Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question

By John Warwick Montgomery

Twenty essays that argue for the truth of what C.S. Lewis called "mere Christianity." The contributors - all distinguished scholars - present their evidence from a variety of disciplines, including philosophy, archaeology, biology, history, law, and cosmology. Step by step the writers construct a convincing argument for the accuracy of the Bible and the credibility of the Christian faith.

• Language: English
• Publisher: New Reformation Publications
• Release date: Jan 27, 2018
• ISBN: 9781945500237

Book preview

Cover Page for Evidence for Faith

Evidence for Faith

The Cornell Symposium on Evidential Apologetics

Ithaca, New York

29 August–7 September 1986

Evidence for Faith

Edited by

John Warwick Montgomery

1517 Academic logo

Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question

First edition © 2004 by John Warwick Montgomery

Second, revised edition © 2015

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher at the address below.

Scripture marked (KJV) quoted from The Authorized (King James) Version. Rights in the Authorized Version in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown. Reproduced by permission of the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press.

Scripture marked (NIV) are quoted from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The NIV and New International Version are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

Scripture marked (NAS) quoted from the (NASB®) New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1971 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved. www.lockman.org

Published by:

1517 Academic, an imprint of 1517 Publishing

PO Box 54032

Irvine, CA 92619-4032

Publisher’s Cataloging-in-Publication Data

(Prepared by The Donohue Group, Inc.)

Names: Cornell Symposium on Evidential Apologetics (1986 : Ithaca, N.Y.), author. | Montgomery, John Warwick, editor.

Title: Evidence for faith : deciding the God question / edited by John Warwick Montgomery.

Description: Second, revised edition. | Irvine, CA : 1517 Academic, an imprint of 1517 Publishing, [2024] | Previously published in 2004. | Includes bibliographical references.

Identifiers: ISBN: 978-1-945500-99-2 (paperback) | 978-1-945500-23-7 (ebook)

Subjects: | LCSH: Apologetics—Congresses. | Religion and science—Congresses. | God—Proof—Congresses. | Bible—Evidences, authority, etc.—Congresses. | Religion and science—History—20th century—Congresses. | BISAC: RELIGION / Christian Theology / Apologetics. | RELIGION / Christian Theology / General. | RELIGION / Essays.

Classification: | LCC: BT1102 .C62 2024 | DDC: 239—dc23

Cover art by Zachariah James Stuef.

References to internet websites (URLs) were accurate at the time of writing. Neither the author nor publisher is responsible for URLs that may have expired or changed since the manuscript was prepared.

For

Herman John Eckelmann

from a generation of disciples

who still remember Cayuga’s waters

and whose lives were permanently impacted

by his concern for the lost

Table of Contents

Preface

Part 1 A Hard Look at Evidence

1.1. The Value of an Evidential Approach

1.2. An Evidential Approach to Biblical Christianity

Part 2 God and Scientific Cosmology

2.1. A Theistic Approach to Science

2.2. Inanimate Design as a Problem for Nontheistic Worldviews

2.3. The Evidence of Cosmology

2.4. Cosmogony, Genesis 1, and the Origin of the Earth

Part 3 Revelatory Biology

3.1. What Is Life and Why Ask the Question? A Biologist’s Perspective

3.2. Biomedical Prescience 1: Hebrew Dietary Laws

3.3. Biomedical Prescience 2: Pride & Prejudice in Science

3.4. Biomedical Prescience 3: How’s Your Lifestyle?

Part 4 Biblical Criticism and Bible Prophecy

4.1. Archaeology and the Higher Criticism of Genesis 14

4.2. Truth via Prophecy

4.3. Israel’s History Written in Advance: A Neglected Evidence for the God of the Bible

4.4. The Testimony of Messianic Prophecy

4.5. The Canon of Scripture: Can We Be Sure Which Books Are Inspired of God?

Part 5 God’s Existence and Christ’s Claims

5.1. The Problem of Evil

5.2. The Argument from Experience

5.3. Miracles and the Historicity of the Easter Week Narratives

Part 6 A Time for Decision

6.1. Why Isn’t the Evidence Clearer?

6.2. The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity

Appendix: Some Concluding Thoughts on Evolutionary Belief

Contributors

Index

Preface

This is a book for believer and for unbelievers. Its authors—many of them scientists and all of them trained at secular universities—became and remain Christians because the evidence for the truth of Christianity overwhelmingly outweighs competing religious claims and secular world views.

