Marshall vs. Carrier: My opening statement

In our debate in February at the University of Alabama - Huntsville, Richard Carrier advised the audience, "Of course after this debate you should go out and learn more . . . Learn about this beyond what gets covered in this debate."  I agree.  A public debate can be a fun spectacle, but also the chance to raise important questions and to think in new ways -- then go out and check the facts for oneself. 

That's the main reason I'm putting together a transcript of our debate.  Not only for the value of the debate itself, and not just because I personally prefer transcripts, which can be read easily and quoted if desired.  But also this allows the debate to go on, to serve as a springboard to further research.  I, for one, am eager to double-check some of the claims Richard made during our debate, not all of which I could answer (or even knew enough to answer!  and I'm pretty sure that was true for him, too) in those few minutes on stage.  And maybe others will also like to know where we got our information from, and check whether it is accurate. 

So here's a fairly close transcript of my opening statement.  I've eliminated most disfluencies for both of us, since obviously the word "uh" only adds so much. 

 

While I thought this opening statement generally sounded pretty good, I was aghast, listening to this tape for the first time, to see that I blew not one, but two punchlines in this opening talk!  I've reinserted those brief punchlines in the text below, in red.  Of course Carrier can't be expected to reply to blown punchlines, and as it turns out, his responses don't much focus on those particular stories, anyway. Adding them here will make my initial arguments clearer for readers, however.   

Here's the audio, if this link works.  I've now also posted a transcription of Richard Carrier's opening statement, our first rebuttals, and my in-depth analysis of some of Carrier's claims.  Click link at bottom to go to later parts of the debate. -- DM

 

 

Thank you so much for coming. I can't actually see you, but I believe by faith that you're out there. I also would like to thank Richard for coming. Richard is someone who thinks outside the box, and he's willing to take on big issues, and I really like that. I don't agree with the conclusions he comes to, but that's what we're here to talk about tonight.

 

The debate is entitled, "Is the Christian faith reasonable?" What does that mean? Some of you may be afraid that having the words "faith" and "reason" so close together in a sentence may cause the building to explode. It won't happen, don't worry. Faith and reason have been intimately associated in Christian thought for two thousand years. 

Time is limited, so I'd better stick to the basics. I think there's something to be said for the classical philosophical arguments -- from the nature, origin, or fine-tuning of the universe, or from the very concept of who God must be -- as developed by modern theistic philosophers. I don't think those arguments are conclusive, but I think they are suggestive. Anyway, I'm not going to use them tonight. If you want to see a really good debate on those subjects, at least from the Christian perspective, William Lane Craig's debate with Alex Rosenburg last week was really interesting. But there's going to be practically no overlap with the debate tonight. 

I'm a student of world religions, and an historian. Those are the perspectives I'll be arguing from tonight. I made two arguments this morning -- that Christianity makes sense of world religions, and that it has reformed and makes better sense of how we understand history. But there's no time for those arguments tonight. I want to argue from facts that are available to people in this audience, with a little study, or asking around. 

This question, "Is the Christian Faith Reasonable?" can mean at least three things. First, "Is Christianity reasonable in the pragmatic sense? Does it deliver the goods? Is it useful for individuals or for society -- for humanity, this thing called Christianity?" I had a friend in Hong Kong who was an engineer. He told me that at engineering schools there tended to be a lot of good Christian fellowships, because engineers like things that work. Well I agree. Christian faith works, for individuals and for society. But that's not the issue I'll be focusing on tonight.


This question could also mean, "Do Christians employ reasoning in arguing for Christianity? Or is the Christian faith supposed to be something one believes "not only without evidence, but in the teeth of the evidence," as Richard Dawkins famously claims?

Well I think the Christian faith is something that is closely associated with reason.
But I want to make a stronger claim tonight. "Not only is Christianity reasonable in that it makes practical sense to believe it, and that Christians have always reasoned to and for their faith. There are also good reasons to believe -- good evidences -- that Christianity is true."

