Punctum Saliens

Last week, I dusted off my copy of Josh McDowell’s book, Answers to Tough Questions about the Christian Faith. McDowell is a Christian apologist. Apologetics is the field of study involved with the systematic defense of a position using historical evidence, philosophical arguments, and scientific investigation. So McDowell, in his book, attempts to logically prove all kinds of things about Christianity: Does God exist? Did Jesus exist? Did Jesus really perform miracles?

I totally understand McDowell’s desire to write such a book and defend Christianity. I think he was basically trying to do exactly what I am trying to do with this blog-o-mine: articulate what he believes and why he believes it. And for this I do not fault him in the least. What I do fault is the extent to which he goes. He tries to prove every aspect of Christianity and leave no room for doubt. Or faith!

After all, what is faith? According to wikipedia, “faith is a belief, trust, or confidence, not based on logic, reason, or empirical data.” If I prove to you that the Christian God exists and is the only god out there and that the Bible is the Word of God and that Jesus really existed and was the Son of God and yada yada yada, then where is there any room for faith? If I really, truly prove all this, then there is no way you can doubt and no way you can demonstrate any faith. After all, who needs any faith that electrons exist or that the earth revolves around the sun? It’s been proven.

So, McDowell is doing a grave disservice to the Christian Faith by trying to eliminate the need for faith. But the good news (for the Christian Faith, anyway) is that I think it totally impossible for him to succeed. Impossible for two reasons. First, I don’t think God will let him succeed because he, McDowell, is basically trying to ruin things for Him, God. Second, since faith is not based on logic, it is impossible to logically prove anything in which you have faith; if you could prove it, it wouldn’t be a matter of faith.

But that’s not all. McDowell is doing another, even more grave disservice to the Christian faith; more grave because he is succeeeding. He is succeeding in looking foolish because his “logical” arguments are anything but logical; his reasoning is anything but reasonable. But don’t take my word for it, read his book. But I’ll give a preview anyway …

Let’s examine the tough question: “Are Christians guilty of circular reasoning?” Here is a summary of his argument for proving that the Bible is God’s Word without the use of circular reasoning, i.e. without first assuming that the Bible is God’s Word:

1. Demonstrate that the Scriptures are basically reliable and trustworthy historical documents by applying the ordinary test of historical criticism to the Scriptures.
2. Realize that Jesus Christ claims to be the Son of God based on His forthcoming resurrection from the dead.
3. Examine the evidence for the resurrection contained in the reliable historical document proved in #1, aka the Bible.
4. Realize that since Jesus is God, He speaks with authority on all matters.
5. Show that Jesus claimed the Old Testament to be the Word of God by quoting from the New Testament.
6. Show that Jesus claimed the writers of the New Testament would be guided by the Holy Spirit in their writing the New Testament by quoting from the New Testament.
7. Since both Old and New Testaments are from God, we can insist, with sound and accurate logic, that the Bible is God’s Word.
8. Q.E.D.

Whew! That’s quite the proof. Each step seems to follow logically from the previous ones and he does, indeed, end up with the right answer without assuming the answer to be true. Kudos!

There are several objections I take with this proof one of which is: what does he mean by “basically reliable and trustworthy”? But I’m going to focus on one that is only a little more subtle. And that is: what does he mean by applying the “ordinary test of historical criticism” to the Scriptures? This is rather important as it’s the basis for his entire proof! I did a Google search on this phrase and came up with two hits. One of them was a site that appears to reproduce McDowell’s argument verbatim and the other uses the same line of reasoning to prove that Jesus was the Son of God. Hmmm… not much help there.

McDowell does discuss archaeology and the Bible, so maybe that will help. What he says in the answer to that “tough question” is that the Bible mentions some places and people which archaeology has verified did exist. In other words, “many biblical pasages are historically accurate.” His examples:

• The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in some of the 15,000 tablets uncovered at Tell Mardikh.
• Archaeological proof that a ruler named Belshazzar existed; that the Hittites had a vast empire; that King Sargon ruled; that the “matters that touch upon history in the Book of Acts are demonstrably accurate.”

Again, we’ll ignore some potential problems such as how were the cities mentioned — the way we would mention New York City or the way we would mention Atlantis — and how many, exactly, is “some” tablets. Instead we’ll continue with his answer and see where it leads.

After citing these few examples, McDowell then concludes that “the findings of archaeology have verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the biblical record.” From this starting point, McDowell starts a short narrative during which he continuously “ups the ante” and hopes no one notices:

1. “the findings of archaeology have verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the biblical record.”
2. “[archaeology] is very helpful in illustrating that many biblical passages are historically accurate.”
3. “One cannot stress too strongly the importance of the Bible giving an accurate historical picture.”
4. “Putting it another way, if the authors of Scripture are accurate in their accounts of the things that transpired…”

In one page — five short paragraphs — McDowell starts with “verified historical points” and ends up making comments about “accounts of the things that transpired” with no intervening justification. Just because the Bible gets a few names of people and places right, we are to trust it as a historically accurate document. Does that make sense? But he’s not done. Oh no! There’s another unjustified escalation …

5. “it then follows that [the authors of Scripture] cannot be ruled out of court because they happen to mention things out of the ordinary.”

Wow! That’s quite a leap! Let me see if I got this figured out. Because the Bible mentions Sodom and Gomorrah and a couple rulers by name, it should not be questioned when it talks about people rising from the dead and virgin births and other “things out of the ordinary“?

While I continue scratching my head over that one, where were we and how did we get here? Oh, that’s right. We were looking at McDowell’s first premise in his proof that the Bible is the Word of God. For lack of any other explanation for the “ordinary test of historical criticism,” we shall assume he is talking about the archaeological verification of historical points of biblical record. So, with that assumption, his “proof” that the Bible is the Word of God stems entirely from the fact that the Bible mentions some verifiable people and places. Hmmm … more head scratching on that one. I know a few other books which get some historical “points” correct. Wonder if God wrote them, too?

In any case, McDowell does succeed in presenting a proof which does not employ circular reasoning. His proof, however, is very weak and the starting premise — the very foundation upon which all the other premises rely — is questionable at best. In my opinion, McDowell should stick to faith and forget the logic. Just say, “I believe the Bible is the Word of God” and leave it at that. Put the faith back in the Christian Faith!

But there’s a disadvantage with taking that stance — a loss of power. Once you give up the right to quote the Bible as a historical document that also happens to be God’s Word — which you do when you believe this on faith and don’t try to prove it — you give up the right to use the “Because The Bible Says So” defense. This means conversations with people who don’t share your faith become very difficult. No longer can you stand there and hurl Bible verses at them, parrying all their objections and arguments with Scriptural snippets. You actually have to think and perhaps draw a logical conclusion or two. You may even have to listen to them and try to understand their point of view. Worse yet, you may even be shown to be wrong! God forbid!