Rosalind Picard

Picard is an MIT professor; a scientist who became a Christian. Some quotes from Picard's talk she gave on "Intellectual Assurance Christianity is Sound"...

https://web.media.mit.edu/~picard/personal/ccc-talk.php

"But the risks I take are insignificant compared to the issue at hand. The issue is twofold: first, what is the truth? And second, what is your response to it?

By truth, I mean objective truth. Truth can be known subjectively, but it also exists outside one's subjective experience. Beware of the trendy relativism that pervades much thinking today -- if you (absolutely) believe there's no absolute truth then you need to come to grips with a problem with your thinking first."

She is telling us she has objective reasons for thinking Christianity is true. Her reasons are not emotional, not because it gives her a warm, fuzzy feeling, but because there are evidence and reasons that mean we can be sure it is true. That is a high bar she is setting.

In fact she states:

"Christianity is supported by a tremendous amount of objective evidence."

So what has she got?

For starters, the man known as Jesus existed. I once saw a book claiming, without evidence, that he was a myth, a made-up story. But, this book's claim is defied by an abundance of evidence. The historical accuracy of Jesus's life is vouched for not just by writers who became Christians, but is also recorded by non-Christian writers of Jesus's time. He walked on this planet; his existence is not in question. The real questions are who did he claim to be, did he really rise from the dead, and if so, what does this mean?

Yes, Jesus existed, and I am happy to accept that. But I am still an atheist. As she says, "The real questions are who did he claim to be, did he really rise from the dead, and if so, what does this mean?" so the fact that he was a real person falls a long way short of evidence that Christianity is true.

"However, if you go to the original sources and look at Jesus's claims, they are startling: Jesus claimed divinity. Not just once, but many times, and in front of many audiences. He claimed to be one with God, saying "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." He asked for and accepted worship as God. When asked publicly by the high priest, in front of numerous witnesses, "Are you the Christ?" he said "I am." "

Well, the gospels claim he said that. How can we be sure they are reporting it accurately? And if they are, why should we not think Jesus was deluded? She goes on to address this to some degree:

"Jesus's claim was clearly understood by the people of his time; we know this because of their responses, which ranged from outrage and accusations of blasphemy to life-changing acceptance. These claims of divinity were recorded by numerous eyewitnesses, and separate writers in separate documents, documents whose reliability and trustworthiness are strongly confirmed by multiple standard tests for historical literature."

We do not really know how people responded to Jesus' claims; all we have a accounts written decades later by people who were not there. Picard claims "numerous eyewitnesses", but the earliest gospel, Mark, was written by a guy who was not there some 40 years after the events. The other gospels were written even later, and again, not by eye witnesses, even if the church likes to pretend they were.

And this is Picard's objective evidence!

"Many people of his day examined the evidence, and concluded that Jesus's life and claim were in agreement, that his claim might be true. They also realized that if this claim was true, then this was truly astounding. God becoming man - taking on our flesh - checking out what it was like down here in human form. An outrageous act."

I am curious what this refers to. The gospel accounts indicate that even the disciples did not understand what Jesus was claiming before the resurrection, so simply not credible to suppose others "examined the evidence, and concluded that Jesus's life and claim were in agreement". Is she talking about what happened after the supposed resurrection?

"For people who didn't know their Hebrew scriptures, Christ also told them what would happen. He repeated his predictions to multiple groups of people. Jesus pointed out the old testament prophecies he was fulfilling and would fulfill."

And we know that because it was written down after it supposedly happened. How difficult would it be for later authors to put words in Jesus' mouth "predicting" events that were in the author's past? But I guess that never occurred to this MIT professor...

"Historical records include multiple accounts of Jesus's predictions and fulfillments of them. Despite all this foretelling, most people were surprised when it happened."

In what sense are the gospels historical records? They are accounts that are very old, so in that sense, sure. But no more than that. They were written by people with a vested interest in promoting Christianity, decades after the events, by people who were not there at the time. And they have clear signs of embellishments - we see that in the progression from Mark, to Matthew, to Luke, to John.

Picard assumes they are true. And that is the basis of Christianity. Just assume the Bible is true. If it says it in the Bible, then it must be true.

"There is an abundance of historical evidence for the resurrection. After the resurrection, Jesus appeared, bodily, on at least ten separately recorded occasions, to hundreds of eyewitnesses. On one occasion he appeared to over 500 people. Multiple accounts have been recorded of these events, several written while eye-witnesses still lived. If you believe any well-documented facts of history, then you have to at least examine these reports, which are as well substantiated as historical evidence can be."

This is, of course, the crux. Was Jesus resurrected? She claims an abundance of historical evidence. And yet the resurrection is not accepted as a historical fact by historians...

The fact is that she is assuming the Bible is true. How does she know "On one occasion he appeared to over 500 people"? It says so in the Bible, and if it says so in the Bible it must have happened! This is her objective evidence.

Christianity is about assuming the Bible is true first, and then carefully examining the Bible to see if it is true.