The Cabana Chronicles Conversations About God The Religions of Secular Humanism and Christianity: The Cabana Chronicles

By John B. Bartholomew

We learn best through stories. The atheistic religion of Secular Humanism and Christianity are discussed by a group of retirees meeting each week under a cabana on the beach at South Padre Island, Texas. It is one of a number of books comprising The Cabana Chronicles series of books on comparative religion and apologetics, the systematic and logical defense of the Christian religion. 

• Language: English
• Publisher: MacLean Publshers
• Release date: Aug 21, 2017
• ISBN: 9781386161509

Book preview

MacLean Publishers

Copyright © 2022 by John B. Bartholomew

––––––––

The Cabana Chronicles

Conversations about God

The Religions of Secular Humanism and Christianity

by John B. Bartholomew

eBook ISBN: 9781386161509

––––––––

All rights reserved solely by the author. The author guarantees all contents are original and do not infringe upon the legal rights of any other person or work. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without the permission of the author. The views expressed in this book are not necessarily those of the publisher.

––––––––

www.the-cabana-chronicles.com

Acknowledgments

This book would not have been possible without the input from all of my pastors, teaching elders and theologians who have faithfully communicated the truth to me through their sermons, classes and discussions. Dr. R. C. Sproul, Dr. A. Bernard Kuiper, Dr. Peter Kreeft, Pastor Ron Shaw, Pastor Frank Vanlandingham, Dr. Bill Waddell, Dr. Robert Branden, Pastor Brent Merten, Pastor Brad Fell, and Pastor Duane Kirchner, Dr. Del Tackett, Dr. Lamar Allen, Dr. Les Brown, Bill and Suzanne Eberbach, Ed Underwood, and brothers and sisters in Christ, Sally Shive, Phil Schweppe, Jackie Davidson, David Long. I also want to thank my dear departed friend, Jim Schuett and Cabana Chronicles Group Facebook  friends Josh Leslie, Rick Roos, Jacquelyn VonEsh, Elliott Land, Forest Chambers, Robert Fallis, Dr. Corey Miller, Wallace Garneau, Elaine Wacker, Thomas MacArthur, Edward Metcalf, Jim Lehe, Dr. Robert Lehe, Roger Fehr, Rich Wheeler, Grady Marshburn, Jr., John Marty Smithhart, George Trieber, Charles Leopardo, Pastor Harold Polk, the Sarro brothers, William and Ronald, Charlie Harris, Norm Sweeting, Ed Roper, Tom Graffagnino, and numerous others who have guided me in my pursuit of the truth. I particularly want to thank Donn Mattusch for his teaching and editorial assistance.

Last but not least, I thank my loving wife, Patti Lee Bartholomew, whose patience, many suggestions and loyalty to the cause have served to support me in my endeavor to complete this project over the past ten years.

Book Contents

Acknowledgments

Introduction to the Series

Preface

Week One

Introduction of Discussion Participants

Background: Epistemology

Credibility of the Bible

Week Two

Formation of the Bible

Inerrancy of the Bible

Agenda of secular humanism

Tests of Truth

Presentation of the Religion of Secular Humanism

Syncretism

Pluralism

Week Three

Relativism

Provisions in the Humanist Manifesto

Week Four

Presentation of Christianity

God, the Father

The Son

The Holy Spirit

God’s Plan of Salvation

Definition of a Paradox

Week Five

Knowing God 

Week Six

Is Christ God?

Christ’s Invitation Style

World view comparison: The Disciplines

Biology

Evolution

Ethics 

Love

Sociology

Week Seven

Politic

Economics

Love

Week Eight

Illegal Immigration

Week Nine

Economics

Week Ten

Summary: The Tests of Truth

Test of Consistency

Test of Correspondence

Test for Comprehensiveness or Completeness

Test of Simplicity

Tests of Livability and Fruitfulness

Test of Conservation

Appendix

The Tests of Truth Summary of Results

Preface

"It seems to me that a man must be a

believer or seek some belief, otherwise

his life is empty, empty. . . .To live and

not know why the cranes fly, why

children are born, why there are stars

in the sky. . . .Either he knows what he

is living for, or it’s all nonsense, waste."

From Chekhov’s Three Sisters

Aristotle, the man considered to be the father of philosophy, once said that there are three different ways to judge men’s mode of living. The basic goal of people living in each of these modes is the pursuit of happiness but the modes differ on what it takes for people to be satisfied and how much mental commitment is required to attain happiness.

