ToddHDow Studios

Tag: philosophy

  • Dawkins Part 9: Childhood abuse and brainwashing

    I do agree that religious types have abused their children in the name of religion. This still continues to happen. In fact, we need look no further than a current story in the US media pertaining to polygamy and child marriages: Man Charged in Rape of Teenager in Fundamentalist Sect.

    Mormonism encourages polygamy and marriage to minors. Mormons have claimed that this is part of their religious beliefs and that they are entitled to live their lives in this way. To some extent, that argument should be allowed to stand. But, that right should not extend to harming other people in the process. And, in my personal opinion, I think it’s great that the US attorney’s office has finally found a way to deal with some of these crimes that are being committed in the name of religion.

    Protection for the weak and vulnerable among us is something that I hold in high regard. In some cases, this competes against some other rights that I hold quite high, including freedom of religion and freedom of speech. There are numerous ideas that I do not want to introduce my children to, but I don’t think it is right that those ideas and opinions be abolished. If we allow that, then what’s next? Burning books and censoring our news sources? Censorship is occuring in the world, notably in China. The state control of media and information can lead to population control, which can then be abused for the sake of state motivations. Without checks and balances like freedom of speech and freedom of information, there is no way to ensure that abuses are not taking place.

    Which brings me back to religion… Some religious people try to limit the amount of information available to believers. I remember when I first started taking an interest in my own Christian faith. I asked my pastor for a good resource that would explain the various types of religions to me and that would provide a good explanation for what made my faith something that I should believe. Unfortunately, I didn’t receive the response I had hoped for. I was told that there is no need to look at other faiths. I should just focus on the my own faith by reading the bible and some “my-faith-specific” reading to solidify my beliefs. It was disappointing, to say the least. And, when I mentioned that I was going to go to University to study philosophy and religious studies as a potential precursor to ministry, I was again disuaded. I was told that questioning my faith in this way wouldn’t strengthen it, but instead, would only weaken my faith and my ability to believe.

    Good advice or bad? What do you think? I didn’t buy it… I’ve always been one to question things. I think questioning things is healthy. Unfortunately, any opinion is open to question. Any time someone puts a stake in the ground, someone else will come along and challenge it. I think debate is good. It is healthy. It leads to more understanding. It leads to increased awareness and if the argument is a good one, it will stand up to scrutiny. And, bad arguments will be exposed for what they are: bad arguments.

    So… I didn’t particularly like the advice to keep my head in the sand and sit still. If my faith was worth following, it should stand up to scrutiny. So, I did the opposite of what I was advised to do. I went out and compared and questioned my faith. I believed then, and I still believe now. And my faith is stronger now because of this journey. To be fair, I must say that not everybody learns or believes or requires this level of commitment. And that is fine. But I do think that there is danger in not being able to explain what we believe and why. “Just because…” is not sufficient. There’s gotta be something more.

    And that’s where I think that many abuses stem from… isolation and lack of information. If people are kept in the dark and are unable to ask the tough questions, then how can this work out for the best?

    As with other abuses that we’ve already discussed in this series, I do think that the church has contributed to numerous abuses within society in the past. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that these abuses are identified, corrected and that proper controls are put in place so that they cannot happen again. But, no system is foolproof… didn’t World War Two prompt the expression, “Never again” in response to the holocaust? Well… what do we make of the recent ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia or Darfur? I say this only to say that even the most visible of abuses cannot always be prevented. They should be prevented, but they aren’t. But at the very least, they should be recorded and their perpetrators brought to justice.

    So… what can we do? Well… we should start with open minds. We should be allowed to question. If our beliefs are worth believing, then we should be able to explain them and defend them. As I’ve demonstrated over the course of this series, Dawkins hasn’t provided anything that should disuade our beliefs in religion. He’s highlighted some of the abuses that can occur as a result of belief, but that doesn’t discount the belief itself. All it does is highlight the crimes that have been committed by misrepresenting the belief.