This volume is literally capable of changing lives, and the lives of more than one of its contributors were in fact turned upside down by the force of the evidences here set forth. The Editor himself is in that category, and his tale is worth retelling, for it will help to set this book in perspective.

I arrived at Cornell University as a callow freshman in 1948. I commenced a double major in philosophy and classics. My religious position—if it can be so dignified—was liberal-to-secular. As with many freshmen I found myself in the Navy barracks-style dormitories erected at the end of the Second World War to accommodate the glut of students of that generation. Incredibly, an upperclassman—in electrical engineering—had chosen to forego the Neo-Gothic beauty and convenience of the permanent dormitories to remain with the lowly frosh as a barracks-dorm counselor: Herman John Eckelmann was his name, and evangelism was his game.

But not the mindless evangelism of today’s electronic church nor the relationalism of modern churchmanship; rather, his was a thoroughgoing apologetic evangelism, in the tradition of the Apostle Paul among the philosophers at Athens. Eckelmann asked the penetrating, Socratic questions: Why are you at University? What do you think life is all about? Where will you spend eternity? Have you considered the claims of Jesus Christ and the evidence for these claims?

He would not let you go. He would not tolerate sloppy thinking. His minuscule room was stuffed with the best of classic and contemporary apologetic literature. You had an objection? Eckelmann had a book—generally more than one—on that point, and it was often a book just off the press.

The answers were invariably better than the questions. In my case, he gave me, shortly after their publication, Wilbur Smith’s Therefore Stand, Edward John Carnell’s Introduction to Christian Apologetics, and C. S. Lewis’s early writings in defense of the faith. And he kept pressing me to a decision: "If the evidence is that good—and you know it is—what are you going to do about it?" One night in my dormitory room, on my knees before the God of heaven and earth who had assuredly died to redeem me, I did something about it. The following day, the world had become a different place, and my life has never been the same since.

This scenario is by no means unique. Eckelmann was at it hammer and tongs in the 1940s, and he is still at it hammer and tongs today. After completing his engineering degree, he went to theological seminary, principally to master the biblical languages under the impeccable instruction of Dr. Allen A. MacRae (another contributor to this volume). The seminary years were his only break with Cornell. He returned there to serve until retirement at the Cornell Radiophysics and Space Center, ultimately as its chief photographer and designer of a color stereo close-up camera for U.S. manned lunar landings. While at the Space Center, Eckelmann simultaneously pastored the Faith Bible Church in Ithaca, providing an oasis of serious, apologetic preaching in a desert of flaccid cultural religiosity.

And always he has engaged in personal evangelism, with a particular eye for the student with the capacities to replicate such an apologetic witness elsewhere. He has regularly sent such students—often after they obtained Ph.D.’s in the rigorous scientific disciplines—on to seminary. The result: scholars who know both theology and the secular mindset, and who are concerned to present the lifechanging evidence for Christian truth.

This volume puts together their thinking. We call it the Cornell Symposium on Evidential Apologetics. This name is appropriate because (1) the arguments given for the existence of God are concerned with evidence, not with philosophical or theological presuppositionalism; (2) the papers were presented far above Cayuga’s waters, in earshot of the carillon that still plays the evensong at twilight, on the twenty-fifth anniversary of Eckelmann’s congregation; and (3) Cornell has served as a locus sacrissimus for most of the contributors. Indeed, this book may be said without exaggeration to benefit both from a holy place (Cornell University) and from a tutelary spirit (Herman John Eckelmann)!

The fervent desire of the Editor and the contributors is to take the reader on an intellectual and existential pilgrimage. Consider well the evidence this volume presents to your mind and heart. Then act on it. You won’t regret it—either in time or in eternity.

John Warwick Montgomery

Strasbourg, France

The Feast of the Epiphany

6 January 1991

Part 1

A Hard Look at Evidence

1.1

The Value of an Evidential Approach

William J. Cairney

In 1951, Ken Taylor, famous in Christian circles for his translational-paraphrase work on The Living Bible, wrote a very interesting little booklet for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. The booklet, entitled Is Christianity Credible? Opens with a familiar scene. Professor Jones, a courteous, patient college professor is addressing a group of new freshmen. Professor Jones is a sincere straight-talker, and very likeable. His claim to fame is that in the previous academic year, he had influenced all but about 15 percent of his incoming evangelical Christian freshmen to renounce totally their commitment to a Christian perspective.