The lowest level consists of people who are most easily satisfied with a life of mere day to day enjoyment. Often by necessity, they focus primarily on their own basic survival. Aristotle believed that the majority of people on earth are living at this level. He called the second level the life of active citizenship. People living at this level are satisfied with the pursuit of career, money, fame, honor and pride. He called the highest level of living the life of contemplation. This is the level requiring the most mental commitment. It is only at this level that we are motivated to really think about the real purpose of our lives.

This distinction of the three modes of living is of course, by its very nature, subjective. There are no arbitrary boundaries in place which separate them. And there are no restrictions to prevent people from moving from one level to another depending on the circumstances. It is therefore possible for a person to move up the ladder of mental involvement from one mode to another and many people do accomplish this feat as they mature in life. This is a welcome improvement to those people who recognize that something is missing in their lives and they want to fill the perceived void.

Unfortunately, surveys indicate that there are many people who confess they may be living a life that falls somewhat short of their potential but say they just don’t have the time or the inclination to do anything about it. So, it would seem that the ability of people to think introspectively, to lead a self-examined life, is a lost art in this day and age. People are content to settle for progress in the material sense but don’t understand that only by questioning where we all stand on more important issues, do we truly move forward. We must accept that our basic need is for real fulfillment in our lives and to achieve this completeness, we need to recognize that we should engage in discussions of the more important issues in our lives.

How can we integrate the knowledge of others into our own without exchanging ideas and opinions with others? We need to use our good minds to formulate opinions about important matters, test the support of these opinions and discover the limitations of our fallible knowledge. We need to get out of that rut we are in and begin to prioritize living a life of contemplation. We need to crave knowledge and clarity.

But, in this busy society, this change in priorities is not easily accomplished. Most of us have had to wait until our retirement for the additional time to enable us to pursue that life of contemplation. When we are fortunate enough to retire, we discover we now have that time to focus on the mental and the spiritual aspects of our lives. We should understand that this is the very age when new horizons should be appearing and new doors opening. It almost seems as though our entire lives have led up to this point in time. We are motivated to once again pull those books off the shelf which address liberal arts subjects like theology, religion, philosophy, history, literature, and psychology and read them again, as though for the first time.

Philosophy has been characterized as a great conversation and sometimes the most important spiritual experiences can come out of conversations as well. Indeed this is exactly what I believe happened with our Winter Texan group. In our discussions of philosophy, religion, politics and theology, we discovered that we really enjoyed the experience of meeting together to discuss and debate such weighty subjects. In fact, Christian apologist C. S. Lewis once said that he found the study of theology and doctrine more helpful in devotion than the devotional books. He said that many who find that ‘nothing happens’ when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand.

Introduction

to the Cabana Chronicles Series

––––––––

The Cabana Chronicles is a series of books which address the subject of apologetics, the systematic and logical defense of the Christian religion as it is compared to other world religions. This book compares secular humanism to Christianity.*

So, why is apologetics important? The Apostle Peter believed defending his religion was important when he tells us to always make sure that we Christians have an adequate explanation of why we believe what we believe. What was important in the first century is even more important now in this day and age. Dr. Peter Kreeft, in his introduction to his book, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, surmised that our civilization today is in social crisis, intellectual crisis, and spiritual crisis. We do apologetics not to save the church but to save the world. Dr. Kreeft listed three reasons for the study of apologetics: It leads to faith for unbelievers; it builds up faith and love for Christianity for believers; and it engages in spiritual warfare.

When I retired to a beach home on the South Padre Island, Texas, I saw my retirement as an opportunity to study my religion and to compare its doctrine to the doctrines of other religions. Theology and apologetics became my favorite hobbies. When one my neighbors proposed meeting regularly with other retirees who spend their winters on the Island to discuss the more meaningful things in our lives like theology and philosophy, I heartily agreed to participate. After our first Winter Texan meeting, we all recognized that our retirement provided us with a perfect opportunity to calibrate our spiritual compasses and put the priorities of life in proper order.