    And, we should also ensure that sufficient controls are in place to avoid the obvious abuses that can occur. We can easily ensure that physical and sexual abuse are guarded against. Censorship… well, that’s a matter of opinion. The argument over what to believe and why is a tough one. It’s quite subjective in nature. Just look at the current “should creationism be taught in schools” argument. I think that kids should be taught about the debate, if only so that they understand that there are different worldviews. And, part of that education process can be to help kids assess what they believe and why. But I don’t think the people that are most invested in the debate want that… they don’t want the kids to think for themselves. They are too busy fighting about what they want their kids to believe. And that’s the real shame of that situation.

    As for my two cents on what worldview a child should be given… well… it’s not my place to push my worldview on anyone else, but I have written a series that has taken on a life of its own since I published it. This article started as a philosophy assignment during my undergrad. I wrote it quite sincerely, but from the perspective of a philosophy student. I don’t intend for this to become public policy in any way, shape or form. My only request is that it make you think about what you believe and why. This series has earned me more scorn and vilified hatred from anonymous readers than I thought possible… So much for freedom of expression, eh? hahaha. Anywho… Give it a read and let me know your thoughts:

    Should atheists have children?

    But back to today’s discussion…

    Dawkins and others within this genre offer the following argument: Religion has led to the abuse of people throughout history. Because of this, religion should be abolished. Well… our global economy is currently supporting the slavery of children in the manufacture of the products that keep our global economy humming along. Should we abandon our current economic system in favour of more local production so that we can do away with these abuses? But that would be crazy talk… the global economy has opened doors and created opportunities for untold numbers of people that otherwise wouldn’t be possible. That’s the typical response that we hear.

    The obvious point here is that we should try and correct the wrongs and to continue to support the rights. So, onward and upward. Let’s keep an open mind. Let’s open up the dialogue. It’s already happening in a lot of places. Educational institutions are rife with debate over the pros and cons of reliigon. I think it’s great. I think that the critical reflection that we’re currently experiencing will strengthen the church in extremely positive ways.

    So… I guess I should be thanking Dawkins, Harris, Onfrey, Hitchens and the gang. So thanks guys. Thanks again for the great press you’re giving to religion. And thanks for your criticism. I view you guys as external auditors. You’re doing a great job of keeping religious folks honest. And, you’re also helping to weed out the bad apples. Soon enough we’ll be in tip top shape. Couldn’t have done it without you.

    Much appreciated,

    Todd

    Next up: “Dawkins Part 10: On Evolution and concluding thoughts“.

  • Dawkins Part 8: Are All Ideologies Bad

    So… Dawkins has been going on and on about how religion has been so bad and that it should be abolished in favour of scientism, evolutionism or some other worldview of his liking. He suggests that a religious worldview leads to child abuse and human rights violations.

    Dawkins argues:

    “As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect for the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers. The alternative, one so transparent that it should need no urging, is to abandon the principle of automatic respect for religious faith. This is one reason why I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself, not just against so-called ‘extremist’ faith. The teachings of ‘moderate’ religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.” (pg 306)

    I find this extremely short sighted and dangerous. Isn’t it this kind of narrow-minded censorship that religious extremists have exhibited in their abusive theocratic rule throughout history? As I have mentioned numerous times during this series, I am in complete opposition to the extremist views that fanatical religious adherents try to push on other people, but I adamently oppose any sort of censorship or blanket persecution of a worldview or ideology just because a few twist that perspective for their means.

