Lack of belief in gods

This video by QualiaSoup is well worth watching, especially if you're a believer who wants to understand what atheism actually is and what motivates atheists. The reality is usually very different to what preachers and religious spokespeople would have you believe.

We're all going to die!

This is simply inspirational. If you want to read this for yourself, it's the opening of Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins.

 

Daft things said to atheists part 10: "Nazis were atheists..."

This is one of the stupidest things anyone has ever said to atheists, but I can almost guarantee that if you've been an atheist for any length of time, you will have come across this one in some form. It's usually phrased something like this: "Atheism leads to great evil. Just look at Hitler and the Nazis - they were atheists, and look at all the evil things they did!"

It's generally linked with the idea that morality only comes from God, and that unbelievers therefore have no moral code.

Quite apart from falling foul of Godwin's Law, this one really annoys me. It annoys me for two main reasons. Firstly, because members of my family put their lives at risk and saw their friends die fighting the Nazis in the 1940s, and secondly because those who parrot this sort of thing clearly haven't done any actual research into the matter, or even some basic thinking before opening their mouths.

First of all, Adolf Hitler was a Catholic. In public at least, he referred to himself as a Christian. (It is a matter of historical record that, to its shame, the Catholic Church never excommunicated Hitler.) His private beliefs are the subject of debate, but it is a matter of historical record that he spoke out against atheists.

Even if Hitler himself had been an atheist, however, that would not have changed the fact that the overwhelming majority of German people in Hitler's time, and thus the overwhelming majority of both the Nazi party and the German army, were Christians - either Lutheran or Catholic. In fact, Wehrmacht soldiers had the motto Gott mit uns ("God with us") on their belt buckles.

It may be hard for Christians to accept, but the atrocities carried out by Germany during the Second World War were carried out by people who overwhelmingly identified as Christians.

So am I saying that Christianity caused those atrocities? Well, it's true that correlation does not necessarily equal causation, which is why even if Hitler and the entire German population really had been atheists, that wouldn't constitute proof that their atheism was what caused their atrocities. One might as well blame such atrocities on vegetarians, since Hitler was apparently a vegetarian himself. Similarly with Christianity: we cannot assume that because the people who carried out these atrocities were mostly Christians, the Christian religion was therefore the cause of these atrocities. Actual evidence would be required beyond the correlation of beliefs and actions.

Unfortunately for those who would excuse Christianity entirely, there is in fact evidence that at least some aspects of Christianity helped to create the fertile antisemitic soil in which the seeds of the Holocaust were planted and grew so vigorously.

It was not until the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) that the Catholic Church repudiated the belief that the Jewish people bore collective responsibility and guilt for the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Before that, Jews were persecuted for centuries by Catholics as "Christ killers". Many atrocities against Jews took place with the official or unofficial approval of the Catholic Church.

Also, perhaps the biggest source of German antisemitism was a horribly antisemitic treatise called On the Jews and their Lies by Martin Luther. For those who are unaware, Luther was the father of the Protestant Reformation and of the Lutheran Church. He is regarded by many as a hero of the Christian faith, one of the great theologians and a true man of God. His poisonous treatise recommends that Jewish synagogues, schools and houses be burned to the ground, their religious writings taken away and burned, and that Jews should be used for slave labour, among other unsavoury suggestions. To anyone with even the most basic knowledge about the holocaust, these recommendations of Luther should sound horribly familiar.

If Martin Luther himself, father of the Lutheran Church (and, ultimately, of Protestantism) taught that Jews should be treated like this, is it any wonder that the German people were so willing to follow through with such actions during the Holocaust? It may be hard for Christians to swallow, but a large portion of the blame for the Holocaust and Nazi atrocities towards the Jews can be laid squarely at the door of one of the "heroes" of their faith.

That being the case, claiming that Nazi atrocities were carried out because Hitler and the Nazis were atheists is not only offensive; it is utterly stupid and self-defeating.

Daft things said to atheists part 9: "I can't imagine it..."

