This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled
Our “Quick Shot” series offers brief answers to common objections to the Christian worldview. Each response is limited to one paragraph. These responses are designed to (1) answer the objection as concisely as possible, (2) challenge the objector to think more deeply about his or her claim, and (3) facilitate a “gospel” conversation. In this article, we’re offering “Quick Shot” responses to the objection, “You can’t be certain about Christianity because truth cannot be known with any certainty.”
Then you are apparently dealing with a very stupid non-Christian.
snipSo apparently, you DO find human reasoning to be acceptable. What makes you think it isn't acceptable when evaluating other claims, like the bible-god's not needing sacrifice in order to get rid of sin?Response #2:“What do you mean by certainty? Do you mean “beyond a possible doubt”? If that’s the standard, we would be paralyzed by fear and indecision. Will my car explode when I turn the key today? I can’t be sure beyond a possible doubt. Will my next restaurant meal result in food poisoning? Again, I can’t be certain beyond a possible doubt. We can’t (and don’t) live by that standard, because, if we did, we wouldn’t want to leave our homes.
And if it's good enough to use in criminal trials, its also apparently good enough, by your own estimation, to be used to analyze biblical claims. Anonymous witnesses count for exactly nothing in most trials, because you cannot cross-examine them to make sure of their credibility. If it were otherwise, anybody could get on the stand and say anything, and their anonymity would prevent the parties from uncovering truths about the witness's true level of credibility. That is, the jury would be given nothing by which to decide whether the witness is believable.Instead we live by a lower standard known as “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is also the standard we apply to the most serious criminal trials. If it’s good enough to use in those trials, it’s also good enough for us to use in our daily lives.
So since most Christian scholars agree that the gospels are anonymous, and disagree more on to what extent any of their contents draw from eyewitness sources, if at all...it sucks to be J. Warner Wallace right about now. If he had known how the gospels utterly fail the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of evidence used in criminal trials, he probably wouldn't have written the "Cold Case Christianity" marketing gimmick that currently pays for his air fare as he runs around making "appearances".
In the case of ancient history, yes. In the case of incoherent ideas like "god" that need endless ad hoc rescue to prevent them from being kicked to the curb, yes.Do you honestly think truth can’t be known beyond a reasonable doubt?
Have you ever applied this standard to the case for God’s existence or the truth of Christianity?”
Yes. Since "god" as used in traditional religious parlance is an incoherent idea (performs the physical functions of ears, eyes, etc, but without physicality) the only thing beyond reasonable doubt here is how undeserving "god" is of any serious discussion, except in the sense of explaining why it is reasonable to say "fuck you" to any Christian who wants to discuss theism.
I've also applied the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to the gospels, which are anonymous, and anonymous witnesses are of no value in court except in rare situations not applicable here. The more anonymous the witness, the less you should put stock in anything they have to say. And, of co)urse, the problem of anonymity (it prevents us from asking pointed questions) plagues apostle Paul too, since his identifying himself doesn't get rid of the problems in his "testimony".