    In fact, I’d like to suggest that in many instances, it hasn’t been religion that has been persecuting people, but instead, it has been the political ambitions of the religious leaders that has hijacked religion for their own needs. Throughout most of recorded history, the church provided the main religious AND political leadership throughout the developed world. This often led to a conflict of interest when it comes to following Jesus and satisfying the material needs of society. Consider these examples:

    • 313 CE: Augustine & the Political Realm – In the early 4th century, the Roman empire was being attacked from barbarian hordes from lands that surrounded the Roman empire. At this time, the population was becoming more and more Christian which was problematic as Christianity was a religion of peace up until this time. And, since the population was becoming more and more Christian, willing military conscripts were becoming fewer and fewer. This meant that in order for the Roman empire to survive, the military required Christian participants. At this time, Augustine (one of the early church fathers) developed a Christian justification for violence in order to support military participation. It has been suggested that Augustine was under extensive political pressure to develop this treatise.
    • 1095 CE: Pope Urban II & The Crusades – I’ve argued in the past that Pope Urban II abused his authority as Pope to kick off the Christian Crusades, which are one of the greatest blemishes on the face of Christianity, even today.
    • 2001 CE: Modern Day “Crusades” – This one’s kind of a no-brainer, but the US is currently involved in a political and economic war in the Middle East to secure oil rights and to advance economic interests in the area. George W. Bush kicked off this campaign against the “war on terror” with this rousing quote:

      “On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that “this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.” He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.”

      (http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html)

      So far, the US has done a great job of creating their latest victim (who remembers the red menace of communism?): Islam. While vilifying this same enemy that the US used to be so chummy with (who remembers the assistance that the US provided to the Taliban in fighting against Russia in the 80s?), Bush has done a fantastic job of creating a “cover” under which to obtain carte blanche to stir up a hornets nest of resentment in the Middle East that is sure to last for at least the next generation. For more on this topic, check out this article: A Tragic Picture of Death

    • Economic Human Rights Abuses – For more on this topic, I’ll defer you to an internationally respected organization and their extensive catalogue of abuses: Amnesty International – Economic Globalization and Human Rights.

    So yeah… if we apply Dawkins’ logic, we may as well disassemble our democratic state and our economic system in its entirety. In fact, I’d argue that religion has in some cases indrectly led to human rights abuses by a few, extremely influential yet extremely misguided individuals. The economic and political ideals that we as a modern society have adopted, on the other hand, provide a system whereby a few are allowed to prosper, while at the same time ignoring the plights of the majority who are underfed and under cared for.

    Dawkins seems intent on throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Religion has also been responsible for the majority of the world’s charity up until the 20th Century. And, these institutions (hospitals, orphanages, schools, etc.) were set up with the ideal goal of providing universal well being. Today’s capitalist health care system doesn’t seem to reflect those same ideals.

    So where’s the problem here? Is it religion, or the abuses that its members have commited? In my opinion, we need to focus on oversight to ensure that the needs of everyone are met and that abuses don’t occur. And when abuses do occur, we should be proactive in removing the abuser(s) and correcting the situation. After all, isn’t that what Jesus would do?

    Next up: “Childhood abuse and brainwashing“

  • Dawkins Part 7: The Slippery Slope of Abortion

    In chapter 8, Dawkins talks about abortion. He makes a couple of startling claims. First, he argues that religion is bad because a select few fundamentalists kill abortion doctors, and then he goes on to argue support for abortion because fetuses aren’t really human anyways.

    Dawkins’ logic is seriously flawed in this chapter. There are two problems here.

    First, he uses the red herring of religious fundamentalists that have killed abortion doctors as a protest against abortion. I touched on this in my last post when I talked about fundamentalism. Even though a select few choose to kill in the name of their cause, that doesn’t necessarily make the cause a bad one. Thus, Dawkins yet again shows a flawed sense of logic in his arguments. Another strike against Dawkins and his writing in this book. I talked quite a bit on this topic of religious fundamentalism in my last post and I’ll be talking about it again in my next post. So, I’m going to put this aside for now.

    The second problem is this: Dawkins tries to dehumanize abortion in an attempt to justify it in some way.

    My views on this topic have gone from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. I think of myself as fairly liberal in a lot of respects. I lean towards rehabilitation for criminals, I’m against capital punishment and I think that social assistance is an important safety net for all of us, including the least among us. Those aren’t typical conservative views. To stick with the stereotype, many liberals support free choice, while most conservatives are pro life. Yes, this is a generalization, but I think it’s a fairly accurate and it does seem to represent the “typical liberal or conservative” agenda.