Perhaps the commonest forms of this daft thing that Christians often say to atheists are as follows.:

"Why would you want to live in a world without God?"
"I can't imagine living in a world without God."

"I want to believe that I'll see my loved ones again when I die."
Or the much sadder version: "My belief that I'll see my dead loved one again is all that keeps me going."


It's not about what I want, or what you or I can or cannot imagine. Despite what we can imagine, despite what we may or may not want, God is either real or he is not. Our desires and the limits of our imagination have nothing at all to do with it.

Why would I want to live in a world without God? Well, I don't actually have that choice. If there is no God, as the lack of evidence for any kind of God whatsoever suggests, then the choices are simply to live in the world without God or to commit suicide; however, this world is a pretty good place whether or not there's a God behind it, and the privilege of being alive should never be belittled. On the whole, I like being alive, able to see, hear, taste, feel, love, and all the other things I won't be able to do when I'm dead.

If you can't imagine a world without God, then you are simply showing that, like all humans, your imagination is limited. You believe in God because you were raised to believe; that has no bearing on whether or not God is actually real.

You may well want to believe that you'll see your loved ones again in heaven when you die. Hey, I'm with you all the way - I'd love to believe that. In fact, I'd give anything to see my father, my grandparents and various other people I've loved and lost again. The problem is that our desires don't change reality at all. We may want to believe something, but that doesn't make it so. I'd love to believe I'll see my dead loved ones again, but there is no evidence that would suggest any such thing will actually happen, while there is plenty of evidence to suggest that my consciousness, the thing that makes me who I am, will be snuffed out just like my voice when I die.

If your belief that you'll see your loved one again is all that keeps you going, I feel very sad for you. However, speaking for myself, I'd rather know the uncomfortable truth than believe a comforting lie. If your loved one is dead, he or she is in no pain, and is not suffering in any way. Also, he or she will always be there in your memory. That's not very comforting, I know - there is no way to relieve the pain of grief - but it's the reality that we have to live with. There is no evidence that there is anything more than this life.

Whether or not there is a God (just like any other aspect of reality) is not dependent upon our imaginations, our desires or what we think the world should be like. The balance of evidence suggests that there is most probably no God and no afterlife. We just need to get used to that fact and make the most of the only life we know we will have, in this flawed but absolutely amazing world in which we live.

The science of derp

It has been decided by specialists in the field of derp (oh, OK, by me and Graeme Green) that derp should henceforth have its own SI unit, the Herp (Hp).

The fundamental particle of derp is the moron, which has a derp value equal to the Green-Taylor constant at 1x10^-50 Hp.

Quantum Derpology is a new and exciting field of research, which requires further input from a wider knowledge base.

Suggested approximate values so far suggested include:

antivaxers: 1 mHp
homeopathy:15.6 Hp
astrology: 45Hp
Islam: 650 kHp
Christianity: 625 mHp
Scientology: 1.2MHp.

Does anyone have any further insights to offer in the exciting fields of Derpology and Quantum Derpology?
I think I may have to include Herp values in future posts ;o)

Shit Christians say to atheists

Atheists: how many of these have you heard? If you've been an atheist for any length of time, especially if you were once a Christian, my guess is you'll have come across most of these.

 

"Militant" atheism

Militant, but definitely not an atheist.

It seems that every so often theists throw out the accusation that certain atheists, myself included, are "militant". In fact, that term seems to have become quite widespread. This topic has happened to come to my attention quite a bit of late, most recently due to Dylan's blog post on the topic (click here to read a translation if you don't understand Welsh).

As Dylan says (translated):

In all other cases, you have to do something very serious to be labelled as "militant". "Militant" Muslims do things like putting on a belt full of C4 before walking into a cafe in Tel Aviv to kill as many Jews as possible. Some "militant" Christians murder doctors who perform abortions. For an atheist to be rewarded with the "militant" label, however, it seems that all he or she has to do is write a few words to the effect that religion isn't necessarily all good.

