A guy at work one day made a comment like this, ‘Yeah, but there are other people who are just as passionate about what they believe as you are’. And he was right, but unfortunately, passion does not validate what we believe. Passion is only a by-product of belief. What about sincerity? It’s a good character quality, but it too may not justify what we believe.
During the 1800s cholera broke out a number of times in London. This disease, especially in the summer of 1854, brought two British investigators, William Farr and John Snow, to prominence. William Farr sincerely believed cholera was an airborne disease caused by ‘miasma’ (bad air). John Snow, on the other hand, believed cholera was caused by contaminated water. Both were sincere men and both had reasons for what they believed. But unfortunately for Londoners, the British authorities sided with William Farr. So while being cautious of the ‘bad air’ they continued to drink contaminated water which in turn cost the lives of some 12,000 people. In spite of what William Farr sincerely believed, the truth was cholera is a waterborne disease.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. — John Adams
Most people are sincere about what they believe, otherwise, why would they believe it? London’s cholera outbreaks clearly demonstrate, particularly for William Farr, that you can be passionately and sincerely wrong. When it comes to what we believe, it’s not about passion or sincerity. The big question is: is it true? Truth is the determining factor that validates what we believe.
We need the truth. Our physical existence depends on the fact that the laws of physics are true and operate in a precise way. A marriage relationship depends on truth to exist and those based on lies will disintegrate. Scientists working on disease control need to find the truth about how the disease functions or no cure can be found. The same principle applies to the mechanic who fixes your car. It’s the truth that will rectify the problem and get you behind the wheel again. I hope you can appreciate the importance of truth in your daily life. It is a priceless commodity and vital to each one of us. Therefore, we would be wise to learn more about it.
Truth has some characteristics that may shock you, especially if you’ve been taken captive by the politically correct movement that has engulfed society. The first thing we must appreciate about truth is this: it is totally intolerant. The truth will not embrace an opposing view or anything that is false. Indeed, it is this characteristic that helps us define something as being true. If truth were tolerant of everything, nothing would be false. If nothing were false, what’s the meaning of true? The truth was certainly intolerant of William Farr’s point of view regarding cholera. His belief in miasma didn’t change the truth about contaminated water, so people continued to die unabated.
The truth is and always has been, exclusive - there is only one way. For example, it would be nice, fair and politically correct to say there are many other ways to avoid cholera. But truth is exclusive and the only way is not to drink contaminated water. Truth is a separate entity and does not bend to suit our prejudices, dislikes and opinions. John Snow didn’t invent the truth about cholera and contaminated water; he merely recognised it. That truth was pre-existing and separate from him. It is imperative that we realise this - truth does not side with us; we must side with it or suffer the consequences. The reality is truth will have its way with each one of us.
The truth about truth doesn’t only apply to things like disease control and fixing cars. It applies to everything pertaining to life, and includes what we believe about God. You may say everyone is wrong about God, but truth will not let you be tolerant and say everyone (with differing opinions and world-views) is right. You can deny a truth claim, but you can’t claim truth is unknowable (if that statement is true then it’s false and if it’s false it has just proved the opposite to be true - truth is knowable). If eastern religions and new-agers really believed that ‘all ways lead to God’, they should display the tolerance they are so proud of, abandon their way and join someone else. But they won’t do that because secretly they are intolerant and believe their way is right. And they are free to think that, but that does not validate what they believe. Thinking something is right doesn’t make it true.
To make an exclusive truth claim is not arrogance; it simply means the person making the claim understands the truth about truth. Jesus Christ knew exactly what He was doing when He made this statement in John 14:6, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life’. No other religious leader, demagogue, ruler or the like in history has ever uttered such a lofty statement. Why? Because once a truth claim is made it must be supported by sound reasoning and evidence. If I were to claim that God did not exist or that I could fly by flapping my arms but provided no solid proof, you could rightly conclude that I was lying or insane. The person who makes a claim has the burden of proof and must be able to defend it. Jesus was able to make such a complete and deliberate statement about being the way to life eternal because He was the truth. His claim to being God in the flesh was backed up by the way He lived, what He taught, His miracles, His death, and most importantly, His resurrection.
If this universe has design, and it does, then it also has a designer God. And if the truth about Jesus Christ is reliable as history indicates, then you will be subject to it whether you believe or not. William Farr sincerely believed in miasma but it did not change the truth about cholera. Your response to ‘the truth’ is of utmost importance, both now and for eternity. You must side with truth or you will suffer the consequences. Just as not drinking contaminated water was the only way to avoid cholera, the only way to avoid the hell that is eternity without God’s love is to accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour and Lord. Accept the truth about ‘the truth’ or accept the consequences. It’s your decision.