    But, that’s not what I’m here to talk about today…

    Like I said, I used to be extremely pro choice. I always thought that abortion should be the individual’s choice. My views on this were strongest in my teens and early twenties, which is the age at which most of us may feel the need to deal with this issue on a personal level. And, I remember at the time feeling that this would be “the best choice for me as I wasn’t ready to have a kid yet.” Fear, uncertainty and unreadiness are the thoughts that came to my mind when I considered the options available to people in my age group when it came to having children. If I wasn’t ready, well… the medical system had the easy out, the so-called “get out of jail free” card.

    It wasn’t until I had matured more that I revisited my thoughts on abortion. And, I didn’t revisit these views until I started to think I was stable enough to have a family of my own. At that point, my views started to take a turn in a different direction. All of a sudden, abortion represented the death of a child. As any expectant parent understands, that week 12 visit to the doctor is extremely symbolic. At week 12, most parents hear the heartbeat of their new little baby for the first time. I remember the first time I heard Noah’s heartbeat. I was instantly connected to the baby. And the connection was more vivid for Julie as she started to experience Noah kicking and punching inside of her as he grew in her belly.

    It’s interesting how perspectives change depending on the circumstances, eh?

    Dawkins tries to bring in a third view, which takes us in a totally different direction. He tries to debate whether or not fetuses are fully human, or if they are just a “bundle of cells”. The distinction is a strange one to me because a scientist could look at any living person and make the same distinction. By dehumanizing the new life growing inside of a woman is to grossly misrepresent that life. The standard argument is that a fetus is not a human for numerous reasons, including that the fetus has no nervous system, thus it will not suffer or the fetus is unable to survive outside of the womb, thus it is not a viable life. There are many other justifications to support abortion as well.

    My primary response to these types of justifications is this: would you take a human life if the person was in this kind of position? Non-responsive nervous systems or inability to survive outside of the womb… well… any baby I’ve ever seen is unable to survive for long outside of the womb without assistance from a parent or guardian. Should we be allowed to kill babies at our leisure and pass it off with a dismissal shrug of the shoulders? I think not. Strange how Dawkins can so trivialize the act of abortion by turning it into a scientific procedure with no mention of the human life that is being affected. Would we accept his argument if he were talking about newborns? I think not. So why is it okay for him to talk about it in such stark terms with an unborn child?

    But… I guess this is where it all goes back to perspective: as parents, we eagerly grasp that first inkling that we’re fostering new life. That first glimpse of life, no matter how small, is such an exciting time. Is Dawkins really being serious when he suggests that it is just a bundle of cells?

    Don’t get me wrong… abortion is a tragic situation no matter what the circumstances. I am sure that in many cases, the options are quite limiting and abortion seems like the easiest way out. I feel for people in those situations as it can’t be an easy decision to make. And the last thing I want to do is judge people. It is tragic any time the decision to take a life occurs. What can we do to save more lives?

    Regardless of the outcome, this is where, in religion, love and support must shine through. Times of struggle are the times when people most look towards God for help. But with abortion, many people are afraid to look to God. Not only has the individual dismissed an innocent life, but in many cases, the individual has also convinced themselves that it wasn’t a life at all. Turning to God after denying him is next to impossible. Thus, it is important to reach out to people in times of struggle like this type of situation.

    This issue is one that polarizes us as a society. It’s not an easy topic to agree upon. There are compelling arguments on either side. But, I think that if we consider the unborn life inside of the mother and if we approach this unborn life with the same rights as any other person, then how can we not think of abortion as murder? I know that my own personal views from my teens and early twenties still haunt me sometimes. I think to myself from time to time, “what was I thinking? Was I really supportive of the ending of another human life? Would my own happiness be worth the cost of taking a human life?” If only we could give people the understanding and experience of planned parenthood before they have to embark on a decision such as abortion… I’m sure if that happened, the outcome would be much different in plenty of situations.