Let me give three, briefly. (1) Miracles. (2) Anthropology, a God that transcends particular cultures. (3) New Testament criticism -- the person of Jesus. 

(1) Miracles

 

First of all, miracles. Richard has said that he can "imagine sufficient technical and professional documentation" of some kinds of supernatural events like levitation of demon levitations that would convince him. Or, "so could directly witnessing it myself." (Proving History, 55)

 

So Richard concedes, first of all, that believing something is a personal thing. Something might be reasonable for you having a certain amount of evidence, and maybe not for me, because you have a certain amount of background knowledge, and I don't. He also concedes that the direct experience experience of miracles, baring drug use or something like that, may render belief in something apparently beyond nature reasonable for the person who experiences it. B

 

But how might this work?

 

Let's give an example.

 

Twenty or some years ago, I was working as a "faith missionary" in the country of Taiwan. "Faith missionary" basically meant I didn't have any money. And I prayed for it, I didn't ask anybody.

One Friday, I was out of money, I went to the bank with a check from the US. They said, sorry, we can't cash it right now. So I went back home to take inventory. And lo and behold, I had no toilet paper. No soap. And no food. And no money to buy any of it with, but little more than a dollar. 

So on Saturday morning, I took that little more than a dollar and I bought a ticket to Taipei Station. And I started wandering around New Park near Taipei train station, complaining to God. 

"God, what am I doing in Taiwan? I don't even have enough money to buy a hamburger! I'm going to go home, I'm tired of this!" See what a faith missionary is, he has lots of faith. 

And after complaining like this for a while, I got tired of talking to Someone who didn't answer me, and I started going out of the park. And there was a girl, kind of pretty, reading an English newspaper. I struck up a conversation with her. And after we talked for a while, and I got up to leave, she asked me, "What's your name?" "Ma Dewei." She said, "Ni shi Ma Dewei ma?" "Are you really Ma Dewei?" 

It turned out that a few years before, I had found a billfold on the campus of National Taiwan University several miles away. I had taken it to Lost and Found, and had written a little note in it: "God loves you - Ma Dewei." And this was that girl. In a city of 4 1/2 million people, several years later, just when I was praying for that.

She took me out for lunch, to thank me.  Nothing expensive -- Mcdonalds.  As I was sitting there eating my cheeseburger, it occurred to me -- hadn't I said something to God about not being able to buy a hamburger?

It's a longer story than that, several other things happened, and all of my needs happened to be met. Now what does this mean? It's an anecodote. A coincidence. You meet lots of people, maybe this was just blind luck. Maybe it's a two on a scale of one to ten. Maybe it's a little bit of evidence that something is happening beyond coincidence. 

But I happen to know it is true -- I happened to be there. 

Richard (speaks of) "God's absolute silence and complete inactivity in our own experience."

(33) "No one has observed a realact of God, or any real evidence of his inhabiting or observing the universe.So no one has really seen any evidence that he is good, or even exists . . . " (35)

I can't really say that that's true for me. And what do I do, then, with the story of Jesus' disciples and the huge catch of fish? Maybe that's a 3 on the 1-10 scale. What about stories I hear from other missionaries I met, about long series of "coincidences" in response to desperate needs and prayer? In some cases it might be a 4 or a 5. And I know these people, I know they're not lying, they tell me the story over popcorn, at 12 at night. Smart and honest people, in some cases critical thinkers, even scientists. 

I get to know a PhD student in law at one of world's major universities. He's from an African country. He used to be imam at a mosque. And he tells me he was sitting in his mosque minding his own business one day. And he says he heard the audible voice of God. "Follow Jesus!" As a specialist in Islamic law, he knew that if you convert to Christianity or some other religion, you're worthy of death. He knew it would risk his life. He left his country, he's never been back, because he is so convinced that he had actually heard from God. 

Is it reasonable for him to believe in the supernatural? I think so. 

