will reply with something like this: "How dare you claim those as Christian values! I support those values too, and they've been around since before your ridiculous religion even got started". Sound familiar? The implication here is that those values fit just as comfortably within the atheist's way of thinking as they do within the Christian's way of thinking. I would like to challenge that implication.

Here I think we have a problem that we could call the social conditioning problem. We are all conditioned, to some degree by the time and place in which we live, and the influences of our society do impact on the lens with which we view the world. Everyone who lives in a Western Country lives in a location whose heritage has been strongly influenced by Christianity. So atheists have been socially conditioned to accept values that we take for granted in our Western way of thinking, which has historically been influenced by Christianity. In other words, a large part of the reason why the atheist claims that Christian values fit in with their way of thinking is because their way of thinking has been indirectly influenced by...you guessed it, Christianity. Even Richard Dawkins has referred to himself as a "cultural christian". Professor Edwin Judge makes the following comments in an interview entitled Christianity and the 21st Century:

"In Australia, very many of the ideals of the general culture, Australian values so-called, clearly come from that tradition (Edit note- ie: Christian tradition), and what the churches need to do, and what indeed the public needs to do is to inform itself better of the true sources of these things. The matter should be studied historically"

"We stand in this dual heritage from Greece and Israel but people have lost awareness of the sources of it".

"We must make the study of the Biblical tradition available to everybody, not just under church auspices but part of the commitment of our culture as a whole to the historical study of it not as a matter of personal belief but as a matter of explanation for why our values are such as they are. We should not accept that they can be declared, as people do, to be secular values".

He concludes:

"The true source of the value system needs to be clear. Everybody needs to know that, particularly people who have no church connection".

The atheist must account for the origin or basis of their values- do they have a consistent basis within their own worldview for exclusively supporting those values? Christians certainly do. The entire Bible has a consistent theme of putting others first and loving others, right through from the ten commandments to Jesus and through to the writings of Paul in the New Testament (for example see Romans 12: 9-21). When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, he replied with the following:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40).

But what about the atheist? Can the atheist naturalist honestly claim a similar consistent basis for their values within their own view of the world? I'm inclined to agree with John Dickson, who says the following:

if human beings are only accidents in an unknowing universe, how can this choice be anything more than a mere preference, a product of ‘feelings’ as atheist Bertrand Russell famously acknowledged? On what grounds can the atheist speak rationally of the high and equal value of the poor or the weak or the asylum seeker?

Dickson concludes:

only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism.

So do the values of love, compassion and goodwill really fit just as comfortably within the atheist's way of thinking as they do within the Christian's way of thinking? History and common sense would suggest otherwise.