Apologist Cornelius Van Til once said that apologetics begins with dialogue. It is not a one way form of communication or a simple matter of proclamation. The Cabana Chronicles series is a record of our debates.** As it was for Plato’s Socrates, the argument is all. Indeed, throughout history, the dialogue literary style has proven to be a most effective learning tool because it translates thought provoking concepts into the vernacular and encourages the reader to vicariously participate in the discussion taking place. Dr. Kreeft states that he loves the dialogue format, and wrote Between Heaven and Hell as a mock dialogue between apologist C. S. Lewis, scientist Aldous Huxley and President John F. Kennedy who all died on the same day in November of 1963. Dr. Kreeft said that an argument is valid if the conclusion follows necessarily from the premise. If all the terms in an argument are clear, and if the argument is free from logical fallacy, then the conclusion must be true.

*Other books in the series: The Cabana Chronicles: Book One, Book Two and Book Three, The Foundation of Belief, Islam and Christianity, Judaism and Christianity, Mormonism and Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism, and Comparing Christian Denominations.

**Although some of the content presented in these fictional dialogues is based on actual conversations, with the exception of myself, the characters in the books in the series are fictitious and any resemblance to any person, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Dedication

This book is dedicated to Charles Chuck Brookins.

The Cabana Chronicles

The Religions of Secular Humanism and

Christianity

Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD

Isaiah 1:18

Week One

Bobby: Welcome back, boys. This is the season we take up our discussion of secular humanism and compare it to Christianity. I assume you all remember each other's names, but, we're getting older and are more prone to those senior moments, so why don't we go around the circle again for the record.

John: I’m John Bartholomew. This is my 20th year of coming down here to Padre Island from our home in the Vail Valley in Colorado. I brought my little tape recorder again for our sessions this year so our conversations will go on record.

Darrel:  Are you going to write another book about these discussions this season?

John: I think so, Darrel. We'll see.

Bobby: I enjoyed reading all your books based on our discussions, John. I think recording our discussions turned out to be a great idea.

John: As I did last year, I will also provide each of you each week with a written transcript of the previous week's meeting.

Bobby: Now, that’s a fantastic idea. Even though we should each focus on being good listeners, there will undoubtedly be times when we want something reviewed in a previous discussion. Daniel, you’re next.

Daniel: I’m Daniel James. I have lived in the Rio Grande Valley for the past 20 years or so. I’m still working as a part time guidance counselor for the Port Isabel school district.

Darrel: I’m Darrel Sanderman; I retired down here ten years ago.

Peter: I’m Peter Cantrell and I’m a retired biochemist. I used to work with the FDA in Denver. This is my fourth year down here.

Bobby: Okay then, let's get started. In our previous session, you may recall that we talked about the foundation of our belief; we laid the groundwork for a discussion about what we each believe without getting too much into the specfics. As I recall, we began at the beginning and discussed epistemology, the study of how we attain knowledge in the first place. We illustrated how our knowledge is expressed through belief systems and used two different belief systems, secular humanism and Christianity to illustrate the process. We really didn't have the time to get much into specific doctrines, so this year I would like to do just that. We'll find out just what Christians and secular humanists really believe.  

John: Yeah, we all have a theology; our challenge is to have the right one, and, for this reason, I'm looking forward to our discussions this season. We also talked about the pursuit of truth and the sources of knowledge we utilize to arrive at that truth: tradition, reason and faith. Peter of course has stated in previous discussions that in his religion of secular humanism, reason is the only source of truth. But, as in all discussions involving religion, our method of deriving the truth must necessarily be a religious method, and this is the reality whether the religion be atheistic like secular humanism or theistic like Christianity. So then, we must begin with faith regardless, and then use reason and experience to explore that faith; that's where reason is utilized. Secular humanists understand the limitations of applying reason through science to derive truth, and that some faith is necessary even for them. Christians have faith that God is truth, and the Holy Bible is His Word and our only source of the truth. We Christians believe our religion is a reasonable belief system and this reality makes it possible for us to discuss our religion with Peter as long as we just continue to make sense.

Peter: Exactly.

John: It is also reasonable that a source of truth, any source of truth be credible. It therefore makes sense to begin our discussion sessions comparing Christianity to secular humanism to first prove that our only source of knowledge, the Bible, is credible.

Peter: Right you are. Where’s your proof? That's the big question here.

John: Sure. I have a handout for all of you.

Peter: What’s this one about?