When a Christian pastor states from the pulpit that those who don't follow Jesus will go to hell, is he being militant? No - he's simply making a statement that is in accord with what he believes. When he says that atheists are lost souls without hope or direction, is he being militant? No. Again, he's just publicly stating what he believes. I believe he's utterly wrong, but he's far from militant. If the same pastor were to encourage his congregation to intimidate non-Christians with violence or kill atheists, then he would be worthy of the title "militant". Otherwise he's anything but. Offensive, yes; odious, perhaps. Militant? Definitely not.

What about a Muslim who believes that those who don't accept that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet have gone astray and earn the wrath of Allah? Is he or she being militant? Not at all. It's just a statement of belief. If that person goes a step further and decides to become the instrument of Allah's wrath by blowing up a bus full of Israeli schoolkids or flying a plane into a skyscraper, then he or she is being militant.

And yet, religious people still refer to me and people like me as militant atheists. What have we done to earn that label? Speaking for myself, I blog about atheism in a pretty no-nonsense fashion. I say things as I see them and call a spade a spade. I post lots of atheism-related material on Facebook. Why? Because it's a topic about which I feel strongly, and one that interests me. Does that make me militant? I think not.

I'd love to see religion go away. I'd even go so far as to call myself an anti-theist. However, I also have a strong belief in freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Does that make me militant? I think not.

It seems to me that what people regard as militant is the way I attack religious beliefs. However, the fact is that I draw a very strong distinction between religious beliefs and religious believers. I treat the two differently. I don't think that religious beliefs deserve any automatic reverence or respect, and more than, say, political beliefs do. As far as I'm concerned, both are open for debate and even ridicule if it's warranted.  I will attack someone's beliefs until the cows come home, but I will never attack that person. I may ridicule the idea that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, but I will not punch someone in the face or burn down his house for believing it. I may think the idea that Muhammad was a prophet is ludicrous, but I will not discriminate against someone who believes it in the workplace.

Some religious believers find it hard to see the distinction between attacking their beliefs and attacking them as persons, but to me there is all the difference in the world.

So, am I militant in any way about my atheism? Absolutely not. However, I will continue to speak out against what I see as the dangers and idiocies of religion.  At most, that makes me an outspoken atheist.

Another term I've heard used is "evangelical atheist". This is a label that is sometimes even used by fellow-atheists, and I can see where they're coming from. However, the use of the term comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "evangelical".

"Evangelical" in a Christian context means someone who takes the Bible as their source of authority; it comes from the word evangel, or gospel. An evangelical is someone whose focus is on the Bible and the preaching of the Christian gospel. There is simply no equivalent to this in atheism, as we have no holy books and no fundamental beliefs.

The word "evangelical" is often misused to mean "evangelistic", which is perhaps closer to the truth. However, even this term has its problems. I speak out against religion, but I'm not trying to make converts (or, if you prefer, deconverts). In fact, if someone turned away from their religion because of me, I wouldn't be happy about it. Why? Because they would just be substituting me as an alternative authority figure to their priest, pastor, imam or whatever. I don't deserve to be in such an exalted position. No-one does. That's why I don't preach my beliefs on street corners or make impassioned pleas in an atmosphere of heightened emotion and subconscious suggestion for people to raise their hands and accept reason into their hearts. For someone to change his or her beliefs because an authority figure told them to or because he or she is swayed by an eloquent preacher or orator is the very worst thing that could happen, and I will have no part in it. (I frequently did when I was a Christian, to my shame, but no longer.)

If, however, someone chose to abandon religion at the end of a process of thinking things through for themselves because I made them think, I'd be very happy. By profession I'm a teacher, and education is important to me. If I can influence people to use reason, logic and critical thinking rather than accepting the word of their minister or a holy book, then I will have achieved my objective. If that leads to them becoming atheists, so much the better. My aim is to spread critical thinking, not atheism as a faith position. True atheism is not based on faith in any way, not even faith in Richard Dawkins (as some Christians like to claim).