    In fact, some states in the US are now requiring that women have an ultrasound before they have an abortion. This is an interesting new approach, as it counters the dehumanizing process that has been propped up by pro choice arguments and scientific approaches such as those by Richard Dawkins. And interesting enough, it is science that is having the greatest impact on these vulnerable decision makers. By attending an ultrasound, the mothers-to-be get to experience first-hand the new life that is inside of themselves. While statistics are difficult to come by, anecdotal evidence suggests that the scientific tool of ultrasound is making a difference in reinforcing the new life and saving it at the same time.

    I wonder if Dawkins would consider that to be an example of evolution and survival of the fittest at its finest.

    Next up: “Why not rid ourselves of religion, politics and economics all at the same time?“

  • Dawkins Part 6: The Problem With Fundamentalism

    We’re all fundamentalists in some way. I find it quite contradictory that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and the like criticize others for being fundamentalists when they themselves are so adament about their atheistic worldviews.

    Dawkins spends a fair amount of time criticizing the extremist views of some religious people. He talks about Christians that kill abortion doctors. He talks about Muslims that kill people that have converted from Islam to Christianity (or other religions). And we’re all aware of the many “fundamentalist preachers” in the US and throughout the world that discriminate against homosexuality, women and other differences that they claim somehow make people unequal.

    This is one area where I’ve gotta agree with Dawkins. I agree that fundamentalist views are problematic. They divide us. They split us into factions. These divisions work against all of us. There is no community spirit in division. That being said, we’re not all going to agree on everything. Human nature doesn’t make this possible. We all ahve different opinions. We all like different things. We don’t all like the same movies, the same food, the same music or the same books.

    So, why does that mean that we all have to like the same worldview?

    It doesn’t.

    But, does that mean that we should impose our opinions on other people? I’d argue no, but then I’m bound to be called a fundamentalist by someone that disagrees with me. And there’s the rub… we’re all fundamentalists in some way, shape or form. Does this make us wrong? No. What is right and wrong when you’re debating ideas that have competing evidence? There’s a whole lot of grey in those discussions.

    For a lot of years, I loved to live in the black and white of right and wrong. I didn’t function well with shades of grey. Structure and rules provide comfort and stability. But I eventually realized that each of us look at things through different sets of eyes. I see things as a middle aged white male living in a middle class neighbourhood after growing up in a blue collar family. There are plenty of other perspectives though. Factors that influence our perspectives include gender, cultural background, colour, age, education level, geographical location, etc. All of these things will impact our views, our values, our opinions and our prejudices (whether real or perceived).

    Trying to view things as others see them is a worthwhile exercise, as it allows us to understand each other better. Give it a try. Juggle some of the factors that I mentioned above. Imagine how you’d perceive the following sitatuations:

    • Money if you are rich versus poor
    • Food if you are hungry versus well fed
    • Sex if you are loved versus abused
    • etc. – the list could go on and on

    So my question here is: What makes religion any different? Why can’t we all have differing worldviews? What’s wrong with understanding and connecting with God in different ways?

    The problem here, as Dawkins has so articulately put it, is that some people don’t allow for freedom of religion or of expression. Some people believe that it is their duty to convince others of their perspective, even to the point of persecuting them if they don’t agree. Thus, we are faced with the problems of extreme responses that I mentioned above.

    My religion tells me:

    Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20)

    But surely, Jesus, saying these words, didn’t mean to forcefully convert people, did he? That would be contradictory to his earlier teachings on peace. Remember, Jesus also said:

    Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Matthew 22:37-39)

    These two quotes are two of the “biggies” in Christianity. The first quote, Matt 28:19-20, is known as The Great Commission. The second, Matt 22:37-39, is known as The Greatest Commandment. Thus, these are primary verses for Christians to understand.

    Some have had a difficult time interpreting these two and allowing them to coexist together. To some, the order to “go and make disciples” has been understood as an active, forceful directive in which coersion is to be applied to convert people. One of the greatest recorded abuses of this is by the Spanish and others that arrived in the New World only to massacre hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Native Americans. These massacres were at least partially justified through the directive to “convert or die”. Yet, this directly contradicts Jesus’ pacifist message of love, as highlighted in The Greatest Commandment.