John: Well, my friend, you have claimed to be a reasonable guy who reveres logic, so then I’ll give you logic. In fact, I will use the same rules of logic we would use in determining credibility of any document to establish the credibility of the Bible. These rules are universal. I anticipated that someone would take the usual approach in attacking the Bible’s credibility so I took the liberty of bringing along a handout which lists the basic criteria historians use to determine credibility of any document. It was written by the pastor and author, Dr. Stephen Boyd, and I am sure you will find it interesting, Peter, because these criteria are based strictly on logic.

As you can see, Dr. Boyd divides the recognized criteria historians apply to all historical documents into internal and external criteria. The internal criteria refer to the position of the person reporting the events. Were the reporters eye witnesses or was the information obtained based on hearsay? Then Boyd deals with the actual content of the document itself by asking whether it deals with any irrelevant material because, as we said before in regards to myths, fabricated accounts typically tend to be more generalized because they have a particular story line to follow and a point to make.

So, let’s apply the internal criteria to Christianity and see what we get. We talked before about the gospel accounts being written by eyewitnesses to the events. And these accounts record Jesus as doing things like writing something in the sand that cannot be connected to the main story line at all. This is irrelevant material. And Boyd also notes that documents that portray the author in a less than positive way are considered to be more authentic as well. An example of this point is apparent when one reads the account in Luke 2:41-44, where twelve year old Jesus was left in town because his parents didn’t notice he was in their caravan until they returned home. This of course creates the impression that either Jesus was a rebellious child and/or that his parents were neglectful in not even noticing their son was missing from their family when they left town that day. There is a good explanation for this happening the way it did, but that isn’t my point. Myths are written to promote the main character in a good light. So, my point here is that a story like this in Luke is not typically included in a myth because it represents the main characters in a poor light. And the last criteria asks the question, is there exaggeration in the story? Is there at least a coherence of truth?

The external criteria include such aspects as the author’s motive. To illustrate what I mean, just compare the motives of the authors of the gospels with the motive of Muhammad and Joseph Smith in authoring their books. These prophets experienced personal gain. Muhammad founded a religion and became a successful military leader. Smith, by founding a new religion, made money selling his various books and achieved some degree of fame. We can rightfully suspect the motive of any author who gains fame and fortune from his effort. What did the authors of the gospel accounts and the epistles in the New Testament achieve? Persecution and death.

The external criteria ask a number of questions. Are there any other sources which confirm the information reported in the particular document? Is there archeological support? Could the document be falsified by people with a motive for doing so? If people actually existed at the time the document was written who could have exposed it for a lie (and this was certainly the case with the books of the Bible), but did not do so, then this would increase the credibility of the document.

The Bible is a collection of accounts written in many instances by eyewitnesses to the events. None of the authors demonstrates a selfish motive for authorship, and many of them were persecuted for the content of their reporting. The Bible’s content presents a consistent theme throughout, Jesus Christ. Seemingly irrelevant details are included such as specific directions on how the Temple is to be built, etc. In fact, details are sometimes included which paint the author in a negative light. Ample supportive evidence is available in contemporary author’s confirmation and archeological evidence.

Peter: Epistemologists have concluded there are several different kinds of evidence. The most certain is what is self-evident; something that is accepted by all people to be true at all times. The next most certain is mathematical evidence. Two plus two always equals four. Next is the philosophical evidence, knowledge derived from philosophical premises and conclusions. Last reliable is the historical evidence.

Darrel: I understand what you're saying, but the evidence supporting the credibility of the Bible not only involves the historical evidence, but as John said, there is the archeological evidence supporting biblical historical accounts and, you should know that the study of archeology is science. It's a relatively new science though (it's only been around about 125 years), and many of these important archeological digs have just begun to have been explored. So far, what they have found completely supports the history presented in the Old Testament. For example, we now have archeological, scientific evidence that historical figures like King David and Pontius Pilate actually existed. They have also discovered the burned out city of Sodom which proved that something very catastrophic happened there.

John: And New Testament authors gave the Old Testament credibility by quoting from it many, many times. For example, Paul referred to Genesis 2:24 to support his argument in Ephesians 5:31. The gospels were all written from 50-100 A.D., within the generation of people who were alive when Jesus was alive. They were the earliest records of Jesus’ life. When Peter told them about Christ at the beginning of the second chapter of Acts, don’t you think they would have questioned him if he had reported a fictional story about the crucifixion and resurrection? We have no such record from first century historians like Josephus. There is no other book in history with such strong eye witness credentials which of course give Christ credibility. Even the Jews recognized this when they related that he spoke as though he had authority; it cost Him His life.