So, am I militant? Definitely not. Am I evangelical? Not since I left Christianity. What I am, and what Christians don't like, is unwilling to sit back while religion basks in undeserved privilege and reverence. I'm an atheist, an outspoken atheist, and I'm proud of that fact. If more atheists would stand up and make their views known then religion would have less influence in our society, which would definitely be a good thing.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? (Part 6)

This is the sixth and final part of my series based on the booklet Verdict On The Empty Tomb by Val Grieve.

Click here for part 1.

Click here for part 2.

Click here for part 3.

Click here for part 4.

Click here for part 5.

Chapter 6: Real Evidence

The direct evidence of the disciples that they saw Christ, coupled with the strong chain of circumstantial evidence we have just examined, amount to extremely strong evidence in favour of the miracle of the Resurrection.

As we have seen in previous chapters, this statement is clearly false. The “evidence” offered is extremely unreliable at best, so there is no good reason to accept it. Despite the author’s repeated assertions to the contrary, no unbiased jury in the land would consider this as sufficient evidence to prove the resurrection of Jesus beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, it would not even be sufficient evidence to make the claim of a miracle even slightly plausible.

But to this evidence we can also add what lawyers call real evidence. In a court of law real evidence is evidence which can be produced for the inspection of the court. Goods which have been stolen or a gun which has been found in the possession of the accused is real evidence. What, then, is the real evidence for the Resurrection of Christ? The answer is that the real evidence is Christ himself. If Christ rose from the dead, this means he is living today and that we can experience his power in our lives. To my mind this is the greatest proof of all.

If real evidence is something tangible and physical that can be produced for inspection, where is the tangible and physical person of Jesus for us to inspect? Of all the claims the author makes in the booklet, this one is the most obviously laughable. Of course we cannot see, hear or touch Jesus, because he is not actually here for us to see, hear or touch. So if Jesus is not here physically then how can he be described as evidence for his own resurrection? The very idea is ridiculous. Of course, the Christian has a ready-made excuse for this: he or she will claim that after his resurrection, Jesus ascended bodily into heaven. This suggests that heaven is a place somewhere in the sky where physical, flesh-and-blood humans can live. Where is it? Conveniently, nobody knows. What proof is there of its existence? None.

The elephant in the room, which we have considered previously but to which the author never alludes, is that there is no real evidence anywhere that anyone who has been dead (by which I mean real, brain-stem death) has ever come back to life. In effect, Christians are guilty of the logical fallacy of special pleading when they claim that Jesus came back to life two days after he died. There are no other examples of dead people coming back to life, so why should it be assumed that such a thing is even possible, let alone likely? Every single person who has ever died is evidence against the idea that dead people come back to life, as none of them are now alive.

Even if we were to allow, against all reason and evidence, that the “evidence” asserted by the author was actually reliable, we would still run up against this brick wall: dead people do not rise again, and there is no good reason to insist on an exception to this rule for one man from Nazareth who lived in the first century.

A walk through any cemetery will confirm the fact that is most inconvenient for Christians, and that forms the obvious conclusion to this whole discussion: dead people stay dead. There is no reason at all to insist that Jesus of Nazareth was any different.

Chapter 7: Your verdict

This final chapter is nothing more than an exhortation to people to believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead and is alive today, and to accept him as their Lord and Saviour. Given that there is clearly no evidence at all for the resurrection of Jesus, to do so would clearly be ridiculous for anyone who has a grasp of the facts at hand.

I am under no illusion that my criticism of the alleged evidence that Jesus rose from the dead will sway the opinion of hard-core Christian believers. No argument or logic could do that, however true and sound, because their beliefs are not based on argument and logic in the first place. Rather, they are based on a combination of childhood indoctrination, emotion and unquestioned cultural norms.

However, it may be that some more open-minded Christians who read this short series of blog posts on the subject are willing to examine their beliefs from the perspective of an outsider and to look at them as objectively as possible. Of such people I would simply ask that they apply the same rigorous standards of evidence and objectivity to their own beliefs as they would apply to those of another religion. I have no doubt that if this is indeed done objectively, people will begin to see that their own religious beliefs are no less ridiculous and bear no more relation to reality than those of others.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? (Part 5)

This is the fifth part of my series based on the booklet Verdict On The Empty Tomb by Val Grieve.