I agree that thinking something is right does not make it true. On the other hand, firstly, not to be picky but tolerance is different to acceptance. Even if you accept that we know some truths, you cannot claim that we know all truth. To tolerate another person’s opinion is to admit that there are things out there, not that are UNKNOWABLE, but that are not yet known by most, if not all people. Moreover, it is impossible to know everything, therefore any claim you make is based on a very small pool of evidence.
Your argument for the truth of Jesus claim is based on the complete accuracy of the Bible. Yet you approach the Bible as evidence for “history”. Your assumption is that the Bible is infallible, yet if the bible is approached as a history book, it must come under the same rules as any other history book, all of which give once again only a small slice of the picture, and many of which are proved as giving a heavily biased opinion, to the point of falsehood. As you say, something isn’t true just because you want it to be. If you can provide me the “evidence” of the complete accuracy of the Bible I will willingly accept your premise.
You have asked a valid question regarding the authenticity of the Bible. I too have asked it, but my response may be different from what you are expecting. Firstly, are you an honest sceptic? By this I mean, do you really want the truth or are you just looking for more ‘evidence’ to fit with what you have already made up your mind about? A number of times I haven’t had to answer the question because my first response was to ask the questioner, ‘Do you really want to know or are you just being antagonistic?’ I mean you no disrespect by saying these things, but as you can see, it makes a huge difference to the discussion. Many of the sceptics I encounter aren’t so much interested in truth as they are in their own prejudices. They only want to justify what they already think. When the will is wrong you can reason anything. Richard Weaver (University of Chicago) was correct when he said, ‘If the disposition is wrong, reason increases maleficence; if it is right, reason orders and furthers the good.’ To be an honest sceptic means you will accept the truth even if it turns out to be different from what you expected.
Your question is valid but the criterion is unreasonable. You demand ‘complete’ evidence before you will accept my first premise. Let me apply the same rules to you. Have you got complete evidence to prove the Bible is inaccurate? Or maybe it’s more appropriate to ask, what do you believe? Have you got absolute proof for it? The truth is we don’t have to know everything to know something! What we don’t know doesn’t necessarily discredit what we do. A lack of knowledge has more to do with ignorance; it has nothing to do with the tolerance issue.
So what is a fair criterion? I think you should approach this question the same as our justice system, is it beyond reasonable doubt? This is a far more realistic approach as it doesn’t require that we have all knowledge in order to establish something. If ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is the fairest system for determining someone’s fate in a court of law, then let’s be fair and approach your charge regarding the Bible’s authenticity the same way. If you don’t agree, then I reserve the right to demand ‘complete’ evidence of everything you believe.
I have good reason to believe the Bible’s authenticity and accuracy; it is way beyond reasonable doubt. I have no problem submitting the Bible to the same rules as any other history book. An honest investigation will reveal that no other book can compete with it, none. Richard Ostling of Time magazine admitted that nothing in ancient literature could match the Bible in documentation. Bruce Metzger of Princeton writes, ‘There is no body of ancient literature in the world that enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament’. And this from F.F. Bruce: ‘The works of several ancient authors are preserved to us by the thinnest possible thread of transmission… In contrast… the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of his material.’
World renowned archaeologist Sir William Ramsay said this concerning the New Testament writer Luke: ‘Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy… this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians… Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness’. Roman historian, A.N. Sherwin-White, regarding the book of Acts, made this comment: ‘Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted’. I could go on to build my case with hard facts that attest to the Bible’s historical accuracy and more quotes from other great archaeologists and historians but somehow I think this ‘pool of evidence’ will never be big enough for you.
So if you are an honest sceptic, I’m going to recommend that you purchase a book called ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’ by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek (Crossway Books). You are probably thinking, ‘Yeah, but the authors are biased!’ I found it interesting that in your response you want me to provide evidence, even though you have already made up your mind regarding the ‘heavily biased opinion’ of the New Testament writers. Your added ‘to the point of falsehood’ sounds to me like you are a little biased yourself. So why should you read a book authored by people who obviously now believe in God? Because it’s only fair that you do and it’s your best chance of finding the truth. Let me illustrate.
We have never met; apart from two paragraphs I hardly know a thing about you. Just say I was assigned to write a paper on you that would be released to the media. Would you be happy if my only source of information was people who are hostile to you? Would the public really get to know the whole truth? It wouldn’t be right or fair, would it? Yet I can imagine this is exactly how you have gathered the majority of the information that has formed your ridged opinion regarding the Bible; from hostile sources (secular media, teachers, uni lecturers etc…). I could be wrong, but there is a good chance you have never read a book like the one I have recommended. The interesting thing about books like ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’ is most of the time they are written by people who started out as atheists and agnostics.
For me to present an accurate paper about you I would have to talk to someone who loves and respects you. I could trust their evidence because they have the right disposition. They would respectfully tell the good and the bad. This would be my best chance to discover the whole truth. Believe it or not, love is the key to all this. Only the person who loves the truth can truly find it. A dishonest sceptic does not love the truth but an honest sceptic has every chance of finding it.