How about a young man I meet in southern China, who tells me, "My friends can laugh at me, but I will never stop believing in God." Because his wife had been cured from a head injury. 

Or a man I met on the coast of China who was dying of throat cancer. The doctors said he had no hope. He went home, and some people prayed for him, and he saw a vision of Jesus, who said "Go preach the Gospel!" And he was cured. And he'd been preaching the Gospel ever since. 

It turns out, a high percentage of converts to Christianity, in places like India, China, and other parts of the world, convert either through such such experiences personally, or experiences that others relate.

Craig Keener, a New Testament scholar, has documented many of these stories, in a book that's about 1100 pages long, telling hundreds of stories about how God has helped people around the world. Some of these stories are 8, 9, 10 on the scale of 1-10, including things that happened to him personally, and to his wife.    

Miracles don't just happen to superstitious old ladies: they happen to geniuses who change the world. St. Augustine records some of these events in his own life. St. Patrick, Mateo Ricci and the Chinese Jesuits, and many others. 

So what? 

Richard says, "In truth, science is actually subordinate to history." And I agree with him on that. In some ways, science is the record of things that have been recorded in the past, patterns that have been observed, and understanding of the universe based on experiments related to us by other people. (Proving History, 47-8)

Richard also admitted, in a debate with Michael Licona, that if he himself had close friends whom he trusted intimately, who told him about things that happened in their lives that were beyond the possibility of explaining naturally, that he would believe in the supernatural. So this seems to concede, not only for the tens of millions of people who have had direct supernatural experiences, but also for the hundreds of millions of people who have heard about such events from people they have good reason to trust, (that) it is reasonable to believe in a supernatural. 

(2) God 

Second point, God.

There's a very popular argument among New Atheists that God is the construct of a particular culture and therefore he is nothing more than an artifact. Richard Dawkins says, "Not surprisingly, since it is founded on local traditions of private revelation rather than evidence, the God Hypothesis comes in many versions. Historians of religion recognize a progression from primitive tribal animisms, through polytheisms . . . to monotheisms . . . " (GD, 32)

Emile Durkheim, the founder of sociology in some ways, said that Religious beliefs have "varied infinitely." This shows none "expresses (truth) adequately."

And Richard Carrier also say, "Were the Christian God genuinely communicating with us, his communications would be consistent across all times and regions." (43) (Carrier, Why I am not a Christian, 43)

So here's the argument: If God existed, he would transcend the creation of any given culture. But God does NOT transcend the creation of any given culture: he arose maybe during the reign of King Josiah in the Old Testament, and then radiated out to form Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 

BUT: 

But, as Durkheim also noted, the Australian God was "fundamentally the same everywhere." "Eternal," "a sort of creator," "father of men," "made animals and trees," "benefactor," "communicates," "punishes," "judge after death," and they "feel his presence everywhere."

The word for God in ancient China is "Shang Di" from the Shang Dynasty, and then "Tian" in the Zhou Dynasty. I won't give you all the characteristics of God for want of time, but he also conforms to the same pattern.

Richard Carrier also admits this a little bit.

So?

So forget about, "You just disbelieve in one more God than we do." The Christian God is not "just one more god." That's a bad pun. God is conceptually as distinct from the gods as Tinkerbell's pixie dust is conceptually distinct from the Big Bang. God is, in Anselm's words, "He than whom greater one cannot conceive.

Furthermore, the atheist argument is, "God does not transcend one culture, so there is no God. He is the product of his culture."

Let's reverse that. It turns out God DOES transcend Hebrew or American culture. He clearly is NOT the product of one society, or even one kind of society. 

Does it not following, using Dawkins, Durkheim's, and even Richard's argument, that if God DOES transcend any one culture, he is NOT the product of human imagination?