Click here for part 1.
Click here for part 2.
Click here for part 3.
Click here for part 4.

Chapter 5: Circumstantial Evidence

The witness of the disciples is extremely strong direct evidence for Christ’s Resurrection, and it would be accepted in any court of law.

As we saw in the last chapter, this is certainly untrue. Plagiarised accounts based on oral traditions and stories hardly constitute firm evidence, or indeed any evidence. The only thing this is evidence for is the way that religious believers are so able to compartmentalise their minds that they don’t realise they are applying hugely different standards of evidence and intellectual integrity to their religious beliefs than to every other area of life.

Few, if any, religious believers are persuaded that their beliefs are true because of evidence. Rather, they are conditioned to believe from the cradle by the same ongoing process of indoctrination by which we all absorb our native culture and language. As such, religious beliefs usually go without any form of critical examination because they are “obviously” and “self-evidently” true. This is the case whichever religious community one belongs to. It is possible to break through this protective layer of culture to examine one’s beliefs critically, but it is certainly not easy. Indeed, most believers are unable to do so.

Although few believers are aware of it on a conscious level, the fact that their starting-point is the assumption that their religion is true means that they are predisposed to disbelieve or ignore contradictory evidence. At the same time, any “evidence” that seems to reinforce their beliefs, however flimsy, is generally seized upon and not examined too critically. So we have seen in the last chapter with the supposed “direct” and “eye-witness” accounts found in the Gospels (which, as we have seen, are nothing of the sort).

The author now moves on to what he claims is circumstantial evidence, which he places in four categories: The life of Jesus, change in the disciples, the existence of Christianity and the experience of Christians.

1. The Life of Jesus

In any court of law, favourable evidence … by witnesses from the other side would carry great weight. By common consent Christ was unique, the greatest man who ever lived. This being so, it is not so difficult to believe that he rose from the dead. Christ’s teaching and life demand the miracle of his Resurrection.

We could discuss the author’s mischaracterisation of Einstein and others as he quote-mines their recorded sayings to make it seem as though even atheists think Jesus was special, but the juiciest fruit in this section is so low-hanging that there is no need to pick the other fruit.

It is certainly not a matter of common consent that Jesus was either unique or the greatest man who has ever lived (except, of course, among Christians), but even were we to concede, for the sake of argument, that such was the case, the author’s claim that his supposedly exemplary life and teaching therefore make it more likely that he would rise from the dead is simply absurd. A good man, even a great man, is no more likely to rise from the dead than a criminal. The character and life of Jesus do not constitute even circumstantial evidence for the resurrection; the author really is clutching at straws in claiming otherwise.

Even though there are indeed some atheists (myself not included) who think that the teachings of Christ are extraordinary and that his life was exemplary, as the author claims, this also is not evidence that he was any more likely to rise from the dead. The most that can be gained from such “evidence”, even if it is taken at face value, is that Jesus may have been an extraordinary man. This evidence can in no way be deduced to infer that Jesus is not, in fact, dead.

2. Change in the disciples

Jesus’ crucifixion was shattering to his disciples. It left them stunned, leaderless and in complete despair. All their hopes were ended. But then something happened. Suddenly these same disciples were utterly changed. They became completely different. Peter, their leader, on the night before the crucifixion had three times denied with oaths and cursings that he ever knew Jesus. Yet some 50 days later on the Day of Pentecost this same Peter risked his life by boldly telling the whole of Jerusalem that he had seen Jesus risen from the dead. Shortly afterwards peter was imprisoned because of his stand, and eventually died for his faith in Christ. What changed Peter from the coward that he was to the great disciple that he became? Peter’s answer is that he met the risen Christ. Nothing short of this will do.

