Objectivity

James Hilston
Sept. 2, 2005

The Skeptic asks if I believe that everything in the Book of Revelation actually happened

My response: I believe the stuff in Revelation has not happened yet, but will unalterably occur sometime in the future. The name of the book comes from the Greek word "apokalupsis," where we get our English transliteration, "Apocalypse." It means "the unveiling" or "the revealing," or simply "the revelation." And it refers to that which was revealed to one of Jesus' disciples, John, in visions he had while he was a prisoner on the island of Patmos in the first century.

The Skeptic asks why I believe the visions experienced by someone in the first century will come true.

My response: It all boils down to whether or not the Judeo-Christian Bible is actually divinely authored, inerrantly and infallibly. I believe it is, in its original autographs/manuscripts. So anything and everything that is claimed or affirmed in that book, properly understood in context and in precisely the way the original audience would have understood it, I regard as true.

Now, I recognize that the original manuscripts no longer exist, nor were expected to. Which is why copies were made and passed on. Errors inevitably crept in, of course, but I also believe that God's intended message is so robust that it is recoverable, and that message retains its inerrancy and infallibility. Kind of like how a CD with a scratch on it can still play without any audible difference. If the CD player has a robust correction algorithm, the listener won't be able to tell that there's an error or scratch on the CD.

The Skeptic asks why I think these writings are actually the Word of God, and why I trust the men who told the gospel stories.

My response: The answer is: I don't trust them. In fact, I'd bet credits to navy beans that many people did what they could to mess it up, to deliberately screw around with the text. But since I believe in the divine authorship of the book, I also believe in the divine protection of the book. Sort of like, going back to the CD analogy, a CD that could be scratched to only a limited extent. Great question.

By the way, not many people, believers included, are aware that in the epistles (letters) contained in the Bible, there is reference made to the copying process and to the collection of the parchments for safekeeping. For example, Paul, who wrote a huge chunk of the Greek portions of the Bible, tells a colleague, Timothy, to not forget to bring to him the scrolls and parchments, referring to what would later become the "canon of scripture."

The Skeptic asks if I believe the pure message was received by these men who:

My response: With the destruction of the Jewish theocracy in the first century, the Judeo-Christian religion became strictly text-based (as opposed to textual AND oral traditions that existed previously). This is why there was such an emphasis on writing things down, and collecting and preserving the manuscripts. So any incorrect "re-telling" was not as big an issue as incorrect copying of the manuscripts. In fact, an erroneous re-telling could be checked against the manuscripts -- which is really the point of writing it all down: i.e., having a standard rule by which claims could be checked. Curiously, the word "canon" is a Greek word that means "rule."

The Skeptic asks why I think those manuscripts comprised the divinely authored text, when just anyone could have pass on a scroll and added it to the pile.

My response: Anyone who claimed to have in their possession divinely written manuscripts had to be authenticated. That was the sole purpose of miracles: Not to convince unbelievers, but rather to verify what truly came from God. Those who were producing divinely inspired scrolls were well established and well known among believers. Credentials were especially important back then, and carefully guarded.

As to why certain ones were chosen, biblically speaking, it was arbitrary. Any literate person/people would have sufficed.

The Skeptic asks why God chose those men in particular.

My response: The Bible doesn't say why certain people were chosen. It is repeatedly emphatic, however, that nobody is chosen because of their own merits, their own accomplishments, wealth or reputation. It is truly arbitrary, according to God's own purposes and pleasure.

The Skeptic asks why were the chosen ones all located in one geographic area. Why wouldn't God spread his message to prophets on all continents, planets, etc.

My response: Regarding geography: The Middle East was truly the "cradle of civilization," and the message did get out. There are remarkable similarities in creation stories throughout the world, including the orient, which support the claim that all of civilization has its roots in the Fertile Crescent.

More specifically, Israel was God's chosen nation for centuries. God chose the nation of Israel to be the conduit of his message to all other nations. It would have been less efficient to spread authorization too thinly across the planet. Unfortunately, when Israel's Messiah came, the religious rulers and heads of Israel rejected him. As a result, the nation of Israel was set aside. This is when Paul steps on the scene and becomes the divinely appointed source of nearly every denominational split or disagreement in Christendumb [sic] through the centuries to today. Through Paul's writings, God ceased from communicating exclusively through Israel. Paul's writings were addressed to Jew and non-Jew alike, equally, which was unprecedented.

The Skeptic asks why God would use Israel as His starting point, leaving out the other nations.