His method was simple. He talked straight from the shoulder and from his heart to the group of freshmen students before him. . . . He enjoyed his life work of helping students rethink their religion so that they would come to understand that historic Christianity is unacceptable to a thinking person.¹

As we enter Professor Jones’s class through the insights (and possible recollections) of Ken Taylor, we find Jones challenging his students to get beyond immature thinking and welcome their opportunity for intellectual maturation. Jones holds forth on element after element of the Christian belief and systematically dissects each one. Inerrancy of the Scriptures, devils, angels, miracles, virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, the creation account in Genesis, the Mosaic laws—on and on. Jones asks these students to face these matters squarely as men and women in college rather than as children.² He even quotes the Apostle Paul in exhorting the students to put away childish things.³

As Taylor related more and more of Jones’s arguments, methods, and results, I found myself reliving a chapter of my own life. Perhaps many of you, also, can place yourselves right in that freshman class. As a prelude to the series ahead, I would like to share some autobiographical data as a way of keynoting a theme that I wish to develop—the value of an evidential approach to knowledge of God.

Having been born into a Christian home, my early church experience could best be described as positive. The local congregation was the focal point for our family’s social activities, and people related to one another in an attitude of mutual encouragement and support. Moreover, the Bible was taught systematically and memorized extensively. The congregation was composed largely of Scottish and Irish immigrant families who had settled in this New York City urban community as a result of family ties or availability of certain kinds of work (mostly trades). The educational level was generally low by American standards with high school graduation common, but lesser educational levels also common, especially among people who had come in from the Old Country, as it was generally known. Except for a rare two or three younger folks, university education was not even represented. Because the congregation had such a commitment to biblical knowledge, this lack of formal education was not especially apparent, nor was it an issue.

The church also had a serious commitment to evangelism and put a special premium on children’s ministry. As a result of those efforts, as an elementary schooler I took what I consider to this day to have been a deliberate, conscious step of faith in Jesus Christ in response to the Apostle Paul’s counsel to the jailor at Philippi in Acts 16:30–31. Following a serious earthquake resulting in major damage to the prison and life-threatening circumstances for the jailor, the man asked Paul (and Silas, Paul’s companion), ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.’⁴ From that point on I considered myself a Christian according to the biblical criteria for that title and committed myself to grow in the faith. I was active in the high school group later on and participated extensively in the music ministry playing piano and organ and leading congregational singing. This involvement and activity level continued through college at the same church with the same people. A model young believer . . . or was I?

The crisis for me occurred in my college years. It was a quiet crisis, probably unrecognizable to most people. It began in seed form in the very first class of my freshman year, in Biology 101. The professor, also the Biology Department Head, stated emphatically, Evolution is a fact. It has been proven and no competent biologist disagrees with it. You may believe in a Creator if you wish, but that is your private belief and not a matter of the science we will deal with here! In my conservative church congregation, evolution (which most people pronounced ēvolution) was anathema. This professor turned out also to be my academic advisor. He listened to my ideas with interest and a great deal of amusement. In that I had once done a presentation to our high school youth group on the impossibilities of evolution, I came to him on several occasions armed with what I considered irresistible ammunition against this notion. My best arguments were no arguments at all in that, as he pointed out, they had all been dealt with by people competent in the science and found to be of no consequence.

Junior year in college—and enter my own Professor Jones. I had decided to double major in biology and chemistry with a goal of medical school or graduate school in the biomedical sciences. (I especially liked cellular physiology.) Jones taught a capstone course in cellular biology. He was a very likable, credible man. He was warm, dynamic, enjoyed an excellent professional reputation, was a devout Unitarian and one of the most organized teachers I have ever encountered (to this day). He proceeded to show, systematically and plausibly, the sequence of molecular evolution from basic building block molecules to biologically meaningful macro molecules to cells to complex multi-tissued organisms. In addition to his factual data, he commented on the philosophical implications of it all in a polished and persuasive manner. His impact on me was immense. For the next two years, I was truly his disciple in the strongest sense of the word.

In addition to Jones, several other influences combined with maximum effect. For one, the known campus Christians were generally regarded as out of it. They were somewhat undynamic, a little bit tacky in dress and manner, and (with minor exceptions) were not the best students. In short, no one wanted to be like them. In contrast, the students who did have their acts together tended to think along the lines of Jones. They were clear-thinking, goal-oriented, well-dressed, pre-professional people. Most were professed agnostics, and they were not afraid to defend their world view.

