Chapter 3: Careful consideration
Thinking rationally, evaluating the evidence, and an invitation
[ Index | (i) Background: 1 / 2 / 3 | (ii) Problem: 4 / 5 / 6 | (iii) Solution: 7 / 8 / 9 ]
Having discussed possibilities concerning revelation (Chapter 1) and some common misconceptions (Chapter 2), in the final chapter of this first part of the book, we shall discuss something of what it means to give careful consideration to the evidence for the claims concerning Jesus Christ.
3A. Thinking rationally
We shall begin by discussing the extent to which we think rationally in everyday life.
Some simple logic problems...
Consider, for example, the following simple logic problems:
(a) Coin tossing
The first problem is taken from Stuart Sutherland’s Irrationality (p145). A coin is tossed six times. Consider the following three possible results (H = heads, T = tails). Which of these three particular sequences is most likely to occur?
(1) T T T T T T (2) T T T H H H (3) T H H T T H
With a view to giving the reader an opportunity to ponder the problem without the temptation to read straight on to the solution, we shall defer discussion of the solution until a little later.
(b) Linda
The second problem is described by Daniel Kahneman in Thinking, Fast and Slow(p 156ff). Linda is thirty-one years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. At university, she read philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in antinuclear demonstrations. Which of the following alternatives is more probable?
(1) Linda is a bank teller
(2) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement
(c) Monty Hall problem
The Monty Hall problem is a puzzle loosely based on the American game show Let’s Make a Deal presented by Monty Hall. It is described by Jim Al-Khalili in Paradox (p35): “Suppose you’re on a game show, and you’re given the choice of three doors: A, B and C. Behind one door is a car, behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say door A, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say B, to reveal a goat. He says to you, ‘Do you want to switch to door C?’ Is it to your advantage to switch choice of doors?”
In this scenario, the host knows which door the car is behind. And if the car is behind the door you chose, then he chooses one of the other doors to open. Whereas if the car is behind one of the doors you didn’t choose, he opens the third door (which he knows has no car behind it). It may be assumed that the host is thoroughly honest, that you have no prior knowledge that allows you to distinguish between the doors, and that a car is a more desirable outcome than a goat.
(d) Wason selection task
Devised in 1966 by Peter Cathcart Wason, our final problem, the “Wason selection task” is quoted here from New Scientist (5 May 2007, p38).
Four cards are laid out each with a letter on one side and a number on the other. You can see D, A, 2 and 5 (as above). The task is to determine which cards must be turned over to allow you to decide if the following statement is true: “If there is a D on one side, there is a 5 on the other”.
...and their solutions
We turn now to consider the solutions to the above problems, starting with that of the coin tossing.
(a) Coin tossing solution
It is tempting to pick (3) T H H T T H as the most likely outcome. But the answer, which comes as a surprise to many people, is that each outcome is equally likely.
In the words of Stuart Sutherland, again from Irrationality (p145), “the mistake arises because there appears to be an element of order in the sequences (1) and (2): they seem not to be random because it is unusual to get runs of heads or tails from a series of tossing a coin. People reason, perhaps unconsciously, that because there are many more unordered sequences than ordered, the unordered sequence is more probable than either of the other two. But the reasoning is fallacious. It fails to take into account that this is a particular unordered sequence. Assuming the coin is not biased, the chance of a head (or tail) turning up with each toss is one half and therefore any given sequence has the same chance of occurring as any other, to be precise one chance in sixty-four.”
(b) Linda solution
It is more probable that (1) Linda is a bank teller than (2) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. As Kahneman points out, “The set of feminist bank tellers is wholly included in the set of bank tellers, as every feminist bank teller is a bank teller. Therefore the probability that Linda is a feminist bank teller must be lower than the probability of her being a bank teller. When you specify a possible event in greater detail you can only lower its probability.”
Those choosing option (2) are in good company though. In the studies Kahneman describes, around 85-90% of undergraduates at several major universities chose option (2), contrary to simple logic. At first glance, option (2) appears more plausible. While Linda fits the idea of a feminist bank teller better than she fits the stereotype of a bank teller, the stereotypical bank teller is not a feminist activist, and adding that detail to the description makes for a more coherent story. But while option (2) may appear more plausible, its probability is, by definition, lower than that for option (1). It is easy to leap to false conclusions, even in the case of simple logic problems.