Daniel: And, keep in mind that Jesus Himself quoted Scripture on a number of occasions in the gospel accounts.

Darrel: The Bible is Christ's story, both Old and New Testaments. Dr. Kenneth Boa wrote a book called Jesus in the Bible that relates every instance in Scripture where Jesus is referenced in the books Moses wrote, the historical books, the poetical books, the books of the major and minor prophets, the gospels, of course, the Book of Acts, Paul's epistles, the general epistles, and the Book of Revelation. So the man who is the focal point of the whole story actually is the foundation of our faith. In Matthew 28:18, Jesus states that all authority in heaven and earth has been given to him, and we believe that to be true.

John: I would like to say a word about the historical evidence which we believe supports the Bible's authenticity, okay?  My point here is that so much of what we know is based on some historical account. I think we covered that before, but it bears repeating. Even in the communication of scientific knowledge, you are relying on what someone else is saying about some experiment he conducted. Yes, I realize that you can verify this information by performing the experiment itself, but this is often not done. Of course it is rarely, if ever, done analyzing history.

I was watching a program on the History Channel the other day where they actually did conduct an experiment using modern day technology to try and prove that one of those five Japanese mini-subs which they thought they saw in an old photo actually sunk a battleship at Pearl Harbor. It was quite interesting. They built an exact replica of the sub and placed it in a model harbor with artificial waves in the exact position of the object in the water they thought was the sub. They even experimented with trying to replicate the various splashes in the water they saw in the photo. They could not reach a definitive conclusion. but the experiment did give them more knowledge to work on.

Daniel: Historians do recognize that history, like science, is a kind of inquiry or research, and, as seen from this example, science can sometimes be utilized to clarify or to reveal more historical information.

Peter: But history is more subjective and cannot usually be really known as science can be known. This is of course because history cannot be directly observed. This is where the objectivity is compromised.

Daniel: Of course, any serious historian understands that subjectivity is inherent in the analysis of the historical accounts and knows that he should not allow any presuppositions or prejudices he may harbor to interfere with good, thorough analysis. Subjectivity must not be so predominant that the credibility of the historical evidence is compromised. We of course are talking about the New Testament history right now but the same thought applied when we were talking about the overall credibility of the Bible.

John: Like science and mathematics, history is a problem-solving discipline. Like scientists and mathematicians, historians ask questions and try to answer them. For this reason, it cannot and should not be dismissed as an irrelevant source of evidence.

Peter: But each scientific experiment is an entity unto itself.

Daniel: True, the process is different in that respect because it is the business of historians to study events not accessible to our observation and to study these events by inference relating them to something we can observe.

Historians have their rules that they follow to insure the most objective study and analysis of  the data. These criteria are stated in Josh McDowell’s book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Volume 1 and 2. I don’t have a photographic memory so I’ll just have to consult my little reading device here and read this directly out of the book. I anticipated this subject would come up today. Please, just give me a moment. Ah, here it is. 1. Historical evidence must be obtained from a direct answer to the question asked, not some other question. 2. The best relevant evidence must be obtained. 3. Evidence must be affirmative not negative. It must deal with proving something, not disproving something. This is no evidence at all. 4. The burden of proof always must rest with the author. 5. All inferences from empirical evidence must be based on probability. This is where mathematical evidence is utilized in the support of the historical evidence. 6. The meaning of any empirical statement depends on its context from which it is taken. 7. An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence suggests.

McDowell also lists four aspects of the historical methodology: 1. Heuristic, the knowledge of manuscripts, methods of card indexing, classification methods, etc. 2. Knowledge of current interpretation. The historian has to know that knowledge proceeds from the known to the unknown and so he has to be well acquainted with existing work in his own field. 3. Historical research. This term describes the work required to transmit information from those persons living at the time to form the source material for the particular period or topic. These are the facts of history, the accounts of occurrences. Historical research is concerned with the discovery of relevant sources of information that will aid the search for further relevant information. 4. Writing involves the collection of the surviving objects and of the printed, written and oral materials that may be relevant, the exclusion of those materials or parts thereof that are unauthentic, the extraction from the authentic material of testimony that is credible the organization of that reliable testimony into meaningful narrative or exposition.

Peter: McDowell is just trying to give credibility to the Bible by making it seem like he's using scientific methods to analyze it. Except for the archeology, it isn't science.