I recall a conversation I had in the science library with a young woman who eventually graduated number one in our class. She expressed the conviction she had that agnosticism is the only intellectually defensible position. This, from her, was like a mental tidal wave.

In attempting to get help for this intellectual challenge I sought counsel from people who had been my mentors in spiritual matters, members of my local church. While the responses varied from person to person, the theme was nevertheless the same: In matters of science versus Scripture, the University is wrong. I can’t begin to describe the credibility gap that began to develop. To think, a person with an eighth-grade education telling a Ph.D. molecular biologist that he was wrong in his own field. At that point, after multiple tries at answers, I made an assumption. That assumption was wrong in retrospect; but it guided my mindset for several years. I assumed—because these conscientious folks (with a strong commitment to the Bible but with limited scientific training) couldn’t give me answers—that there were no answers.

The overall effect of my experiences and assumptions was to force me to try to live a dichotomy, to try to be comfortable in both worlds, jumping from one to another, as needed . . . but with the burning conviction that those worlds were incompatible and irreconcilable. This all came to a head one Sunday morning as I was participating in communion at our church. The Apostle Paul strongly exhorts the church at Corinth,

Therefore, whoever eats the [communion] bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.⁵

I was unexamined, unconvicted, unworthy, and becoming more than skeptical. I felt myself to be the biggest hypocrite on the face of the earth—song leader, pianist, organist, youthful Christian mouthpiece, outward model. One person whose reactions I remember and appreciate to this day was my father. He was an elder in the church and his grasp of Scripture was considerable. He was also interested in science, especially biology. I would share my thoughts with him, yet he couldn’t answer my technical questions either. But, he listened, and he came back with thoughtful replies. I appreciated his patience. I’m sure he thought I was working it out because he got lots of outward signs from me to warrant that conclusion.

Graduating with a brand-new bachelor’s degree, I had still not resolved the basic conflicts. Linnea and I were married right at college graduation time; she graduated as a nurse, I as a fledgling microbiologist. We immediately moved to Cornell University (Jones’s graduate alma mater) to begin graduate school. I had initially hoped to follow in Jones’s footsteps and have his former major professor and mentor on my graduate committee and perhaps as my committee chairman if things worked out. (They didn’t.)

Our initial church experience in the Ithaca area was terrible (not sparing the most descriptive term). We had been given a lead on this particular congregation from our church back home. It seemed to us that this church had accumulated, under one roof, every negative evangelical stereotype we had ever seen or known. I was becoming very comfortable in a naturalistic Neo-Darwinist mold, able to defend naturalistic organic evolution very well, and becoming less and less content with the dichotomy. Our church attendance dwindled to nothing by the end of our first Cornell year. It was really all over, I felt. Time to own up. Time to make a break with the family heritage. I was tired of trying to live a Christian world view with a large part of my intellect on a shelf marked non-functional.

But . . . I was not entirely convinced that the God of the Bible wasn’t there. So I thought that a challenge to Him might be in order (a reverent challenge . . . just in case); My challenge went somewhat like this: God . . . if you are truly there . . . show me that the biblical Christian model is acceptable to a thinking person. Show me that there is sound evidence that even a scientific mind can accept, that the Bible is the actual Word of God, that it is accurate and authoritative in its assertions . . . or I am going to kick over the whole works! I found as a result of that prayer that the God who really is there does not take such challenges lying down!

Soon after that challenge (certainly not more than two weeks), Linnea and I were made aware of a little church group that was meeting in a home about a five-minute ride from where we were living at the time. We were told that the man pastoring this fledgling church had a seminary degree and was also a research associate at Cornell. That sounded interesting, so we visited.

I can’t begin to describe the experience. We came to the back door of a home in which perhaps forty-five to fifty people were gathered in a crowded family room which somehow also housed a piano and a double-manual, full-pedal board Allen organ! And all elements of this milieu were contributing to a sound level I can best describe as tangible. The singing really was fun. The people were happy and friendly to a degree that I interpreted as not for real.

The pastor of the congregation was one Herman J. Eckelmann, a graduate of Faith Seminary in Philadelphia and, indeed, a research associate in astrophysics at the Cornell University Space Center. Significant is the fact that the subject of the series was Evidence from Science for the Authenticity and Authority of the Christian Bible. Call that coincidence if you will.

