Although I’ve been busier than usual with my new job, I have taken time to engage a few Christians in dialogue. What’s different about the latest batch of religious apologists is their willingness to reject all we know about reality in attempts to justify their absurd beliefs.
When backed into a corner rhetorically, many moderately-educated or well-read Christians resort to postmodern responses to basic questioning of their position. I’ve encountered this on more than one occasion. When confronted with a demand for evidence, they question whether our most basic methods of verifying or falsifying evidence are legitimate. This particular approach is formally known as postmodernism. Postmodern philosophy emerged in the late 1800s and early 1900s as a criticism of the notion that there can be objective knowledge of the real world. Over time it has seeped into almost all areas of academia including social science and theology.
Verification and falsification are basic animal instincts. We observe an object or event and question, “Is it true or false?” There are many ways to verify or falsify. Many come naturally—while others are learned. One way we can validate our personal observations is with corroboration. “Did you just see what I saw?” “Did you hear that, too?” We ask these questions to make sure we’re not just seeing or hearing something that isn’t actually there. Often times, when there's a foreign noise, my dog will look in the direction of the noise, then look at me to see my reaction. This is a most basic and common activity for animals and humans. Verification is how courts, law enforcement, academia, and all areas dealing with truth claims get at the truth. We use verification methods in everyday life whether searching for someone, price-shopping products or services, flipping news stations when big events happen, or listening to presidential candidates speak of their accomplishments. To deny this is how the world works is to live as an imbecile.When confronted with a past event or something not readily observable, we depend on multiple sources of evidence. For instance, we can know with relative certainty that the Holocaust occurred, because of historical evidence, German and Allied state documents, both Nazi and Allied witnesses, and other information support the survivors’ claims. These multiple, independent sources corroborate the story. The validity of the story will vary based on the amount of evidence we have. The more independent witnesses and the more evidence we have supporting the claim, the more true we can say it is. The less corroborating evidence we have we can safely say it probably didn’t happen.
When a Christian is confronted with demands for evidence equal to that of the Holocaust, they realize their so-called evidence falls short. They cannot present corroborating contemporary, extra-Biblical sources for supernatural claims or even basic historical data to validate foundational events such as the supposed census during the time of Jesus' birth. There are no documents to support these claims outside the Gospels. For events that large during that era, we would assume there would be plenty of corroborating evidence. Since there is nothing to be found as of yet, we can assume the census and supernatural claims were made-up. When evidence is found, we can examine it, determine the validity of that particular claim, and maybe alter our assumptions. Verification is critical, because it helps us weed out baseless claims and get at the truth as best we can.Pseudo-intellectual Christians understand that lack of evidence is a problem for their position, but rather than address it honestly, they resort to the red herring of focusing on method rather than substance. They question whether verification/falsification is valid for determining the validity of a statement and are incapable of providing an alternative method for determining truth. This does not bolster their claims and only serves to make them appear silly.
That’s not to say that because something cannot be verified it didn’t happen or doesn’t exist. We just need to rigorously examine whether it is or isn't true before we can make a determination. If it cannot be solidly decided in either direction, we should reserve judgment until there is ample evidence. Because the foundational Christian claims regarding their god, supernatural events, and their religion cannot be determined due to very poor evidence or no evidence at all, I reject their claims as baseless and without merit. If a Christian (or any religious person) makes a claim that is outside our basic understanding of the world and reality, they MUST provide multiple sources of verifiable evidence. There is no alternative. As Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