(c) Monty Hall solution
When considering the Monty Hall problem, many people, especially at first sight, conclude that it does not matter whether the player switches. But this is not correct. Once the host has opened a door, the car must be behind one of the two remaining doors. The player has no way to know which of these doors is the winning door, leading many people to assume that each door has an equal probability and to conclude that switching does not matter. But this “equal probability” assumption, while being intuitively seductive, is incorrect. The player’s chances of winning the car actually double by switching to the door the host offers.
The chance of initially choosing the car is one in three, which is the chance of winning the car by sticking with this choice. By contrast, the chance of initially choosing a door with a goat is two in three, and a player originally choosing a door with a goat wins by switching. In both cases the host must reveal a goat. In the two out of three cases where the player initially chooses a goat, the host must reveal the other goat making the only remaining door the one with the car.
Jim Al-Khalili recounts how Marilyn vos Savant offered the Monty Hall problem and the correct solution in her Ask Marilyn column in the popular American magazine Parade (Paradox, p29ff). Thousands of readers, including eminent mathematicians, wrote to tell her she was wrong. Some of the controversy was because the Parade statement of the problem fails to fully specify the host’s behaviour and is thus technically ambiguous. However, even when given completely unambiguous problem statements, explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still meet the correct answer with disbelief.
(d) Wason selection task solution
The New Scientist article in which this final problem is quoted is introduced as follows: “Have you ever had an argument with someone about a vexatious issue... and been frustrated because they only drew on evidence that supported their opinions and conveniently ignored anything to the contrary? This is the ubiquitous confirmation bias. It can be infuriating in others, but we are all susceptible every time we weigh up evidence to guide our decision-making.”
The problem is then posed as previously stated, and the article continues with the solution: “Typically, 75% of people pick the D and 5, reasoning that if these have a 5 and a D respectively on their flip sides, this confirms the rules. But look again. Although you are required to prove that if there is a D on one side, there is a 5 on the other, the statement says nothing about what letters might be on the reverse of a 5. So the 5 card is irrelevant. Instead of trying to confirm the theory, the way to test it is to try to disprove it. The correct answer is D – if the reverse isn’t 5, the statement is false – and 2 – if there’s a D on the other side, the statement is false.”
Can we think straight?
Logically...
So, how did you fare? If you answered all four of the above problems correctly, congratulations! Most people, including some who are intelligent and highly educated, do not – unless they have seen the problems before of course.
What then should we conclude? Can we think straight? Maybe we should perhaps be a little cautious in answering with an unqualified “yes”. This is not to denigrate the remarkable human brain, which is arguably the most complex entity in the known universe. It is rather to emphasise that thinking rationally does not always come so easily or naturally as we might expect.
Even when presented with simple logic problems it seems that we human beings are naturally inclined to decide what we think or believe first, and then to look for evidence to support our case. Ironically, this way of working can be more of a pitfall for clever people who can devise ingenious ways to defend the indefensible, sometimes couched in what to most people is impenetrable rhetoric.
It is instructive to read the accompanying comment in the New Scientist article from which I quoted the Wason selection task. The author writes, “The confirmation bias [i.e. when people draw on evidence that supports their opinions and conveniently ignore anything to the contrary] is a problem if we believe we are making a decision by rationally weighing up alternatives, when in fact we already have a favoured option that we simply want to justify. Our tendency to overestimate the extent to which other people’s judgement is affected by the confirmation bias, while denying it in ourselves, makes matters worse.”
The article concludes, “If you want to make good choices, you need to do more than latch on to facts and figures that support the option you already suspect is the best. Admittedly, actively searching for evidence that could prove you wrong is a painful process, and requires self-discipline. That may be too much to ask of many people much of the time. ‘Perhaps it’s enough to realise that we’re unlikely to be truly objective,’ says psychologist Ray Nickerson at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts. ‘Just recognising that this bias exists, and that we’re all subject to it, is probably a good thing.’ At the very least, we might hold our view a little less dogmatically and choose with a bit more humility.”
