aldenswan.com

It appears that the Toronto Star broke a story that has raised a near instant uproar across the web (the wonders of the Internet…). The hoopla is all about a new $4 million documentary to be aired on the Discovery Channel produced by James (”I’m the king of the world!”) Cameron and directed by Simcha (”I still think that the James ossuary is authentic!”) Jacobovici. A book, The Jesus Family Tomb by Jacobovici and Charles (”The real Indiana Jones”) Pellegrino is out this week as well.

The documentary and the book are about a tomb containing several ossuaries that Jacobovici claims contain the bones of, among other folks, Jesus, his wife Mary, and possibly their son, Judas (I’m asking, “what would make Jesus name his son Judas?”). Cameron admits that he doesn’t know anything about archeology (and probably knows nothing about Jesus, either, for that matter), but found the story “compelling.” Jacobovici says, “It’s mind-boggling. It’s an altered reality.” Uh-huh. It remains to be seen just who is dealing with an altered reality.

Now, if you’re concerned that this might cause people to doubt the story of Jesus, Jacobovici says not to worry - he claims Jesus could have resurrected from the first tomb, only to die later and be buried here. Uh-huh.

There are many interesting details about this story that leave it with so many holes that many are comparing it to James Cameron’s Titanic, after it hit the iceberg. For one thing, I find it interesting that those who are speaking out against this theory are not only Christians, but archaeologists as well. In fact, these bones were discovered in 1980 - that’s 27 years ago - and this theory was discredited from the outset. The evidence against the Jacobovici/Pellegino/Cameron theory is so “compelling” that the mainstream media won’t even buy into it (and that’s saying something…).

Granted, 6 of the 10 ossuaries had inscriptions of some well-known names: Jesus, son of Joseph; Maria; Mariamene; Matthew; Judas, son of Jesus; and Jose. Shocking, perhaps, to us; until we realize that these were some of the most popular names in Israel at the time, and the fact that these ossuaries were found in the same tomb is statistically insignificant. And, there’s some doubt that the one ossuary even says, “Jesus” - archaeologist Stephen Pfann has been quoted in an AP article saying that he thinks the name is actually “Hanun.”

So, let not your hearts be troubled, for this, too, shall pass. I’m guessing that among documentaries, this one will sit right beside Geraldo Rivera’s The Mystery of Al Capone’s Vault.

But, if you want a bit more information, here’s an interesting blog post by Ben Witherington, who has worked with Jacobovici in the past.

The other day I was wandering around my local Borders store, and ran across a book on the New Releases table entitled, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist by Victor J. Stenger, a man who seems to have taken on a crusade against the notion that science is proving (or has proved) the existence of God, particularly the Christian version of God.

Now, straight off I need to say that I haven’t had a chance to read this book, even though I am going to comment on its concept taken from its own promotional blurbs, which I presume to be accurate. (I should also state that instead of this book, I chose Bruce Feiler’s “Where God Was Born.”) I’d actually like to read this book, but I don’t have the time or money to invest in it right now. However, if someone feels inclined to buy it for me, I promise I’ll read it the first chance I get. (The same goes for Dawkins The God Delusion or even Sam Harris’ stuff.)

The publisher’s blurb for the book states:

Physicist Victor J. Stenger contends that, if God exists, some evidence for this existence should be detectable by scientific means, especially considering the central role that God is alleged to play in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans. … After evaluating all the scientific evidence, Stenger concludes that beyond a reasonable doubt the universe and life appear exactly as we might expect if there were no God.

Assuming, as I said, that this is an accurate representation of Stenger’s hypothesis, then one really doesn’t have to read the book to discover its primary error; it would seem, rather than disproving the hypothesis that science can offer proof of God’s existence, he has only proved that his own hypothesis, that science can prove the opposite, has failed. It would seem that in taking on such a task, Stenger has come to a Gödellian impasse. One of Stenger’s problems can be seen at the outset: what if his hypothesis that evidence for God can be detectable by scientific means is either not true, or is unprovable? His conclusion, then, can only be trusted if you accept the same set of presuppositions as Stenger bases his argument on; in which case you have no proof of anything at all.

It remains to be seen whether Stenger’s argument is consistent (I would actually have to read the book to comment on this). Even so, it only proves a consistent system, not that it accurately represents truth. Again, if the presuppositions are incorrect, all you have is a consistent work of fiction.

Stenger is seems to be taking on a de facto exercise in fallacious reasoning when he is attempting to address the truth of one system (that is, theology) from within his own system. Brian Bosse, in his discussion on The Nature of Argumentation (Part 3), states:

I can’t stress enough the importance of arguing independently of your system for your system. Most arguments between systems are not made independently of the system. That is, most arguments assume their system upfront, and commit this most basic fallacy.

Now, Stenger may have some points to make with regard to others who attempt to disprove science from within a theological framework, or who put forth inconsistent arguments for the existence of God; I have just as much of a problem with bad Christian logic as I do with bad scientific logic.

However, there is one other consideration: What if everything we see as science - even (gasp!) evolution - is the work of God? Assuming that God is outside of the system He created, He would not be subject to the cause and effect nature of creation, and so therefore not provable from within the system. However, this could provide the basis for all those others - such as Francis S. Collins, who wrote The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief - who look at the same facts, but see God displayed there.

Faith, anyone?

We’ve probably all experienced door-to-door evangelism, from one side of the door or the other. I’ve been on both sides, though most of the time on the inside. There was a time when I looked forward to these random encounters as great evangelistic opportunities. I’ve had many theological discussions with members of various religious cults, mostly JWs and Mormons.

I actually went through a number of Mormon missionaries over a period of months as I continued to invite them back. I’d eventually present them with a question they couldn’t spout off a rehearsed answer to, and they’d promise to go talk to their superiors and come back. Unfortunately, they never did; instead the church would send new, more experienced evangelists, who would go through the same cycle. Eventually I realized as that with many things, in cult evangelism there is a law of diminishing returns. I learned a lot in the process, however.

It’s been years since I invited any of them in. (I should mention that I don’t let vacuum or insurance salesmen in either. ) Occasionally I’ll let them know they are in error at the door, give them a smile and send them off. Having a family makes ad hoc living room evangelism kind of difficult. Plus, I just don’t have the energy, and I have other excuses, too.

Today I read an absolutely hilarious post (which, by the way, inspired this one of mine) by Paul Vieira, “telling religious people to go away.” This is a must read, for all of us who don’t want to be evangelized, as well for those who still have some inkling to go out banging on strange doors. Enjoy.