Daniel: But it's like science because historians and scientists follow a similar process. Professional historians are just as concerned with the accuracy of their work as scientists are because they are just as concerned with being taken seriously. It’s a matter of professional pride. And, as I said before, the scientific process relies on historical methodology in many situations. You'll have to admit that the methodology is certainly using logic; there is a definite scientific process involved in the gathering and utilization of historical evidence. This methodology is designed to maximize the chances of arriving at the truth.

Peter: Certainly you are not suggesting that this methodology is as structured as scientific inquiry? I don’t care how much historians try to emulate the scientific process, history is much more susceptible to subjectivity than science.

Bobby: But I think Daniel has brought up a good point about professionalism, Peter.

Daniel: I’ll give you an example of such professionalism. James Boswell was a very well known, respected author in the eighteenth century. He hung around with such notables as David Hume and Voltaire and Dr. Samuel Johnson. In his preface to one of his books, a book on his trip to Scotland with Dr. Johnson called Journey to the Hebrides, he stated that it was his intention to make this book as perfect as he could. Historians are serious about their work.

So, I think we can at least state that the methodologies of the historian and the scientist are more similar than most people think they are, and they are more similar to scientific inquiry than they are different. In fact, as defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica, history is similar to the other disciplines in its regard for existing knowledge, its search for new and relevant data and in its creation of a hypothesis as a conclusion. For this reason, the philosopher, Mortimer J. Adler, concluded that historical evidence is highly reliable as is scientific evidence. Of course, this applies only when the historical evidence meets the criteria I just listed. If the criteria are met, any reasonable person should accept it as truth.

Peter: But the methodology of the historian, by its very nature, must involve inductive reasoning.

Daniel: This is true.

Peter: Scientific inquiry is objective because it is based on deductive reasoning. Our conclusions are based on our direct observations. This is a superior methodology to inductive reasoning because the conclusion logically follows from a premise which is a true, observable fact. It is not an inference as it most often is in the historical methodology. Any facts that are not derived from our observations involve inferences and inductive reasoning. And, as we concluded in our previous discussion, inductive reasoning can be valid or invalid.

Daniel: Yes, in this way the historical method is different than the pure scientific method, but this only applies when direct observation of the experiment occurs. But because we are very limited in what we can observe directly, not all science is based on direct observation. So, the scientific method must also involve inductive reasoning as well as deductive.

Peter: But, any hypothesis can at least be tested to determine its validity. Scientific evidence is therefore more reliable because it eliminates the possibility of an invalid conclusion. This is a weakness of inductive reasoning. It can, and often does, lead to invalid conclusions.

Daniel: But, you will concede that the odds are usually in our favor. Historians know that the evidence must be beyond all reasonable doubt for the conclusion to be considered valid.

Darrel: And, don’t forget that the methodology of the historical analysis also involves science (archeology) and mathematics (probability) and the deductive reasoning which applies in these two disciplines lends support to conclusions we have reached through inductive reasoning.

Peter: The one big weakness in the historical evidence is that the accounts can often be just fragmented bits of stories which may or may not be connected. This destroys their objectivity.

Daniel: While I agree with you that history can be fragmented, the same weakness applies in the scientific process as well. Geologists rely on fragmented observations to draw their scientific conclusions. They obviously don’t believe that such reliance destroys their objectivity and neither do historians.

Peter: This may be because, as I said before, they consider that each scientific experiment is an entity unto itself.

Darrel: Nonetheless there are gaps, aren’t there? We each have our gaps to fill.

Daniel: Einstein himself said that there were gaps in his knowledge. It goes without saying that there are gaps in everyone’s knowledge. So, this is not just the case in historical evidence, it is the case in all of our sources of evidence except for those truths that are self-evident. It is the case for all belief systems.

Darrel: Science can serve to create more gaps in its effort to fill gaps. So, I think we can conclude from this that mankind will always have the gaps. We talked about this when we were discussing your unbelief in the supernatural, Pete.

Peter: Yes, we will have gaps and more gaps ahead but science will continue to move us forward. Gaps will be filled and more gaps will occur which in turn will be filled again once science catches up. Whatever science tells us will then be fact until it is replaced by something else science discovers as we progress.

Daniel: Progress? This stumbling blindly ahead is what you call progress?

Peter: Progress is all about scientific achievement. Nothing else will or can work.

