The Impossible Faith by James Patrick Holding, Xulon Press, 2007
Christianity is often wrongly labeled a baseless faith, believed in the absence of evidence. Richard Dawkins and other peddlers of tomfoolery have made that claim for years, so it's excellent to see books available like The Impossible Faith (TIF), which convincingly argues that Christianity succeeded primarily because of the overwhelming evidence - mainly the resurrection - that backed up the teachings of Jesus and his disciples.
The book serves essentially as a primer on the social world of the Bible and it's aimed at an audience badly in need of understanding - average American Christians. After finishing TIF readers will have an easier time contextualizing difficult passages, for example, Jesus' teaching in Matthew 12:49-50 to forsake family if necessary. To the modern mindset such a command doesn't make much sense, but in light of the fact that identity in the ancient world was determined by which social groups individuals belonged to, the significance isn't as difficult to see. And as I mentioned recently, understanding events in context is an important part of fending off bad skeptical arguments.
My favorite chapter, however, consists of a discussion about Christianity's uniqueness. Skeptics have an irritating habit of treating all religions as if they are equal and easily dismissed. "What makes Christianity so special?" is the typical cry, and in my teenage years I couldn't give a good answer, which is probably the case for many new Christians. Holding answers by succinctly comparing Christianity with three of it's major competitors, Mithraism, Mormonism and Islam, illustrating just what makes the faith so special. Parenthetically, Holding's comparison does much to debunk the idea that Jesus was somehow copied from another ancient deity.
The online version of the book contains an argument that I find particularly interesting. Potential converts to Christianity in the first century were encouraged to test its claims. Why would the founders of a fledgling religion encourage people to try to debunk it's claims if they were making things up? As Holding puts it,
As if the apostles weren't making things hard enough for themselves by making extraordinary and testable claims in a social environment where it was difficult to keep secrets, they increased the odds significantly by actively encouraging people to check out their claims. Encouraging people to verify claims and seek proof is a guaranteed way of ensuring that your fledgling cult is a flop - unless, of course, those claims hold up under the scrutiny that your encouragement will undoubtedly generate.
But perhaps the best thing about TIF is the response it has elicited from critics. They would undoubtedly deny the strength of Holding's argument, but the fact that the brains of the modern atheist movement have responded since the book's initial release in 2004 says a lot. I don't think the rebuttals count for much, since they amount to "well, other ancient religions had a tough time too!" But I think reading TIF and the rebuttals, particularly Richard Carrier's book-length attempt, is well worth it.
Glenn Beck tells his audience to check his claims. That's why I always believe him and don't bother to check his claims, because honestly, who would say that if they didn't mean it? [/sarcasm]
ReplyDeleteOh and I think your summary of the response to Holding's book is a bit lame. How about, "Carrier rigorously shows how Holding presumptively gerrymanders and distorts the evidence to try and make Christianity look good."
Ben, don't be thick. The other part of the argument is that Christians were indeed telling the truth, so when people did check their claims they would be vindicated.
ReplyDeleteThe Beck analogy is all confused, since he encourages his audience to read the same conspiracy-themed "history" he reads. Additionally, Beck's talking to people who already agree with him; the fact that he says it is probably enough for them - not so for early Christians.
Thanks for the suggested changes to my review. But I actually have a copy of Carrier's rebuttal, and I'm underwhelmed by his attempt. He typically attempts to find parallels with other gods and religions without addressing the nuances of the argument. So I think "...other ancient religions had a tough time too!" aptly sums it up.
I think I covered that part backhandedly with my sarcasm about assuming people checked their claims and that we know that they found what Christians expected them to find. For all we know all the fact checkers decoverted and we never heard from them again because they no longer cared. Carrier makes that point plenty clear: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/checked.html As Carrier shows in his review of Acts, no one is portrayed as checking out the relevant facts of the resurrection. They believe because of speeches and miracles on the spot. Of course the problem is we have no way of knowing if Acts is exaggerating the miracle claims in addition to the supernaturalist's epistemic problem that "false apostles" were also supposedly able to do the same tricks. We have plenty of people running around performing "miracles" and exaggerating their claims todays. Hence, we have no basis to assume anything presented in the Bible is legit on these points. Your summary of Carrier's position touches none of this.
ReplyDeleteDid the potential converts check the facts or didn't they? How can you suggest that there's no evidence people were careful enough to investigate, then claim in the next sentence some did and rejected Christianity? It's also worth noting, as Holding did in his more recent rebuttal, that "Carrier's use of Acts fails on the simple point that, in most of the settings he appeals to, the facts were likely already a foregone conclusion and all that was needed was some instruction on what to do." Next.
ReplyDeleteThey believe because of speeches and miracles on the spot. Of course the problem is we have no way of knowing if Acts is exaggerating the miracle claims in addition to the supernaturalist's epistemic problem that "false apostles" were also supposedly able to do the same tricks.
I recommend Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of The Gospels, which pillories the argument that there are valid parallels between the miracles in the NT and other "false apostles."
Blomberg emphasizes the dissimilarity between the NT examples and others of the period as well as that the miracles are found in portions of the text typically considered reliable by most scholars, so they're likely accurate reports.