Stuart Sutherland writes similarly concerning overconfidence in our preconceptions: “Our extraordinary facility at forming explanations to support our beliefs results in our placing too much faith in them instead of carefully examining alternatives” (Irrationality, p178). More broadly, he presents cogent evidence for irrationality in many different contexts. We shall return to more of what he has to say in due course when we consider people’s general willingness (or otherwise) to change what they think or believe.
...and beyond
At the very least, these illustrations provide some pause for thought in relation to the careful consideration of Christian revelation. If it is difficult to get our heads around even simple logic problems, how much more of a challenge might we find the revelation of a God who transcends space and time? When we consider the evidence for the truth (or otherwise) of Christianity, we should think carefully before reaching our conclusions.
This is not to deny that understanding Christian revelation requires rather more than mere rational thinking. But as we noted earlier, while Christian revelation may go beyond reason, it is reason that undergirds it.
3B. Evaluating the evidence
Consider the following words concerning science and journalism from an editorial in the scientific magazine Nature: “Science and journalism are not alien cultures, for all that they can sometimes seem that way. They are built on the same foundation – the belief that conclusions require evidence; that the evidence should be open to everyone; and that everything is subject to question” (Nature, 25 June 2009, Vol. 459, No. 7250, p1033).
These three principles – belief that conclusions require evidence; that the evidence should be open to everyone; and that everything is subject to question – form a sound basis for evaluating belief in anything. They can and should be applied not just to scientific theories and journalistic arguments, but also to religious beliefs.
Conclusions require evidence
When considering religious claims, including those concerning Jesus Christ, it is both reasonable and appropriate to apply the principle that conclusions require evidence. This is not to say that the truth of Christianity can be proved in some simple and straightforward fashion though, unless we take the Bible at face value and accept the “proof” that Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead (Acts 17:31, cf. Acts 17:2-3). In any case, there are various degrees of proof. For example, “proving” my identity by showing what I claim to be my birth certificate is rather more convincing than doing so by showing what I claim to be my utility bill. But it still falls well short of absolute proof.
There are also different types of proof. Proving that an abstract mathematical theory is true is rather different from proving that a particular event has happened, for example. And proving things about a God who transcends space and time is something quite different again. Indeed if what God says concerning himself through the Bible is true, his existence is arguably less like a theory that can be proved, and more like an axiom that cannot be proved.
Some of the most important things that it is claimed that we can know about God are grounded in past events. In general terms though, rigorous proof concerning the details of any past event is inherently difficult, even when the event is recent. Indeed we may reasonably ask whether it is even possible to prove on an absolute basis the details of any event from the past, let alone the far past. Those who seek such proof concerning the revelation of God are thus destined to be disappointed.
More generally, absolute proof is rarely if ever encountered in everyday life. From a philosophical perspective, it is inherently difficult to offer absolute proof for anything. And if we cannot prove even everyday things absolutely, it makes little sense to expect to find absolute proof for God’s existence, let alone his revelation to us. In any case, we can do no better than to make the best of the evidence that we do have.
In a court of law the level of proof demanded is not absolute. For criminal trials, the verdict must be “beyond reasonable doubt”, i.e. “so that you are sure”. For civil trials, it is necessary to provide proof “on the balance of probabilities”, i.e. proof that something is “more likely than not”. In both types of trial, eye-witness testimony can play a key role. And some of the evidence concerning the claims of Jesus Christ is of this nature. This is not to say that by considering such evidence we can necessarily reach a conclusion that you are sure of, or even one that you consider more likely than not, but I hope to demonstrate that there is at least a good case to be made.
As with evaluating belief in anything, it is important to consider the available evidence carefully while keeping an open mind insofar as this is possible.Assuming that we are sufficiently open-minded to consider the evidence in the first place, questions like the following seem like good ones to ask: What does the Bible actually say? If there is a God, what is he (or she or it) like? How does he view the world? How does he view human beings? What should we expect of him? And what does he expect of us?
More broadly, we may reasonably ask how the message of God’s revelation fits with other things that we know about the world, such as human nature, historical events and scientific discoveries. If the Bible contains the revelation of the God who claims not only to reveal the truth but to be the truth (cf. John 14:6), we should at least expect its message to be consistent with what we know to be true about the world. We should also expect God’s revelation to be internally consistent. If what we read in the Bible forms a coherent whole, and if its message is consistent with what we observe in the world, that takes us some way to establishing that the Bible really does contain revelation from God.
Evidence should be open to everyone
It is hard to think of circumstances where the evidence not being open to everyone can be considered a good thing. And it is undoubtedly a good thing that the evidence concerning Jesus Christ – evidence that is found mainly in the Bible – is increasingly open to everyone.
As we shall see, it is an intrinsic part of the nature of God’s revelation that it is entwined with human history. God has revealed himself not only through words but through events, and he has arranged for this revelation to be recorded for posterity. As such, God’s revelation is a matter of public record rather than private disclosure (cf. e.g. Isaiah 45:19, Acts 26:25-26). The Bible was revealed not just to one or two people on a few select occasions but to many people over the course of around 1,500 years. The “public reading of Scripture” is encouraged (1 Timothy 4:13, cf. Nehemiah 8:1ff). As we noted in the previous chapter, the message of the Bible is for all people at all times and in all places.
This is not to say that the evidence has always been open to everyone though. It was not until around 1,400 years after Jesus Christ walked the earth that the printing press was invented. Before this, and indeed for a long time afterwards, ownership of a Bible was the preserve of a privileged few. Only relatively recently have books have become sufficiently cheap that almost anyone can afford a Bible – at least in the more affluent parts of the world. More recently still, the development of the Internet has meant that the Bible is now widely available to read online free of charge.
If the evidence concerning Jesus Christ is not open to people today, it is unlikely to be due to prohibitively high printing costs. For some people, language remains a barrier. There are many minority languages into which the Bible has not yet been translated. At the time of writing, fewer than 10% of the world’s thousands of languages have a complete Bible. But a much more widespread reason – as we noted earlier – is that there are parts of the world where access to Bibles is very much restricted, and where the mere possession of a Bible is a serious offence.
In general terms though, the evidence concerning Jesus Christ is becoming increasingly open to everyone. And in writing this book, my intention is to put forward some of that evidence for careful consideration. For this reason, I have woven plenty of text from the Bible into what I have written, and I have acknowledged even slight deviations from it. A careful consideration of the evidence demands that readers can see exactly what is written in the Bible (or at least in a reliable modern translation of it). It is all too easy for an account of “what the Bible says” to become one person’s interpretation of what the Bible says. And while elements of that are difficult to avoid, using words directly from the Bible can only help. Whatever view of the Bible a reader may hold, it is good to have a way of checking out what is being said, and better still if it is immediately accessible.
For many quotations I have also given references to other relevant passages. One of the main reasons for this is to demonstrate the coherence of the overall message of the Bible. I hope to show, for example, that the teachings of Jesus Christ are consistent with those of the apostles. And I hope to demonstrate that the Old Testament and the New Testament fit together remarkably well.
Quoting from the Bible is something that needs to be done carefully though. It is quite possible to misquote the Bible for diabolical ends (cf. e.g. Matthew 4:1-11 where Jesus is tempted in the desert). I thus encourage readers to check out the passages I have cited, particularly with respect to context. It is important for readers to be able to check not just that what I am saying is consistent with what the Bible says, but also that I am not going beyond what God has revealed.
Unless stated otherwise, I have quoted from the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, one of the most widely read modern translations, and one that has stood the test of time. Occasionally I have used the English Standard Version (ESV) which is a more literal modern translation. Along with other translations, the NIV and ESV are freely available online, e.g. at biblegateway.com.
The references are given in the form of “Book chapter:verse”. An index of the 66 “books” can be found at the front of most Bibles. Almost all the books are subdivided into chapters (typically denoted by large numbers), and the chapters into verses (typically denoted by small numbers). The chapter and verse divisions are not present in the original text, but were added much later.
When quoting references I have written out the names of the books in full, i.e. Genesis 1:1 rather than Gen 1:1, not least with a view to maximising accessibility. Where I have quoted two passages from the same book of the Bible, I have used the format Genesis 1:1, Genesis 2:2 rather than Genesis 1:1, 2:2. This means that both “Genesis 1:1” and “Genesis 2:2” can easily be searched electronically as a text string. But when I have quoted several verses from a single chapter I have used the format Genesis 1:1-2,31. Given that a simple search for “Genesis 1:31” will not find “Genesis 1:1-2,31”, it is perhaps best to search for “Book chapter” (“Genesis 1” in this instance). It is also worth noting that verses at the beginning of a chapter may be quoted along with verses from the end of the previous chapter, so a search for “Acts 8” would not find Acts 7:59-8:3, for example. And while the traditional authorship of some books of the Bible has been disputed by some scholars, especially in recent times, in the discussion that follows I have cited the traditional authors, not least for convenience and ease of reference.
Everything is subject to question
It is very often the case that the first person to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines. Whereas the simple believe anything, the prudent give thought to their steps.
The above statements are not the product of recent research. They were written around 3,000 years ago by Solomon, one of the greatest kings of Israel in the Old Testament, and they can be found in the Bible (Proverbs 18:17 and Proverbs 14:15). The idea that everything should be subject to question is not new, and it is an integral part of any quest for truth.
If we are to pursue truth, everything should be subject to question. What we read in the Bible should be subject to question. Our preconceptions about the Bible should be subject to question. And even our preconceptions about the world should be subject to question.
What we read in the Bible
The principle that what we read in the Bible should be subject to question is central to a careful consideration of Christianity. In general terms we may ask questions such as: What sort of book is the Bible? Who wrote it? How can we know that it is reliable? How should we interpret it? In what ways is its message relevant to people today? How does what it says fit with the other things we know about the world, e.g. human nature, historical events, or scientific discoveries?
More specifically, we might ask questions such as: How does the New Testament relate to the Old Testament? What about those parts of the Bible that appear to contradict other parts? And what about passages that seem downright puzzling, or even morally problematic?
Such questions are important, but they do not have simple and straightforward answers. In order to address such matters, it is necessary to read the Bible carefully and, in particular, to consider questions related to genre and context: What sort of literature am I reading here? Are there any ambiguities arising from translation? Who is speaking – or writing – and to whom? What is being said, and why? What was happening at the time, be it locally, nationally or even internationally? It is only by asking such questions that we can properly seek the truth.
Our preconceptions about the Bible
More broadly, what we read in the Bible is affected by our preconceptions about the Bible. And those preconceptions should also be subject to question.
In recent years there have been several prominent best-selling books attacking religion in general, and the Bible and Christianity in particular. Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion is one of the most accessible and widely read examples. But while such critiques are not wholly misplaced, they are, as many others have pointed out, largely aimed at a “straw man” version of Christianity that is actually espoused by very few people (if any).
Despite this, such books can appear persuasive, particularly in a climate where relatively few people have encountered a well-articulated case for the truth of Christianity. As we noted earlier, it is very often the case that the first person tospeak seems right – at least until someone comes forward and cross-examines. It is important to realise though, in the words of John Lennox, that “statements by scientists are not necessarily statements of science. Nor, we might add, are such statements necessarily true; although the prestige of science is such that they are often taken to be so” (God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?, p18).
This book is intended to present a careful consideration of Christianity. Contrary to popular misconception, there is a strong case to be made that the message of the Bible provides a coherent and rational basis for faith in Jesus Christ. I trust that it will be useful to those who sincerely seek the truth.
Our preconceptions about the world
More broadly still, our preconceptions about the Bible are affected by our preconceptions about the world. And those too should be subject to question.
If there is no Someone or Something beyond our world, revelation of any sort is inherently implausible. But if we are open to the possibility of Someone or Something beyond our world, some sort of revelation is quite possible. The Flatland analogy that we discussed in Chapter 1 suggests that the existence of Someone or Something beyond our world is rather more reasonable than we might otherwise think. Events that we would ordinarily regard as miraculous are thus rather more plausible than we might otherwise expect.
If our minds are closed to the idea of Someone or Something beyond this world, and if we view miraculous events as inherently impossible, we will read the Bible and necessarily conclude that much of what it says cannot be true. Only if we are willing to put aside such preconceptions can we evaluate the evidence objectively, while rightly subjecting it to question. This is not necessarily easy to do, but it is very important if we are to seek the truth.
As when considering any evidence, it is important to keep an open mind, to make careful observations, and to be slow to rush to judgement. In particular, we need to be wary of discarding pieces of evidence that do not fit our assumptions. The history of science has taught us not to ignore unexpected and unexplained observations. If a theory does not fit with what we observe, and our observations are correct, the theory needs refining at the very least, and perhaps even a complete overhaul.
3C. An invitation
In Chapter 1 we discussed general possibilities concerning revelation. In Chapter 2 we discussed various misconceptions. And in this chapter we have discussed something of what it means to give careful consideration to the evidence. We are thus now in a position to consider in more detail the claims concerning what God has spoken.
Before we do so though, it is important to acknowledge that explaining what God has revealed is not without its difficulties and challenges. On the one hand, there is much to be said for explanations of God’s revelation. Indeed there is biblical precedent: an Ethiopian in the New Testament book of Acts asks, “How can I [understand this Old Testament passage] unless someone explains it to me?” (Acts 8:31). And even Apollos, “a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures [the Old Testament in this context],” benefited from having “the way of God [explained to him] more adequately” (Acts 18:24-26). But on the other hand, engaging with an explanation of God’s revelation is no substitute for engaging with God’s revelation at first hand. We may reasonably presume that God has good reasons for having given us his revelation in the manner that he has done.
In general we should be wary of human formulations of what God is saying. For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find the statement “God is omnipotent” or terms such as “the Fall” and “the Trinity”. This is not to say that such statements are not true, or that such terms are unhelpful, but merely to point out that God did not use these words in his revelation to us. Indeed he did not use English words at all. Such terms and phrases as those above may or may not help us, but in any case they are human formulations. And even well-intended and apparently straightforward human formulations of God’s revelation can mask complications. For example, what do people really mean when they say that “God is omnipotent”? Philosophical discussion of whether God can make a stone he cannot lift may be academic, but the question of whether God can forgive the rejection of forgiveness bears directly upon all of us.
Any human formulation of God’s revelation risks distorting what God has disclosed. An explanation anything like that which follows here thus necessarily has its limitations. This is yet another reason for including extensive Bible references. Without reservation I encourage the reader to check out what I am saying, and to do so in the spirit of the Bereans of Acts 17:11: being “of... noble character... they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”
At the outset I want to emphasise that I am not trying to do anything intrinsically new here. What I am seeking to do is to present a carefully considered explanation of God’s age-old but timeless revelation through the Bible and in the person of Jesus Christ. While the Western world retains something of its Christian heritage, there are many people who know little of the Christian faith, and there are many prevalent popular misconceptions concerning the Bible and the Christian faith, some of them concerning central and critical issues.
I want to invite readers of this book – Christians or otherwise – to look afresh at the basis for Christianity. As we proceed, it is important to be prepared for surprises. We should not necessarily expect a God who transcends space and time to meet us on our own terms, answering questions according to our agendas. We need to be open to the possibility that the revelation of God is in some ways radically different from what we expect (or from what we have been brought up to expect). On a trivial level, the account of Joseph does not mention a coat of many colours, the Christmas narrative does not feature three wise men as such, and no translation of the Bible I have seen contains the words “money is the root of all evil”. Much more importantly, Christianity is not about keeping rules, and it is not good people who go to heaven. If any of this comes as a surprise, or even if it does not, please do read on.
Next chapter (Chapter 4)
Outline of whole book for reference
Part (i): Background
Part (ii): Problem
Part (iii): Solution
Main index with additional outline structure
The Big Reveal homepage (or search Substack for “The Big Reveal”)
Text © The Big Reveal 2024