(3) Jesus

A couple years ago my wife was walking through the busiest train station in the world, Shinjiku station in Tokyo. A couple million people walk through there every day. That's every day! As she was walking down this flood of humanity, like a river, up the other way another flood of humanity, tens of thousands of people -- somebody noticed her. They stopped, and looked at each other -- Hiroko! From Seattle, her good friend. Both were not too tall, not too short, average height, pretty Japanese women. Black hair, the same as everybody else in the crowd. What was it about Mayumi, my wife, that allowed Hiroko to notice her in the flooding crowd of tens of thousands of people? Just some slight difference in the nose or the eyes, something like that, and she noticed. A "Where's Waldo" kind of a moment.

Let's set that story to the side for the moment. We'll come back to it. 

I disagree with Richard Carrier in that I think that conventional historical research on Jesus has yielded a great deal of fruit. It has established a great deal. Even from people like Thomas Jefferson, a skeptic, who said the "eloquence and persuasiveness" of the Gospels goes "far beyond" the "feeble minds" of the gospel writers to invent. William Paley, who found the "similtude of manner, which indicates the actions and discourses proceed from the same person." In other words, you can triangulate from the different gospels to an historical person. 

Robert Funk, the founder of the Jesus Seminar, wrote about parables, on which he was an expert. He said "virtually unknown in the OT, and rarely successfully imitated in Christian lore . . .Very few sages have achieved the same level of creativity" as the Jesus of the gospels. ((136, 153) John Crossan realized that Jesus: was a "prophet of the margins" who overturned social convention. Richard Burridge has shown that the gospels conform to the category of bioi, or Greek biography. Morton Smith, a professor at Columbia University where Richard studied, showed that miracles infuse every single layer of the gospels. Jesus was a worker of miracles, the historical Jesus must have worked miracles, he argued.

Now we can set these characteristics against one another, and do a kind of zero-sum game thing, where only one can be right, and they have to fight and struggle against one another.

But Marcus Borg, more perceptively, realized that Jesus could be all these things at once, like blind men feeling the elephant. They feel one part of Jesus. Marcus Borg recognized that Jesus was a "spirit person." He was "a charismatic healer or 'holy person.' He was a subversive sage who undermined conventional wisdom and taught an alternative wisdom. He was a social prophed, and an initiator of a movement the purpose of which was the revitalization of Israel." That's a pretty big elephant!

Richard Bauckham has recently written a brilliant book showing that the Gospels almost certainly contain a great deal of eyewitness testimony. NT Wright, the great British scholar, has shown, as philosopher Raymond Martin says, "The Gospels makes remarkably good historical sense." One of the tools that he uses to show that is something called double similarity, double disimilarity, which I think is a very powerful tool. 

OK, this is a sampling of some of the historical research on Jesus. Certain perspectives on who Jesus is, which added together make a remarkable person, which I think gives (us) a very good reason to believe.

But my contention is that ordinary readers can meet Jesus by simply reading the Gospels for themselves. Our eyes are created or evolved to recognize human faces, and no one, having read the Gospels, can unrecognize Jesus without cost to his or her honesty.

I describe fifty characteristics that all four gospels share in common, having to do with setting, the style and literary character, having to do with Jesus as a moralist, Jesus in society, how he treats other people, Jesus as a teacher, and theological. characteristics. Many of them have nothing to do with something one would make up just to make up a good story. These are things we pick up on without noticing.

At least twenty-six of these characteristics relate to historicity. And all twenty-six strongly favor the essential historicity of the main narratives of the Gospels. But I maintain that we pick up on these qualities even without noticing, much as my wife's friend noticed her in the Tokyo train station, even without careful analysis.

These three sets of facts -- first of all, the miracles do in fact seem to happen. Secondly, that God is not limited to one culture but transcends culture. And thirdly, the person of Jesus, I maintain, are all good reasons to believe in Christianity. And Richard Carrier seems to implicitly admit the premises of parts of the first two arguments. 

Next: Richard Carrier's opening statement.   For first rebuttals, read here.