    This type of tension is present in numerous different worldviews. Religion isn’t the only place that this is present, but it is worrisome when it leads to extremism.

    The media has reported numerous examples of religious extremism coming from the Muslim faith lately. As I look at the facts in the situations of suicide bombers and freedom fighters, I do understand some of the motivations behind their actions. Persecution and lack of options is high on the list of reasons for what pushes people to go to such extremes. But, when these people claim to be doing the work of the Lord by carrying out such acts, that doesn’t really jive with what others within their own faith believe. Further investigation tends to suggest that these extremists follow an extreme interpretation of their texts, in much the same way that Christian extremists distort and disregard the message that is provided in the New Testament of Christianity. Thus, there is some concern with the validity of their claims.

    And really… do we really think that killing someone will make our point of view any more right? I argue no. If anything, it will distract anyone from listening to the original argument and will instead focus them on the violent action. If I need violence to defend my opinion, then I’d best re-examine my argument because it can’t be that strong of an argument if I can’t defend it by other means.

    The key here is tolerance and confidence that we are following the right path for the right reason. No matter what factors play into our individual worldviews, I do believe (here goes the fundamentalist in me again!) that we are each, individually responsible for having a rational and well thought out worldview. Otherwise, why do we believe what we believe?

    So yeah… I’m onside with Dawkins here. I agree that extremist views do exist and that violent coercion to convince others is the wrong way to go. If your argument isn’t convincing enough, then perhaps you need to reconsider your argument. And, if your argument doesn’t make sense, then why do you believe what you believe? And further, if you hold a religious worldview that involves Jesus or the Quran, which both preach love and peace, then why would you follow a violent path to represent that faith? Doesn’t it make you a hypocrite?

    That’s my challenge for you today… take some time to examine what you really believe.

    Next up: More moral discussion in “The Slippery Slope of Abortion“.

  • Dawkins Part 5: The Historical Jesus

    “Where is God in our world?” is the question that atheists often ask. To many, God does appear to be absent. Miracles don’t happen to the poor, to the oppressed, to those that lose children or loved ones. God does appear to be missing from the lives of those that are down and out.

    But wait… haven’t you read the Bible? The Old Testament is full of stories of God interacting with people in the world. Religious opposition challenges that this is simply myth that has been preserved for thousands of years.

    What about the New Testament? Didn’t God come to earth in human form? He certainly did. He came in the form of his son, Jesus. Much debate has been conducted over the actual substance of Jesus: was he God, was he man, was he a combination of the two? I’ll save that debate for another day. But for now, let’s focus on the historical record of Jesus walking among us.

    The Historical Jesus provides us with a temporal link to God. This is one of many links to God. Some claim that they experience God on a daily basis. I’d like to think that I spend time with God daily, but I have no empirical evidence with which to prove it to my doubting friends. Thus… today’s post: proof of God walking among us. And to provide my answer, I’m going to borrow heavily from some writing that I posted on Feb 24 2007 entitled, “What is an evangelical – III“.

    The 20th and 21st Centuries have seen an unparalleled interest in the truth claims of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Numerous academics, skeptics and religious challengers have been attempting to subvert the historical validity of the New Testament. The most recent scholarship has not only further confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament texts, but it has also uncovered additional documentation to support the existence of Jesus Christ in the first century.

    Mark Allen Powell, in his book “Jesus as a Figure in History“, provides a great summary of the standard criteria used in religious studies research to comment on authenticity. Powell provides six criteria. They are:

    1. Multiple Attestation – are the same ideas found in multiple sources?
    2. Dissimilarity – an idea is more likely to be authentic if it is different from the typical perspectives of the period in question. In this case, perspectives that differed from typical Judaic thought would be considered more likely to come from Jesus.
    3. Memorable Form – memorable phrases, stories or sayings would be more likely to be authentic. It is assumed that stories pertaining to Jesus were first transmitted in oral form, it is more likely that proverbs, beatitudes and stories in memorable forms would be more likely to be accurately remembered, shared and passed on.
    4. Language and Environment – Does the language and environment fit the historical period in question? If so, this supports the authenticity of the claim.
    5. Explanation – Does the story or quote in question further support the claims made about the person, place or thing in question.
    6. Coherence – Does the story under scrutiny fit with the rest of the factual information known about the topic at hand? If so, this lends additional credence to the argument in question.

