Thomas’ statement to the other disciples that, “Unless I see the scars of the nails in his hands and put my fingers on those scars and my hand in his side, I will not believe” is essentially one which is repeated regularly by atheists around the world. Here is a typical comment made in the discussion section of Richard Dawkins’ website, “I have never witnessed a scrap of evidence pointing to god's existence, which leads me to a total lack of belief in it.” Dawkins himself has said, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."
How can we, as Christians, answer such assertions; because it is not enough simply to say that we believe and leave it at that?
First, we need to be clear that those who say there is no evidence for the existence of God seek to disallow the very evidence which has helped convince us otherwise by saying that the only acceptable evidence is scientifically measurable evidence. This is the argument that science and its methods provide the only way of knowing that gives us true knowledge of the world around us.
Yet, if that were to be the case then, for example, weddings would make no real sense. Instead of being about the mutual celebration of love and affection which we see between the couple themselves and also between them, their families and friends, on the basis of measurable scientific knowledge what occurs at a wedding simply becomes about the survival of the fittest through the passing on of selfish genes in procreation. Our experiences of love and faith cannot be adequately captured through the language of scientific measurement. Instead, we need the languages of belief and imagination to give voice to what we truly experience of love and faith. As Richard Chartres once noted in a wedding sermon, "Faith and committed relationships offer a door into the mystery of spiritual life.”
Second, we need to understand that faith is fundamental to all true knowledge and that applies to scientific knowing as much as to any other form of knowing. Philip Sherrard has given forceful expression to this view:
“Every thought, every observation, every judgement, every description whether of the modern scientist or of anyone else is soaked in a priori preconceived built-in value-judgements, assumptions and dogmas at least as rigid, if not more rigid (because they are so often unconsciously embraced) than those of any explicitly religious system. The very nature of human thought is such that it cannot operate independently of value-judgements, assumptions and dogmas. Even the assertion that it can constitutes a value-judgement and implies a whole philosophy, whether we are aware of it or not.”
Scientists like Michael Polanyi have come to understand that faith is fundamental in the whole enterprise of understanding because all knowledge of reality rests upon faith commitments which cannot be demonstrated. As a result, scientists and philosophers of science are now rediscovering the vital role that the imagination has to play in their endeavours.
When there is an acceptance that other forms of knowing and other forms of evidence have validity, then two further arguments can be made. The first of these is that belief in God makes sense of our experiences of life and love in ways that give full weight to our experience of these things without contradicting the findings of science. On this basis, Christianity offers, as Lesslie Newbigin has argued, “the widest rationality, the greatest capacity to give meaning to the whole of experience.”
Second, the arguments for the resurrection made in the New Testament and also subsequently come into play. Many historians, lawyers and sceptics have testified to the convincing nature of this evidence when objectively considered. Many would, for example, agree with E. M. Blaiklock, Professor of Classics at Auckland University, who said, “the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .”
One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." These New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection; people who could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.
Another interesting example of evidence for the truth of Christianity and, in particular, the resurrection of Jesus, is the testimony of former skeptics, many of whom attempted to disprove Christian faith. Thomas is merely the first in a long line of such people which in more recent years have included Frank Morison, C. S. Lewis, Dr Gary Habermas, Alister McGrath, and Lee Strobel.
So, there is evidence for the existence of God and evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Such evidence helps us in holding our faith and may, as was the case for those I have just listed, be helpful in bringing people to faith. However, we should never think that such evidences prove either the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus. Ultimately, if we believe in both it is because of faith, not proof; just as atheists cannot disprove the existence of God and, therefore, also hold their beliefs on the basis of faith. Neither positions can be proved conclusively, so can only be held by faith.
Second, we need to understand that faith is fundamental to all true knowledge and that applies to scientific knowing as much as to any other form of knowing. Philip Sherrard has given forceful expression to this view:
“Every thought, every observation, every judgement, every description whether of the modern scientist or of anyone else is soaked in a priori preconceived built-in value-judgements, assumptions and dogmas at least as rigid, if not more rigid (because they are so often unconsciously embraced) than those of any explicitly religious system. The very nature of human thought is such that it cannot operate independently of value-judgements, assumptions and dogmas. Even the assertion that it can constitutes a value-judgement and implies a whole philosophy, whether we are aware of it or not.”
Scientists like Michael Polanyi have come to understand that faith is fundamental in the whole enterprise of understanding because all knowledge of reality rests upon faith commitments which cannot be demonstrated. As a result, scientists and philosophers of science are now rediscovering the vital role that the imagination has to play in their endeavours.
When there is an acceptance that other forms of knowing and other forms of evidence have validity, then two further arguments can be made. The first of these is that belief in God makes sense of our experiences of life and love in ways that give full weight to our experience of these things without contradicting the findings of science. On this basis, Christianity offers, as Lesslie Newbigin has argued, “the widest rationality, the greatest capacity to give meaning to the whole of experience.”
Second, the arguments for the resurrection made in the New Testament and also subsequently come into play. Many historians, lawyers and sceptics have testified to the convincing nature of this evidence when objectively considered. Many would, for example, agree with E. M. Blaiklock, Professor of Classics at Auckland University, who said, “the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .”
One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." These New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection; people who could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.
Another interesting example of evidence for the truth of Christianity and, in particular, the resurrection of Jesus, is the testimony of former skeptics, many of whom attempted to disprove Christian faith. Thomas is merely the first in a long line of such people which in more recent years have included Frank Morison, C. S. Lewis, Dr Gary Habermas, Alister McGrath, and Lee Strobel.
So, there is evidence for the existence of God and evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Such evidence helps us in holding our faith and may, as was the case for those I have just listed, be helpful in bringing people to faith. However, we should never think that such evidences prove either the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus. Ultimately, if we believe in both it is because of faith, not proof; just as atheists cannot disprove the existence of God and, therefore, also hold their beliefs on the basis of faith. Neither positions can be proved conclusively, so can only be held by faith.
That is what Jesus emphasizes to Thomas after confronting him with the physical and tangible evidence of the resurrection that he demanded. Jesus said, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”:
Unless I see
the scars
of the nails
in his hands
and put my finger
on those scars
and my hand
in his side,
unless I can touch,
unless he is tangible,
unless I have proof,
I will not believe.
If you see
the scars
of the nails
in my hands
and put your finger
on those scars
and your hand
in my side,
if you can touch,
if I am tangible,
if you have proof,
you will not have belief.
Blessed are those
who cannot see
the scars
of the nails
in my hands
and put their fingers
on those scars
and their hands
in my side,
blessed are those who
cannot touch,
who are without
tangible proof,
for they truly believe.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Charlotte - We Believe.