For the next full year at Cornell, we systematically reviewed and analyzed historical, archaeological, cosmological, and even biomedical evidence that the Bible was written by the very God who claims to be its Author. We discovered that the Author of the biblical text had left a massive body of internal and external evidence to validate His claims to authorship, evidence that could be examined and tested.

This was especially important, because as we look at the world around us, we see countless systems which people are following. These models for truth or approaches to God are largely untested by their adherents.

College and university campuses provide students and faculty with a veritable smorgasbord of isms. Christianity in its various denominations and sects, Buddhism, B’Hai, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Hare Krishna, New Age, etc., ad infinitum, all compete for attention and allegiance. What an expansive list of choices!

Suppose we had no family biases, no ethnic biases, no creedal biases of any sort and were confronted by this assemblage of systems in our attempt to discover God. We certainly would be tempted to ask, How can I know which system, if any, is really an approach to a knowledge of God? Individuals and groups have responded to this problem in numerous ways. Some have considered feelings as their personal means of verification. If it feels good for me, it must be right. But, people have felt good about bad systems as well as good ones. Nazism, Communism, and the cult of Jim Jones all began with good feelings.

Closely allied to good feelings is the notion of the positive influence on society claimed by numerous systems and cults. Our teenagers don’t turn to drugs. We keep our families together. Our moral standards are the highest in the nation. Our divorce rate is the lowest in the Western world. And the claims, of course, imply that God is obviously blessing this or that ism and that therefore it is the true way to God.

Overall acceptance is another common verification point. A certain ism engulfs a whole region of the United States, affects institutions, permeates every comer of the culture, produces scholars, advocates, and apologists, and becomes a power to be reckoned with. An individual living within that system would easily be led to think that its scholars had worked out the details and that a system accepted by so many important and gifted people couldn’t possibly be wrong. Again, Nazism and Communism both capitalized on waves of popular acceptance.

But what about isms that claim faith as their point of verification? And here we begin to tread on interesting ground, because the Christian Bible indeed places great importance on faith in the development of a personal relationship with God. In fact, a verse quoted over and over by isms and by mainline orthodox Christianity alike is And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.⁶ So, says the well-dressed person at the door, our prophet is bringing a new revelation from God to the world, and God asks that you accept this revelation by faith and act upon it by joining our church. When confronted by such a challenge, I have a standard reply: Why should I accept your system of faith? What evidence can you give me that the God of the universe inspired either the Bible or the words of your prophet? That strategy has certainly produced some memorable discussions!

But what about the possibility of evidence? Maybe evidence is available to validate one of the many systems which claims to be an approach or the approach to God. We might actually expect that to be so, if an almighty God has designed a channel by which mankind could come to the fullest possible knowledge of Himself. But what evidence would we look for? What would constitute evidence? Could I suggest a few possibilities?

History Written in Advance. We can all write history in retrospect, but an almighty, omnipotent Creator would not be bound by our notions of space and time, and would thus be able to write history before it occurs. Suppose that we encountered a sourcebook that contained page after page of history written in advance with such accuracy and in such detail that good guessing would be completely ruled out.

Prescience. Suppose that in this same sourcebook, we were able to find accurate statements written ages ago demonstrating scientific knowledge and concepts far before mankind had developed the technological base necessary for discovering that knowledge or those concepts. Perhaps an almighty God would be trying to get our attention with such fore knowledge.

Historical Evidence. Suppose that in this same sourcebook, we were to find historical assertions that time after time were verified as true as historical scholarship continued. And closely allied to that . . .

Archaeological Evidence. Suppose that in this same sourcebook, statements that are difficult to verify are made about people and places, but as archaeology unearths more knowledge of the past, time after time the sourcebook is seen to be true in its assertions.

Philosophical And Logical Coherence. Suppose that this same source book, even though written piecemeal over thousands of years, contains well-developed common themes and is internally consistent.

And suppose all of these evidences hang together without internal contradiction or literary stress within the same anthology. Collectively, we could not take these evidences lightly.

And so, we start the journey . . .

Notes

1 Kenneth N. Taylor, Is Christianity Credible? (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1951), 4.

2 Ibid., 7–8.

31 Cor 13:11, King James Version.

4Acts 16:30–31. This and all subsequent Scripture references in this chapter are from the New International Version of the Holy Bible, copyright 1978 by the New York International Bible Society.

51 Cor 11:27–28.

6Heb 11:6.