    There is plenty of writing out there to support all six of these categories. There are multiple sources that point to the validity of the Jesus of history, both before and after his resurrection. There are numerous sources that date back to the same century as Christ’s life. And, these sources come from numerous different perspectives. This multiple attestation shows the abundance of early documentation in support of the claim that Jesus is the Messiah. The criteria of dissimilarity fits, as Jesus’ message definitely went against the grain of the Jewish leaders of the day. We need look no further than the Sermon on the Mount to see the criteria of memorable form at play. The language, environment and explanations for the stories of Jesus all seem to fit together quite well. And, there is a coherence to the stories of Jesus that suggests a valid historical foundation as well.

    Further, let’s consider some additional factors at play here. Asking the question, “Can we trust the text of the Bible?”, I suggest the following: Why not? Christianity was built upon Judaism, which maintained an enormous oral tradition for a thousand years. They had the skills to maintain the accuracy of their traditions and they knew how to preserve their scripture.

    And to answer those that ask, “But what about the conflicting accounts in the gospels? (The Gospels are the first four books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)”, I offer the following: The Gospels are not a transcript, but they are an account that eye witnesses wrote down as witnesses. Each gospel will obviously have a perspective to them. Does this make them inaccurate? No, it just means that they were viewed through a certain lens. And really… what historical reports are not presented through a lens?

    And finally, people suggest that the New Testament didn’t contain the earliest sources or that the church mixed and matched scripture in order to meet their own “agenda”. Nothing could be farther from the truth here. As religious scholars agree, the canon that we recognize today as the New Testament was complete and circulating together as a “package” by the end of the first century. This was quite early in the history of the church.

    Further, the additional “questionable texts” like the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas had two problems that kept them from inclusion in the New Testament:

    1. These books were written much later, dating anywhere from the mid-second century for some of these books to others that dated into the third century. These were much later writings than the texts that are included in the New Testament.
    2. The content and structure didn’t match with the other books in the New Testament. Many of these texts that were not included have a style that marks them as Gnostic texts, which were much different theologically than the New Testament that we know. This makes them markedly different from the early texts, which, because of their much earlier dating, are considered to be much more accurate and theologically agreeable to the intentions of Jesus and the early church.

    While there is modern discourse about the dating and ordering of the New Testament in the early church, there is little disagreement over the relative accuracy of the claims that I’ve summarized above. Thus, the documentation itself is relatively solid from a date perspective.

    The one final question is, “Yeah, but what about outsiders? Did anyone outside of the church validate the claims of Christianity, or did they all have a vested interest in furthering the Gospel of Jesus?” Luckily, there is some external evidence to support the claims that Jesus was stirring things up in the early church. The external documentation doesn’t go to the same depths as the Gospels do to proclaim the good news, but they do validate that a person named Jesus was on the tongues of the early Christians and that Jesus provided a motivation to spread the Gospel message across the Roman Empire and beyond. Josephus, a Jewish historian of the first century, mentioned Jesus. Josephus provides one of the few historical accounts of this period of history and his writing about Jesus provides at least a partial validation about the existence and influence of the man named Jesus.

    While Josephus does not delve into the theological claims of the New Testament, he does place Jesus in the early first century and he does mention that he had followers.

    There is plenty of scholarly research to support these claims, but for the sake of expediency and adequateness, I’ll refer you to a wikipedia entry on the Historical Jesus that provides the main points for the time being. The wikipedia entry also provides some additional links for further study. And, if you are interested in reading further, check out the following great resources that I’ve referenced in the past: