---

Chapter Ten:  Contra the Critics  

Now it is time to reply to the critics.  In doing so, we will categorize their arguments (see chapter one), and answer them by (a) referring them to the parts of the paper that refute their point, by use of material facts, and (b) point out the logical fallacy (if any) in their understanding of the material.  The evidence appealed to in replying to the charges will be coded by citing the chapter and section of this paper relevant to the charge (e.g. “2.1-3” means “chapter two, sections one through three”).  The logical fallacy pointed out will be underlined; the definitions of these fallacies are given in Appendix M. 

1

 “Christianity is based on emotion, not reason.” 

The present paper should be enough to refute this charge.  Throughout the ages, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Athanasius, Aquinas, and myriad others have sought to explain Christianity in reasonable terms; more modern authors:  e.g. Butler, Newman, Copleston, and Lewis have been intelligent scholars appealing to reason, not emotion.  The New Testament itself, in the presentation of the keyrgma (6; 7.1-2), the appeal to eyewitnesses (9), and the care demonstrated to accurately reconstruct the text itself (5.3-10) show an appeal to reason.   

Pointing to individuals who have embraced Christianity on an emotional basis is certainly an unrepresentative generalization.  Furthermore, it is an example of the genetic fallacy, that is, the fallacy that the origin of something exhaustively explains its truthfulness. 

2 

“Christianity is a belief-system, not true-or-false.” 

Does the critic find this as a result of examining Christianity, or from his own philosophy?  The New Testament notion of faith is the appropriation of one truth concerning God and man.  This one truth is equal to the gospel of Jesus, and nothing else.  Only this faith is valid, not a vague “belief-system.” (2.1-3)   

FALLACY:  This position is a false dilemma, assuming an either/or distinction between belief and truth.  It demonstrates a certain cultural bias, thinking that our age is concerned with truth while the past ages have only desired convenient beliefs.  It is therefore begging the question by assuming a belief to be untrue, simply because it is a belief. 

3 

“God’s existence is not verifiable.” 

The importance of verifying God’s existence, not merely asserting it, is a valid point.  Kant’s problem was that the noumenon could not be known, therefore God’s existence could not be demonstrated (3.4).  It is proper to try to verify God’s existence (4.6).  But the proper method is not the classical “proofs” (4.1-2), but by examining the possible modes of revelation open to God (4.3), understanding that such a revelation would – be definition – be miraculous (4.4), and use the best standards (legal and historiographical) (4.7-10) to verify or falsify any claims concerning this revelation.  To deny historical, inductive verification is to deny all factual knowledge whatsoever.  To accept only deductive absolute knowledge is to accept nothing at all, for it can have no content (2.9-10).  Therefore, those who accept only deductive knowledge cannot verify God’s existence, while those who accept the best results of inductive knowledge possibly might.

FALLACY:  The fallacy of this argument is the misunderstanding of the roles of deduction and induction. 

4 

“Miracles cannot occur.” 

This statement presupposes an infinite knowledge of the universe, that is, what can and cannot happen.  It is not to be refuted by “a-causal” events, but simply by asking “how big is the system we’re studying?”  The possibility of the miraculous exactly equals the possibility of a theistic God’s existence, and would seem to go hand-in-hand with that existence.  To declare an event miraculous would take the sufficient testimony of the self-disclosure of the noumenon himself (4.4). 

FALLACY:  The fallacy which excludes the theistic God’s intervention in His creation is a case of circular reasoning, also called begging the question. 

5 

“Proofs of God’s existence are not valid.” 

In the classical-proof sense, this may well be true – they are not logically compelling.  But God’s existence may be legitimately be verified through facts in the world induction and rules of evidence. 

FALLACY:  This is a red herring (“a clamorous insistence on an irrelevancy”). 

6 

“Not interested in the historical Jesus.” 

This is the second part of the red herring mentioned above.  Inductive verification of God’s existence means that we must investigate the claim that He has disclosed Himself within history.  Jesus made that claim, and seems to be the most prominent one who did.  Therefore, if we refuse to examine the most obvious occurrence of God’s self-disclosure, we can never know if it truly occurred in this person.  We must be open to finding the truth where it is. 

FALLACY:  Red herring.  “Invincible Ignorance.” 

7 

“Private interpretation of the documents.” 

As shown in the paper (4.10; 9.15), documents must be interpreted according to the best standards available, i.e. in context and without extraneous, subjective interpretations. 

FALLACY:  When the presuppositions of the exegete prevail over the text, circular reasoning is bound to occur, for he winds up with his assumptions at the end of the study.  This is also called a priorism. 

8 

“The New Testament text is corrupt.” 

This is an unfortunate ignorance of the facts.  There is such a wealth of material sufficiently close to the date of composition that no reputable scholar doubts the textual integrity of the New Testament (5.3-10). 

9 

“There was probably no real historical Jesus.” 

This is refuted by the facts.  The material from pagan and Jewish sources alone establishes Jesus’ historicity.  One would be hard-pressed to find a scholar doubting Jesus as a figure of history (5.1-2; 9:1.15). 

10 

“Hellenistic ideas were added to a Jewish framework.” 