The stories we have about Peter and the other disciples come from the same unreliable oral sources as the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life (as discussed in the last chapter), so we cannot rely upon their historical accuracy. However, even if we grant for the sake of argument that the story as outlined above is indeed true, and that there was indeed a great change in Peter’s attitude towards Jesus, the only thing that proves is that he thought Jesus had risen from the dead. This has no bearing on whether or not it actually happened.

It is also undeniably true that people change all the time. Previously quiet, unassuming, moderate Muslim students have become radicalised and ended up as suicide bombers or gone on the rampage with automatic weapons in the name of Islam, for example. Yet I doubt that there are very many believers in Jesus’ resurrection who would argue that this points towards the claims of radical Islam being in any way true. As with these young suicide bombers, so with Peter – the change in his lifestyle, ways of operating and level of radicality in no way form evidence that Jesus was alive again after he had died. It simply demonstrates that people can change.

3. The existence of Christianity

The existence of Christianity is a historical fact which demands an explanation.

The explanation is not that difficult to come by. Christianity began as a tiny minority sect of Judaism and was spread to the non-Jewish, Greek-speaking populace of the eastern Roman Empire by Paul of Tarsus and his followers. It continued to be a minority sect, though of increasingly non-Jewish character, until it was adopted by the Roman emperor Constantine as his religion and, in 313 CE it began to gain popularity after Constantine proclaimed that this previously reviled and persecuted minority sect would now be officially tolerated. In 380 CE, Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, then in 392 he banned all pagan worship. Later in the fourth century, pagans were persecuted ruthlessly by Christians as a result of this legislation.

Without the official backing of the Roman establishment and the consequent semi-official (and official) persecution of those who followed other religions, it is doubtful that Christianity would have survived to the present day, let alone become a major world religion. It is a fact that is too often ignored by Christian believers who criticize Islam for its violent beginnings, but from the fourth century onwards Christianity was often spread by the sword.

How is the existence this historically interesting but morally bankrupt religion in any way evidence, even loose circumstantial evidence, that Jesus rose from the dead? It is not, any more than the existence of Islam proves that Muhammad flew on a winged horse to Jerusalem and from there ascended into heaven. The very idea is ridiculous.

4. The experience of Christians

From the first Easter Sunday until today there is an unbroken succession of millions who can witness that their lives have been revolutionized by contact with the living Christ. Rich and poor, educated and uneducated, people of different backgrounds, nationalities, cultures and temperaments unite in uniform testimony to the Resurrection … Evidence like this, which could be multiplied a million times, cannot be ignored; it is contemporary and personal testimony to the power of the living Christ. The experience of Christians all down the ages endorses the miracle of the Resurrection of Christ.

Inner feelings and personal experiences count for little. Our minds are easily fooled and our emotions are easily swayed by suggestion, group dynamics and the expectations of our peers. In addition, such personal testimonies of changed lives and conviction of the truth of religious beliefs occur in nearly all religions. Is that evidence that they are all true? Hardly. It is simply evidence that we humans are easily fooled, and not nearly as objective about reality as we imagine ourselves to be.
Click here for part 6.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? (Part 4)

This is the fourth part of my series based on the booklet Verdict On The Empty Tomb by Val Grieve.

Click here for part 1.
Click here for part 2.
Click here for part 3.

Chapter 4: The Direct Evidence of the Disciples

On at least eleven occasions more than 550 saw the risen Christ. He appeared five times on the day of his Resurrection. Mary Magdalene was the first to see him – outside the tomb early in the morning. Soon afterwards she met him again, along with Mary the mother of James, Joanna and others, as they hurried back to Jerusalem. Peter then met Christ and was restored after his denial. Cleopas and his companion met him on the road to Emmaus in the afternoon. Finally, Christ appeared to the disciples in the Upper Room and had Supper with them.

As we saw in the post on the previous chapter, the idea that over 500 people saw Jesus risen from the dead at one time is based on the writings of Paul, and is nothing but reported hearsay. This cannot be taken seriously as evidence.