Daniel: The scientific process and the technology which supports it have their limits. While we have already agreed that we must assume the reliability of the information the five senses provide for us, technology can be flawed and human error does occur in conducting scientific experiments. And, using science to analyze concepts that do not lend themselves to this process is a real stretch.

An example of this procedure is when you apply the theory of evolution to man’s spiritual progress. This is just not a relevant connection. Logically, man cannot and will not progress spiritually without acknowledging God in our lives. I say this because the thought of God in our lives can motivate us to be centered on Him and get out of ourselves. Only in focusing on God can we progress as a species. When man confines his interests to only focusing on his own needs and desires, this results in a world full of people who cannot progress because they cancel each other out. They cannot and will not work together because they are only able to work for themselves. Just look around you and you will see what I am talking about. It is really pathetic how the majority of people I meet are so obviously focusing only on themselves. When someone said that secular humanism has many more members than are actually registered, they made a good point.

Peter: Be that as it may, it is the reality of the circumstances we find ourselves in. We each try to fill the gaps in our knowledge of reality. You people place more emphasis on faith and we place more emphasis on reason.

Historical evidence is your source of knowledge and because this involves the selection or rejection of certain material depending on the historian’s objective, the method is subjective and inferior to how science fills the gaps. It's ironic that though you Christians believe in the presence of a God who imposes a set of external standards of behavior, but your belief system is so subjective. The historical evidence is so subjective. The historian picks and chooses what he wants use. This is a purely subjective process and whenever there is subjectivity involved, the whole truth seeking process is weakened. The more objective, the better.

Daniel: Well, first of all, the fact that the historian must select the material does not necessarily make this process purely subjective. After all, jurors in court make judgments without having all the facts presented and all the evidence available; and, second of all, yes, we emphasize objectivity as well because, as you have just said, God imposes objectivity in His creation. But, He is also personal and each of us uniquely experiences Him in our own very personal and subjective way. The picture God presents to us is so big that it cannot be understood in any other way but to involve the subjective. I say this because we cannot put ourselves in the position of ever just standing back and taking this objective look at something that is so much more than any human being can ever comprehend. We are human, the creation, and God is Other, the Creator. Objectivity, while ideally pursued, is not entirely possible in the reality we deal with.

Daniel: The point is that, we of course do recognize the importance of being as objective as we can, given the circumstances we are dealing with. And we believe that if the historian has the necessary relevant and crucial evidence, as in the case of the eyewitness accounts in the gospels, this is sufficient for objectivity.

Peter: Yet, I am sure you will admit that value judgments cannot be avoided in the historical process.

Daniel: The fact that value judgments cannot be avoided does not necessarily make history less objective. If a historian is fair to the facts, he is being objective.

Peter: But what is fair and what is not fair is a value judgment. And the selection and arrangements of the historical evidence is highly subjective too. The historian is a product of his times.

Daniel: Just because a historian is the product of his times does not mean this dictates the way he interprets the historical evidence. History need not be a product of the historian’s time. We agree with what you said about trying to remain as objective as possible. The writers of the gospel accounts were very much aware of this too.

Peter: So you people say. Look, you approach the gospel history with a prejudice of belief that they must be true. To think otherwise would destroy your entire belief system.

John: This is true and that is why we must always be very much aware of how our world view affects our judgment. We must be very careful that we take our presuppositions and prejudices into consideration when we are analyzing the data, whether it be historical or scientific. Personally, I believe I have exercised the appropriate caution in reading the gospel accounts. I still come to the same conclusion. I think that Boyd presented a very logical case for the credibility of Scripture. The gospels are indeed very credible, eye witness accounts that are very consistent with one another and tell us of a man, the likes of whom the world acknowledges has never existed before or since.

Darrel: And Peter, you bring your prejudice of unbelief when you consider the credibility of the Bible. You don’t want it to be credible because the credibility of your standard approach in attacking the Bible’s authenticity would then be destroyed. You ignore the logic inherent in Boyd’s case for credibility because you know Boyd has a good point. You want these eyewitnesses to be wrong but you suspect they aren’t because they have absolutely no motive to lie. And they wouldn’t get away with telling a big lie because there were enough Jews and Romans around who didn’t accept Christ as their savior who would be the first to challenge the eye witness accounts. You know this, Peter.

Peter: I will admit that you have a point. But you cannot deny that historians and their accounts are not very subjective; they are.