1.2

An Evidential Approach to Biblical Christianity

Herman J. Eckelmann

Five blind men investigated an elephant. The first felt the trunk and said, An elephant is like a large hose. The second one touched the tail and stated, An elephant is like a rope. Still another encountered an ear and exclaimed, An elephant is like canvas. The fourth one examined a leg and said, Elephants are like trees. Finally, the fifth one, who felt a side, said emphatically, Elephants are actually houses! Each thought clearly of the elephant in terms of his own too-limited data.

Though this illustration is an old one, it points out an ageless and important truth: Incomplete evidence or faulty methodology results in contradictions that are more apparent than real. This is important for us because some of the conflicts between science and Christianity are based on similar misrepresentations. It is important to appreciate how badly such misconceptions affect both scientific and Christian claims if we are to find the truth about God, man, the world today, and the world to come.

One person may say, Science is a developing body of truth; it contradicts the Bible, therefore the Bible cannot be accepted. Another may say, Science does not actually contradict the Bible; this allegation is only the claim of certain non-Christians who want to seem to have nearly infallible support for their preferences. Actually, the data of science do not contradict the data taught in the Scriptures. Can the correct viewpoint be discovered? For that matter, is it all that important? Not much is at stake in the case of religions which say all will be well finally, no matter what one does. Those religions which say man will have another chance in the next life or that there is no next life also need not worry anyone greatly. On the other hand, a religion which teaches that the stakes involved in our present choices are almost infinitely high in the next life ought to be investigated early and carefully, if it has even the slightest chance of being true. We, therefore, propose to examine the data and truth claims at the interface between science and the Bible.

The Function of a Scientist

The function of a scientist is that of observing, theorizing, and then testing his theories (or hypotheses). Recently, the spinning of theories has been called model making. Good illustrations of this function can be found in Joss and Salpeter’s Models for Carbon-Rich Stars with Helium Envelopes, John Warwick Montgomery’s The Theologian’s Craft, and J. D. Watson’s The Double Helix.¹ Certain facts seem to be causally related (cause and effect). A mental model is constructed in an attempt to fit the facts together in a systematic way. The purpose is to relate adequately past data and enable the model maker and others to predict more successfully what will happen in the future, given similar circumstances. The data or evidence used in the model-construction process may come from all of experience, not just from a laboratory. The data may be the kind that can be modeled mathematically and thus processed to some degree in a computer.

The Nature of Model Making

Model making is necessarily a process of successive approximations, since a model usually cannot reliably go any farther than the limited data (and accuracy) available at the moment. And, because we do not have infinite, total, or exhaustive knowledge, we cannot be absolutely certain we have all the pertinent data necessary to make a final model. Models are always subject to revision, fine tuning, or even abandonment when new inputs necessitate changes to provide for total integration of an enlarged body of data. Therefore a finite human cannot claim total, infinite, absolute, or final knowledge about anything. Can we then have a working certitude about anything? Do we ever come to the place where we are morally obligated to go with the best data at hand? If not, how could anyone ever be justly regarded as blameworthy on Judgment Day and judged for any actions or crimes?²

The Nature of Data

The term data has commonly been defined as facts taken for use as a basis for reasoning. More recently, it is being recognized that so-called facts are actually conclusions we hold in our minds after interpreting one or more sense experiences or feelings within ourselves. The conclusions actually are mini-models which we have made unconsciously. Thus, what we frequently call facts are actually models with the propensities for fallibility already mentioned. Data are what we have before conclusions are drawn. Data are the sense and/or psychological experiences that come to the mind for arranging into possible models, one of which is chosen for the needs of the situation.

Possibilities in the Handling of Data and Models

The information content of the data, for a logical person, predestines the conclusion, just as a computer’s output is predetermined by its inputs (garbage in, garbage out). Skewing the incoming data or excluding some of it from our thinking produces models which differ from what they ought to be. Ignorance of available pertinent data tends inevitably to result in unnecessarily imprecise, untruthful, and even dangerous models. What we are saying when we claim to understand something is that we have a mental model that connects the data points in a way intellectually satisfying to us. The points may be connected with anything from straight lines to all kinds of curves and loops, producing a simplest possible model, or an infinite variety of more or less arbitrary models. We should restrict our model’s form to the minimum required by the available data. Anything else is blind faith.

The systematic exclusion of certain data from the model-making process by preselecting only part of what is available is an immoral exercise of the mind. It may be done unconsciously or subconsciously to maintain the appearance of respectable rationality for what may actually be a matter of personal prejudice. Thus a person may become willfully blind, deliberately limiting his input data, thus apparently justifying the making of a defective model. Such self-will, when practiced on a large collective scale, can lead to tragic errors of judgment on the part of individuals and even nations. We are morally obligated to proceed on the basis of the best data available as decisions are necessitated.

We seek, therefore, to fit together our input data more or less smoothly into small models. These small models are the parts that go into the overall model or philosophy of reality (Weltanschauung) which each person constructs. Supposedly, this determines his outlook or philosophy of life. Actually his outlook or philosophy also largely determines the initial small models as well, and they in turn the larger one. The circular feedback naturally occurring can pose an almost insuperable obstacle to the correction of one part of the total mass that does not fit new data. The strain on intellectual honesty can be severe.

Becoming a Christian

The Mistaken Way of Blind Faith

The Bible never said there were three wise men. Neither did it say Eve gave Adam an apple or that God made the universe out of nothing. These are traditions, and, like most traditions, they should be questioned. Christians are people of the Book, which means real Christianity is not some mystery religion practiced in a cave, but rather that its actual content is fully set down. It can be studied, checked, and rechecked objectively. Sola Scriptura, the motto of the Great Reformation, is a statement of the fact that the Book is the Christian’s ultimate standard of reality and living. No one has the right to call his pizza-inspired dreams an authoritative addition to that base line.

On the other hand, to get a lock on people’s minds, cultists (and other power-trippers) frequently demand a blind faith in some other basic doctrine or teaching. Once evidence and reason are thus shrewdly by-passed, they are not likely to be used consistently in further thinking either. The absolute blind-faith starting position is held to be totally authoritative and determines all that follows. This is not the teaching of the Book. Therefore, it is not the teaching of genuine (biblical) Christianity. The exercise of blind faith is essential to cultic religions because, in principle, it is the end of all argument; any possible future re-examination is headed off before getting started.

A typical unfortunate scenario might begin with someone who calls himself (or herself) a prophet. In essence he says God gave him a message mankind needs today. Perhaps he claims to have been given some gold tablets with the initial message already engraved on them in an unknown language, which only the prophet is able to translate. Then the tablets conveniently disappear. Or, the prophet is simply inspired to directly speak and/or write what is to be followed. We are told this is the way the Christian Scriptures were given, and this new prophet is in the same line or tradition. He, therefore, should be similarly honored and obeyed. Others may want to join him as additional prophets, sharing authority over people. Competition is not usually welcomed, so new prophets tend to come one by one as old ones die off. Sometimes later revelations are difficult to harmonize with what was previously given. When this happens, an important new doctrine would naturally state that the most recent revelations supersede all previous inspired material, especially when contradictions are perceived. Thus, mistakes can be made to become virtues. Allegedly, followers are being continuously and advantageously supplied with changing truth for changing times.

Things can get a bit sticky when several prophets claim simultaneously they are being led in certain ways or given special revelations that do not harmonize well with each other. An accommodation may be reached, where, having supposedly been given new truth by God, they feel it necessary or wise to call a meeting to take a human vote on it all before propagation for all to honor and obey as God’s Word. Whatever they may call themselves, their primary purpose is to obtain power over people, preferably in large numbers. Everything, then, depends on persuading these people to commit themselves early on to a blind faith in some basic proposition that later will make them follow as unquestioningly as possible. The Koran, for example, doesn’t even attempt to give any reason for belief in its religio-ethical system (i.e., any solid evidence strong enough to rationally support its command/reward structure). Rather, it claims, essentially, one will know it is true if one’s heart is in the right place. Evidently there are people who can be successfully programmed, by just such a simple statement, to experience the required feeling. Everything down the line depends upon accepting the imposition of an early, essentially blind decision. Pride later hinders re-examination of the rightness of this starting point. The belief that this erroneous starting point is the Christian position allows many to take the leap in the dark, to make the basic commitment that predestines all future compliance.

Soon after the individual’s commitment is made, the burden of building and using beautiful cathedrals is often imposed, for this psychologically imprints an authentication of the original blind faith decision more and more firmly. Thus, the road downhill gets steeper and more difficult to retrace. The way is paved for the revelations to be claimed to be self-authenticating, or to be believed solely on the authority of the Church. In time, antiquity is invoked, and the cult is thus further psychologically clothed with believability and consequent authority over people. It may then gain the further respectability of being called a church, then a denomination.