As for the other accounts of people seeing Jesus after his death, these are not eyewitness accounts either. As we have noted before, the earliest Gospel account, that of Mark, was not written by an eyewitness; Matthew and Luke were largely plagiarised from Mark and another source, though they added their own (entirely contradictory in some cases) details as well. John’s Gospel was written far later, at the end of the 1^st century, when nobody who had met Jesus was still alive. These accounts of Jesus are based on oral traditions, and the miracle stories contained in oral traditions are commonplace. There were many other charismatic preachers and “messiahs” around in the first century, and the accounts we have of them also include miracles. If these oral traditions are not reliable, why should those recorded in the Gospels be regarded as any more reliable?

Their accounts of the Resurrection are independent of each other. On a superficial reading of them, there may appear to be points of disagreement, but closer examination reveals that they are complementary and not contradictory.

On the contrary, as we have already seen, the first three Gospels are anything but independent. Matthew and Luke plagiarised Mark (or, if we wish to use more conciliatory language, “used Mark as a source”) and another document, now lost, commonly known as “Q”, which was probably a list of the sayings of Jesus. Given that the first three Gospels share source material, the differences between them must have been deliberately inserted by the respective authors, often to make a theological point. In fact, the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in these three Gospels are not only different, but contradictory. Considering that they all used the same source materials, which are repeated verbatim in all three Gospels in many instances, it’s hard to believe that these differences are based on actual recollection of events. Rather, it is more probable that none of these Gospel writers actually knew first-hand what really happened. In other words, they were simply recording hearsay or making things up themselves, which makes them extremely unreliable as historical witnesses.

The Gospel of John does not seem to share source documents with the other three Gospels, and as we would expect its accounts are even more different and contradictory when compared with the accounts of the other three Gospels. This is entirely what would be expected from a document that was written after everyone who had ever met Jesus was dead and was based solely on stories passed from person to person innumerable times, getting embellished and changed in the process.

So what we really have in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are only two independent attestations, neither of them written by an eyewitness. That is a very poor standard of evidence.

The evidence of the witnesses is empirical, ie it is based on observation and experiment and not on theory … Their three highest senses – sight, hearing and touch – were all involved. What they saw was real.

I wonder what experiments that author thinks were performed on Jesus! As we have seen, the Gospel accounts of Jesus were not eyewitness accounts, but based on stories passed from person to person orally over the course of many decades. Their evidence is very far from empirical. It is shaky at best, based on hearsay and folk tales that sprung up around the legend of a charismatic preacher named Jesus.

The witnesses corroborate each other … This is what we have here: the evidence of John, Peter, Thomas, James, Mary Magdalene, Paul and others as to how they met the risen Christ. Each told the same thing in his or her own way, the evidence of one backing up the evidence of the others.

The “evidence” of John, Peter, Thomas, James and Mary Magdalene can be safely dismissed because they are recorded only in the flawed, hearsay-based Gospel accounts. Many Christians would surely object that these accounts cannot possibly be wrong, as they are part of the Bible and thus the Word of God, but if in fact Jesus did not rise from the dead then the Bible accounts cannot be God’s word. Thus we cannot simply assume the reliability of the biblical texts unless we can first demonstrate that Jesus really did rise from the dead. To do otherwise would simply be a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning: “The Bible is true. Why? Because Jesus rose from the dead. How do we know Jesus rose from the dead? Because the Bible is true.” Neither of those statements should be automatically assumed without evidence.

Paul’s account of meeting Jesus comes from a different source than the Gospels. However, what are we to make of someone who falls down, sees a blinding light and sees visions of Jesus that nobody else can see or hear? These days, such a person would no doubt be diagnosed as having a psychotic episode or a severe epileptic seizure. This makes Paul’s account unreliable too.

The fact that the author says that Paul is “…the greatest witness of all for the truth of the Resurrection” betrays the fact that he actually has very little to go on by way of reliable witnesses, as his chief witness is a man who suffered from psychotic episodes in which he was convinced God was speaking to him!


In the next post in this series, we shall examine chapter 5: Circumstantial Evidence.


Click here for part 5.
Click here for part 6.