Daniel: You say that the selection of what to include in historical accounts is subjective, and that of course is undeniable, but historians who wish to be taken seriously understand that their own personal feelings must not dictate what they rely upon to formulate a conclusion based on the historical evidence. As I demonstrated for you when I listed the criteria of historians from McDowell’s book, professional historians have their standards, and they must be able to defend their position among their peers, many of whom have a different theology and politics.

Peter: Scientists who wish to be taken seriously know they must also present a defensible case for their hypothesis. And they also know that there will be questions they cannot answer, particularly in the medical sciences. But they resist the impulse to speculate to fill the gaps in our knowledge, sharing Einstein’s belief that the day would come when science would fill in those gaps through the deductive reasoning process. For the present, I suppose you could say that we utilize a form of faith because we believe that one day we will have the knowledge.

Daniel: Yes, faith is necessary for all of us; but we differ on the importance we assign to faith and how we utilize it. You use it to believe that one day, the truth will be revealed, and we use it that way too. But, for you, faith is to be one day replaced with true knowledge based on reason and for us, faith is the answer to our lives and our very salvation. Your faith Is wishful thinking; our belief system is built on the faith that God has enabled us to possess. It is the product of our relationship with God. It is not just a useful tool that we need until we can use a better tool; it is part and parcel of our entire belief system. We know that our faith is a saving faith, and it is not meant to be replaced by anything else; our faith is our knowledge.

Darrel: Actually, Peter, in addition to the historical source of evidence, the Bible utilizes all of the other evidence sources too. When God invites Job to come and reason with him, the scientific method and philosophical method are introduced. In addition, I remind you that the archeological evidence is science, and it supports the historical evidence presented in both the Old and New Testaments. Scripture also contains mathematical truths in that the various numbers used each mean something. A case can even be made that the Bible contains a mathematical code, and some of our theologians have made a study of that. The number seven, for example, is associated with completeness in Jewish culture.

Peter: It seems like you’re really stretching the point, and I can’t help but sense that there is some rationalization going on here. You people always sound so sure of yourself, why don’t you just tell us that Christianity is based on a self-evident truth which an sane person should accept, and we can all go home or go surf fishing?

John: Well, of course for us, our beliefs are self-evident because our faith does not need to be proved by reference to any other evidence. But, of course, we understand that this is not the case with unbelievers. We know how God’s system works. Unbelievers have not been enabled to see the truth. Believers have. But, I should point out to you that no belief system is based on a self-evident truth. Secular humanism is no exception to the rule.

Darrel: And neither can any belief system be based on the deductive reasoning inherent in mathematics. Secular humanism is no exception to this rule either.

Bobby: So, that leaves us with the scientific evidence, the philosophical evidence and the historical evidence, right?

John: Right. And, so let’s see how these types of evidence are applied in an analysis of the credibility of our respective belief systems.

Peter: I’ve already stated that secular humanism primarily relies on reason to support our beliefs and the scientific method is the most reasonable process in trying to prove what is true.

John: Yes, but you also admitted that scientific method can be influenced by our presuppositions and suffer the same limitations as any other method because it does involve hearsay. And any or all of those five senses it relies upon can serve to deceive us from time to time. I don’t need to go into examples but, suffice it to say, medical history is full of examples of how what once was thought to be the case turned out not to be the case later on.

Peter: Nonetheless, as I also proved before, science sure beats history in the credibility of the evidence.

John: But the historical evidence need not be as weak as you infer either. Yes, some history is vague, some science is vague as well, and we also have our fuzzy math, and certainly some philosophy can be very vague but, in our case, in proving the credibility of the Bible and our beliefs, we rely on the strongest form of historical evidence, the testimony of a number of credible eyewitnesses. The gospel accounts were based on eyewitnesses who recorded their observations of Christ’s time on earth within 50 years of His death and resurrection. We therefore consider this evidence to be sufficient for our belief. And, don’t forget what Darrel said before about how historical analysis also involves science (archeology) and mathematics (probability) and the deductive reasoning which applies in these two disciplines lends support to conclusions we have reached through inductive reasoning.

Bobby: And don't forget that archeology has confirmed much of what the Bible has told us happened.

John: Yes, but as I said before the first day we met when I was explaining why I believe what I believe, I don’t have to dredge the Red Sea for chariot wheels to believe that the Bible is telling me the truth.

Peter: But, you see, that is exactly