My response: You're right to point that out. Most evangelicals don't recognize that Jesus called non-Jews "dogs" who "eat crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Israel was chosen by God to be the chief nation, to benevolently rule over all the other nations and to teach them the gospel (and this, by the way, is what Revelation is pointing toward: A future righteous and benevolent kingdom that is governed by the Jews through which all the nations of the world will be blessed). What may appear to potentially be an inferiority complex will actually be a willful acceptance of one's place (as a nation) in the plan of creation. Israel is called "chief among equals." The favored nation is no "better" or "superior" to the other nations by their own virtue. And God chose them through no merits of their own. But people must be governed, and God happened to choose Israel to do it.

The Skeptic asks if all land is considered 'holy land' in God's eyes.

My response: Biblically speaking, God chose a special tract of land -- delineated in excruciating detail in the Bible -- and a place for His temple that would be the worship center for all nations. Revelation refers back to Hebrew prophecies that foretell a time when representatives of all the nations will come to Israel at certain times of the year to worship.

The Skeptic asks how I KNOW that Jesus was God and not just a really amazing human being. 'You can't know that can you? You have to just believe it. Objectively, it's kind of preposterous.'

My response: You've asked the gazillion-dollar question. And this is where it often gets uncomfortable for the skeptic. You're right about having "to just believe it," although I am loath to minimize it by using the word "just." Believing is not easy. While the Bible affirms that belief (the same word as "faith" in the original Greek language) is a gift from God, the Bible also says that those who have not been given the gift of faith are nonetheless without excuse concerning God's existence and the deity of Jesus. Here's why: When we as human beings assess the things we know -- and it is a inevitiable human thing to do -- the more thoughtful and astute among us will wonder, "How do I know what I know?" This question, strangely enough, ought to lead each and every human being to the conclusion that God exists, that Christ is God, and that we are all accountable to him. I realize that's quite a claim, and here's the basis of that claim:

The ultimate epistemological question asks for a foundation -- a solid ground -- on which to base all of one's reasoning, inference, thinking and knowledge. This is why Archimedes said, "Give me a ledge on which to stand and I will move the earth," or something like that. He recognized a deficit in his reasoning, namely, that he needed to justify his method of knowing.

David Hume, one of my favorite philosophers, wrote eloquently about this. In a nutshell, he acknowledged that there exist no objective grounds on which to trust logical inference, to use induction or to expect uniformity in one's experience. Epistemologically speaking, the true skeptic should not trust chairs. Every time he attempts to sit in a chair, the true skeptic, if he is consistent with his espoused thesis, must check the chair to see if it will hold his weight this time. It should not matter that the chair held his weight just 5 minutes ago.

Surrealist artist Salvador Dali seemed to pay homage to this conundrum with his Lobster-Telephone sculpture. The quote that accompanies the sculpture at the Dali Museum in St. Petersburg, Fla. says: "I never understand why, when I ask for a grilled lobster, I am never served a cooked telephone."

What's the point of all that? It's this: ALL knowledge and reason is based on belief/faith. How does one know one can trust logic and reason? Do you have to just believe it? One cannot prove the verity of logic and reason. To say, "It just works" is to beg the very question, to commit a violation of logic itself.

Some say that the only way to ascertain reality and truth is by the scientific method. The problem is glaring: By what method does one establish the verity of the scientific method? The statement is self-refuting. Rather than face this problem, all the skeptic scientists I've debated on this matter are forced to the conclusion (although most refuse to admit it): You have to just believe it. This was unacceptable to Hume, and for good reason (no pun intended). If someone is committed to sound logic, that very logic demands that logic itself must be logically grounded. But it is utterly impossible to do so without question-begging (that is, to commit a logical fallacy).

It is important to recognize that objectivity is not the believer's problem, but the skeptic's. You used the word "objectively" when you wrote: "Objectively, it's kind of preposterous."

I agree with you, IF we assume a godless and purposeless universe. Hume assumed there was no god and no purpose in the universe, and it led him to irrationality, concluding that there is no ground for logic or reason. One can only go on blind faith. Archimedes realized that there had to be an ultimate foundation, and without God, there is no "ledge." Without God, there is only blind faith. The existence of God gives us the only rational grounding for logic, a basis for trusting in mathematics and science, a foundation for expecting uniformity in nature, a bedrock to undergird the inductive principle and modus ponens. So yes, for the skeptic, you just have to believe it -- BLINDLY. For the believer, it isn't blind faith. It is rather a wide-eyed, perspicuous faith. Everything, all knowledge without exception, is based on faith. The difference is: Some have an unjustified blind faith (the skeptic) and some have a justified grounded faith (the believer). Those who recognize this deficit in their epistemology ought to conclude that God must therefore exist. Otherwise, nothing makes sense. Thus, the proof of God's existence and the deity of Christ is the impossibility of the contrary. It is a transcendental argument, primarily because that which grounds our very thinking must transcend our thinking. And that ought to lead us to the existence of God and the deity of Christ.

END OF DIALOGUE (thus far).