To show that a concept existed prior to the writing of the New Testament does not necessarily show a causal relationship between the two (8.5).  Secondly, the facts are that Judaea was already Hellenized before Jesus’ time, and therefore didn’t become Hellenized after his crucifixion (in fact, it became less so).  And third, the Gnostic redeemer myth which supposedly influenced the Christian documents has been shown to be later than these documents, not earlier. 

FALLACY:  This involves post hoc reasoning; also faulty causal generalization, as well as a simple ignorance of the historical facts. 

11 

“The Councils determined the acceptance of the N.T. books.” 

By attending only to the “homologoumena”, and not the disputed works, we can deal with the books that have always been accepted; and their testimony is sufficient for our study (9.1).   

FALLACY:  Red herring. 

12 

“The New Testament is a collection of legends, not eyewitness accounts.” 

This is the major position of the critics.  First, the hard evidence they appeal to has not stood up under scrutiny.  The “pericopae” and “Hellenistic idea” theories are examples of faulty causal generalization (the first, because the external witnesses for the gospels confirms that pericopae exist, and that they come from a compilation of Peter’s sermons; the second, as shown above already).  The “life-situation” which was the supposed motivating force for the gospels leads them to a false either/or distinction between the needs of the hearers and the objective truth.   

That the “early Christians didn’t want to, and weren’t able to, preserve the facts” ignores the weight of the evidence (the eyewitness assertions within and about the N.T. are there as indications that they wanted to preserve the truth; the early date and presence of the apostles themselves during the time of some of the writings indicates that they were able to preserve the truth).  The hard evidence consistently refutes their position (8.1-5; 9:2-15).  The reason they stand against the empirical evidence is because of a faulty system of interpretation (a “catch 22”) based on a philosophic presupposition against the miraculous, already shown to be circular reasoning. 

FALLACY:  Faulty causal generalization concerning Hellenstic ideas; false dilemma regarding needs of hearers vs. objective truth; and circular reasoning in denying the possibility of miracles. 

13 

Now we will tabulate the critics’ claims, and respond in three ways:  (a) the part of the paper that rebuts the claim, (b) the part in the analysis just made that pertains to the particular objection (for instance, if the objection was that the “councils determined the acceptance of the New Testament”, we would put “R11” for the response given in section 11 of this chapter), and then (c) we will label the logical fallacy committed. 

 

Bertrand Russell
	1. Proofs are no good	R5	4.1-3; 4.6	Red herring
	2. Based on emotion, not reason	R1	5.3-10; 6; 9; 7.1-2	Genetic fall.
	3. Not concerned with hist. Jesus	R6	4.3; 4.7-10	Red herring
	4. God incapable of verification	R3	3.4; 4.1-3, 6-10	Ded vs induct
Ludwig Feurbach
	1. Based on wish-fulfillment	R1	5.3-10; 6; 9; 7.1-2	Gen fall.
	2. No miracles	R4	4.4	Circ reason.
	3. Hellenstic added to Jewish	R10	8.5	Post hoc
	4. God incapable of verification	R3	3.4; 4.1-3, 6-10	Ded vs induct
Walter Kauffman
	1. Paul brow-beat disciples	-	9.2	Interp
	2. Jesus’ testimony vague	-	6; 7.1-2	Interp
	3. Disc test. Not based on pers exp	-	7.1-2; 4.10; 9.15	Interp
Sigmund Freud
	1. Religion is defense mechanism	R1	5.3-10; 6; 9; 7.1-2	Unrep gen.
	2. Textual corruption	R8	5.3-10	Ignorance
	3. No miracles	R4	4.4	Circ reason.
	4. Similar religions	R10	8.5	Post hoc
Paramahansa Yogananda
	1. New interpretation	R7	4.10; 9.15	Interp
Mahatma Gandhi
	1. Son of God impossible	R3	3.4; 4.1-3; 4.6-10	Circ reason.
	2. Councils distorted Jesus’ msg	R11	9.1	Red herring
	3. No miracles	R4	4.4	Circ. Reason.
	4. Not interest in hist Jesus	R6	3.4; 4.1-3; 4.6-10	Invinc ignore.
Hugh Schonfield
	1. Jesus messiah in political sense	-	6.1-5	Interp.
	2. Didn’t claim to be Son of God	-	6.6-12; 7; 9	Interp.
	3. Growing Christology	R10	8.5	Post hoc
	4. Late date for New Testament	-	9
Erich Von Daniken
	1. Faith not based on reason	R1	6; 9; 7.1-2; 5.3-10	Genetic fall.
	2. Contradictions in the accounts	-	7.3	Interp.
	3. Hellenistic notions added	R10	8.5	Post hoc
	4. Jesus = Essene zealot	-	6.1-5+	Interp.
	5. Textual corruption	R2	5.3-10	Ignorance
	6. Gospels dated late	R12	9.5-10; 9.13
	7. Apostles not alive	-	8.4; 9
	8. Councils	R11	9.1	Red herring

 

In studying the above chart, one can concentrate on each critic, looking up the section appropriate to the challenge.  The deeper refutation, of source, is given in the paper proper.  Therefore, we have accomplished two things:  we have given an answer to the critics, category-by-category and point-by-point; and we have given a detailed explanation of the truth of the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the personal, unique, concrete revelation of the personal, infinite God – using philosophic and historiographic tools.