I received a pamphlet on the street today called, “I Want Proof” and it features a bushy old man saying he’s an atheist. The narrator responds and proves the atheist that he must believe in God. Of course, the atheist doesn’t put up much of a fight.
So I will.
Their text is in bold. My interjections are in italics.
Pamphlet Atheist: “I want proof – cold, hard, factual proof!”
Yeah!
Pamphlet Narrator: “So you want proof?”
Yeah!
"How about some eyewitnesses – people who saw it happen?”
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about! They were there, man!
But eyewitness testimony is notoriously unsound, even today. If I saw a car hit another car and you asked me to describe the models of both, I might be off by a little.
Now imagine if I wrote down my account of the accident, translated it into Latin, translated it into English, and then updated the English for a different dialect. My testimony would be essentially useless.
Oh. And the Bible wasn’t written by eyewitnesses. It was written by guys a generation or two later. So, they didn’t see it either.
But, you know, whatever. They probably got it right the same way my Dad once caught a fish “this big!”
P.A.: “I didn’t see it happen!”
Non-believer! If you didn’t see it happen, you didn’t see it not happen. Which makes it true! Woo! We win! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
P.N.: “That doesn’t make it any less true. Don’t you ever take anyone’s word for anything?”
Not really. But that’s because I make personal decisions about my world, which are not informed by local demagogues and their demigods.
“I’m sure you believe that Washington crossed the Delaware.”
Well, I don’t believe it per se. I assume its true based on physical evidence and historical evidence. Because I can cross the Delaware. Therefore I can assume that it’s probably true.
But your comparison is like learning the historical fact of Washington crossing the Delaware from the famous painting by Emanuel Leutze. The painting was filled with historical inaccuracies and physical impossibilities to make the painting more heroic.
Sound familiar?
P.A.: “This is different! Crossing the Delaware is not exactly rising from the Dead!”
Nor is that the point. It also occurred a thousand and a half years sooner. The problem with historical accuracy is that, the farther back we go, the less sure we can be. We’re pretty certain that Washington crossed the Delaware because of reports, diary entries, and other available media.
The Bible doesn’t have the benefit of such extra material. All we have are the few books we have. Yes, there is historical records of Jesus existing. However, there is no other historical evidence that he rose from the dead.
Oh, and if we go by other books we have, Zeus knocked over boats, swans raped women, and the Earth is built on the back of a turtle. But, I mean, don’t you take anyone’s word for anything?
P.N.: “That’s true, but think about this – most of us have little problem believing that Jesus existed or that he was a great teacher.”
Okay…
“Yet those same historical documents also say that Jesus rose from the dead and you don’t believe it.”
That’s because you take ancient historical sources with a grain of salt. We know that various Greek battles took place because enough historians of the time noted them. But we don’t believe that Zeus and Hera fought over who would get the prettiest warrior on their team. Even though those same historians claim they did.
“Why require a different standard of evidence about things called ‘Miracles?’ Is your decision not to believe really based on a lack of cold, hard, factual ‘proof’ – or is it simply a case of your personal prejudice?”
Do you not want to buy this used, rusty 1987 Honda because you have cold, hard, factual ‘proof’ it is a terrible car or because of your personal prejudice?
Miracles need to be proven because they are so amazing.
If your friend says, ‘I ate a tomato and it tasted good.’ You’d take him at his word.
If your friend then says, ‘I went to see a movie and the cartoon animals came off the screen and danced with the audience.’ You’d think he was fucking crazy and would ask him to prove his claim before taking him at his word.
That doesn’t make you an asshole. That makes you a rational human being.
P.A.: “Humbug. And why do you insist that I make a decision about all this anyway?”
Because only pussies are uncertain. Are you a pussy, boy?!
P.N.: “Because by not deciding, you’re making a decision anyway!”
If you’re not with Jesus, you’re against him!
P.A.: “But before deciding anything, I always make sure I’m 100% certain.
P.N.: “Listen, every day we all make decisions based on a lot less than 100% proof.”
Yes. We make decisions based on probability and guessing.
The probability of a handful of short books from two thousand years ago being absolutely correct?
Not so high.
“When you get up in the morning, can you be 100% sure that a car won’t run you over in the course of the day?”
So because I’m not 100% certain of something, that means that the opposite must be true? What?
I don’t believe in Jesus because he probably didn’t do miracles in the past!
You’re making an analogy to that and something that hasn’t happened yet and could happen in the future.
That’s like saying, “If you’re not certain who your father is, how can you know if you’ll enjoy the new Indiana Jones movie. Because you’re an uncertain ninny, aren’t ya’, buddy?”
“You can’t!”
When I say something’s true that means it’s true! If it wasn’t true, then my truths would be a lie and that would be a paradox!
“And even if you decide to play it safe and remain in bed, how can you be 100% certain that a bomb won’t go off, taking your whole block with it?”
Wait, what?!
NOT ALL PROBABILITIES ARE THE SAME, MOTHERFUCKER!
To believe EVERYTHING is true because there’s a chance its possible would leave everyone cowering in the corner afraid of Anthrax and Birdflu and Reefer Madness and video games and comic books and on and on and on.
P.A.: “Ooh, the choice is a difficult one, isn’t it?”
Phony mathematics makes me fear the Lord any day of the week.
N.A.: “Now let’s get back to the question: Did Jesus Christ really rise from the dead?”
I bet you’ll tell us.
“If he did, then he must be God…”
According to Bill Murray’s Groundhog Day, that would make him “a” God, not “the” God.
“… and He ought to be obeyed, since no one else has been able to raise himself from the grave to date – right?”
Right? Right? This guy in the front knows what I’m talking about!
Oh. By the way. There is story after story after story of someone being assumed to be dead and seemingly by magic “rising” from the grave. Usually because they weren’t really dead yet.
“Is Jesus God or Isn’t He?”
He really wants to know.
“Are you going to decide on rational grounds by weighing the evidence…”
Such as bad math and wrong logic.
“…or irrationally, on the bases of preconditioning, personal prejudice, or tradition.”
Because that cabal of scientists want to keep us in the dark.
Well, not literally. They invented light bulbs.
But you get what I mean!
“You must decide!”
That the world is a black and white binary without any subtleties.
“And we challenge you to do it intelligently.”
And by intelligently, we mean agreeing with us without questioning any of our claims using the fool's gold of the devil's "scientific method."
