Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scgvaxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!dan From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (1 of 4) Message-ID: <339@scgvaxd.UUCP> Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 20:40:29 EDT Article-I.D.: scgvaxd.339 Posted: Thu Jun 6 20:40:29 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Jun-85 04:04:49 EDT References: <2006@decwrl.UUCP> <749@rayssd.UUCP> <323@scgvaxd.UUCP> <324@scgvaxd.UUCP> <325@scgvaxd.UUCP> <1018@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA Lines: 80 Keywords: Reliability of The New Testament Summary: What Is Objective Evidence There is a fine line separating "objective" and "subjective" reasoning. Webster defines "objective" as "that which is verifiable by observation" and "perceptible to persons other than an affected individual", and finally, "expressing the nature of reality as it is apart from personal reflections or feelings". Well, that solves the problem, doesn't it? In order for Christianity to prove as true, its claims should be provable by evidence that is perceptible to persons unaffected by it. But, this is not as easy as it appears. Who is not affected by Christianity? Only those who have never heard of it. But not having heard of it, it would not be perceptible to them. But you say, Christianity does not affect sceptics. But, to reject a belief is to be affected by it. To reject Christianity, one must first understand its claims, then reject them in favor of an alternate view. You have just been affected by Christianity. It's existence was instrumental in the formation of your belief system. Lets suppose that you are unaffected by Christianity and can remain neutral or "objective". What possible "objective" evidences are there that could lead you to believe in it? Its teachings include: God created the universe and life, Man a free and moral agent rebelled against his creator which subsequently resulted in separation from God and moral depravity, God then justified and redeemed His creation through the Incarnation, Salvation is now offered as a gift, through faith. Are any of these acts on the part of God verifiable through observation? The answer would seem to be NO! Since none of us were there to witness any of it. However, what if we had been there to see it? Is this purely objective evidence? Might we not have been mistaken? Isn't the hand quicker than the eye? Could it have been an illusion or a dream? Have we not been affected by what we saw? If we take it to far, "objective evidence" seems to be non-existant. So what can we consider "objective" as opposed to "subjective"? There has to some criteria for a reasonable person to follow in discerning what can be considered objective evidence! How do we know Abe Lincoln existed? How do we know Hitler existed? If we weren't there to see them, (even if you were, you still can't be sure what you saw was what you saw) why believe they ever existed? As a rational and reasonable person (obviously these terms are relative), one must enter into the situation with presuppositions. The first presupposition is that you exist. (Objectively unprovable) The next presupposition is that others exist. At this point we might say that a reasonable person could base (relative) truth on two things. What he has observed, and what others have observed and agreed upon. This is one way that truth can be ascertained in a court of Law. In other words, if several persons that had reputations for being trust- worthy, all agreed upon the same set of events of which they were all eyewitnesses, it would not be unreasonable to except their testimony as true. How do I know that Lincoln and Hitler existed? How do I know that Lincoln was an admired President and Hitler was a murdering scoundrel? By the testimony of individuals who observed and recorded their observations. Still, these observations are based on subjective perceptions. I am faced with a choice! I can either toss out all evidences as being "subjective" in nature, or I can follow the reasonable path described above and accept historical testimony as "objective evidence". If we can accept historical testimony as reasonable and objective evidence, then we can observe some of the Christian teachings listed earlier. For example, we can observe the change in Peter, with and without the power promised that would come through the Holy Spirit. We can observe the changed lives down through history from Paul to Luther to Colson. We can reasonably believe that Christ was raised from the dead since several honest, reputable, eyewitnesses have recorded their observations of the incident. (Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, etc.) Incidently, there have been no eyewitnesses to attest to the assumption that Christ was not raised from the dead. No corpse produced either. Dan