Finite Man and His Finite Knowledge

Finite man cannot and does not possess exhaustive knowledge; therefore he usually has to learn on the basis of probabilities inherent in data gathering and the model-assembling process. If he had exhaustive or infinite knowledge he would not need to learn anything. Some have said finite knowledge of an infinite Being would be an infinitesimal percentage of the totality, and, therefore, man cannot say anything significant about God. However, in simple math we know the general equation for a straight line in a two-coordinate system is y = mx + b. Even though the line is infinitely long in both directions, and we are finite, we can and do say certain very significant truths about it in the equation. So also, the God who lives is infinite in certain definable attributes. (For a good discussion of this, I recommend J. Oliver Buswell’s Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion.³)

Thus we must recognize that we can know certain truths about God. In orthodox Christianity the Holy Spirit works to open one’s mind to truth. Then new facts, fresh insight about God or the nature of reality, the influence of the Word of God, or changes in circumstances act upon a person’s mind, spirit, and world view. A new openness to Christian evidences begins to develop. This type of evidence is discussed in such books as Urquhart’s The Wonders of Prophecy, Stoner and Newman’s Science Speaks, Newman’s The Evidence of Prophecy and Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth, and Josh McDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict.⁴ Then an honest examination reveals truth, and an explanation is required for the unfailing accuracy of the Scriptures in recording history far in advance of its occurrence and scientific knowledge far in advance of its discovery. Thai the closed system or giant model previously held is not adequate to integrate the new data, and an agonizing reappraisal is indicated; a choice is required to deal fairly no matter what the ego cost. Fearing the taunts and reprisals of colleagues and friends, some do not make this choice. Others, grasping the overall significance and moral imperative of receiving this new data at any cost, find they embrace not only data, but also as a logical consequence, a Person—Jesus Christ. Much is involved when this happens. In the light of moral standards revealed in the Bible to be inherent in the nature of the Lord, a reassessment of one’s life transpires. Also a new attitude toward things contrary to His nature occurs. Sin begins to be called sin, and though it was once a thing desired, progressive dislike for it now becomes natural. Answers to prayer occur which are not easily explained away statistically. Reasons for living a particular kind of life with otherworldly goals are discovered, and a peace is experienced which far transcends previous transient and deceptive pleasures. A startling result of the emerging new nature is a growing satisfaction in fulfilling one’s responsibilities to the Lord. The habit of erecting false models of convenience lessens as appreciation for truth deepens. The certitude required for life’s decisions is adequately transmitted, in His providence, by the supplied data.

Looking Back

Christians, looking back over their past, feel certain things characterized them and the world out of which they came. Most important is that the world’s model has been warped by carefully preselecting certain data, i.e., excluding that which would lead to submission to the living God as He has presented Himself in the Scriptures.

For example, the faith that miracles cannot have happened is the result of unfounded arbitrary assumptions plus partial data exclusion. Heaven, hell, and a final judgment are said to be unbelievable. Actually, the unbelievability is the result of thinking within the confines of an arbitrary model that permits only horizontal conceptualization. Such a thinker scarcely looks at data that would expand his ability to integrate the sensory experience of a large body of mankind. After becoming Christians, we recognize that we once ignored large areas of evidence that threatened our model with change. Facts were used to rationalize our unwillingness to submit to revealed responsibilities. Our model was inhospitable; it was skewed by self-will for temporary freedom or autonomy.

This intellectualization of nonsubmission to the Lord is a misuse of the mind. It is an action that must be forsaken in this life, or the person will be held permanently responsible. To reject data provided for our enlightenment is a permitted freedom, but the abandonment of this available light is an invitation to Him to justly abandon us. It is wise to recall that He does not need us; we need Him. Thus, refusal to accept instruction to repent of sin, and the consequent rationalization of this refusal, via model warping and data exclusion, is permanently contrary to a person’s own best interests. Hell is real and deserved, we are informed.

The individual’s reaction is either to actually become a Bible-reading Christian, or to turn away, twisting and neglecting the data ever more assiduously and systematically in an effort to create and maintain feelings of security. Failure to perfect this seductive dream model permits recurring feelings of insecurity, even paranoia. There is a need for more and more assurances that all is well. Hence many flock to hear ever more clever and dogmatic agnostic, atheistic, or cultic speakers to