#24 ✓ Consider: Aren’t the number of questions that Christianity answers evidence of Christianity’s truth?

November 12, 2024

Consider the Following:

Summary: Christianity provides a wide range of answers to life’s profound questions, offering emotional comfort and meaning without the constraints of scientific evidence or falsifiability. However, the capacity to address these questions extensively does not inherently validate the truth of these answers, as they remain untested and unverifiable.

Imagine an ideological framework that purports to answer life’s most profound questions: What is the purpose of life? Why do we suffer? What happens after we die? Religion, and Christianity in particular, provides narratives that address these questions in ways that can be deeply compelling. But does this breadth of response genuinely indicate truthfulness, or does it reveal an adeptness in creating satisfying narratives?

Unlike science, which is bound by evidence and empirical testing, religions have the flexibility to craft answers that fit our deepest existential needs without the constraints of verification. Christianity, specifically, presents an extensive array of answers to questions that humans have pondered for centuries. However, does providing answers to these questions inherently validate the truth of those answers?

The Power of Unfalsifiable Answers

Religions hold a distinctive position when it comes to addressing life’s questions. They can formulate answers unbounded by empirical evidence or scientific scrutiny, which gives them the freedom to offer narratives that are both complete and internally consistent. Christianity, for instance, provides answers that may be emotionally satisfying but are structured in a way that makes them difficult, if not impossible, to disprove. This very unfalsifiability allows for the preservation of beliefs that science might otherwise challenge.

Consider the way Christianity responds to specific questions:

What is the purpose of life?
- Christianity teaches that humans exist to glorify God and seek eternal life through Jesus Christ.
Why is there suffering?
- Christianity proposes that suffering entered the world through sin and serves to test faith, build character, or fulfill divine purposes.
What happens after death?
- Christianity posits an afterlife where the righteous are rewarded in heaven and the sinful face eternal separation from God.
Where did we come from?
- Christianity claims that humans were created by God, specifically in his image, with an inherent purpose.
Is there absolute justice?
- Christianity answers affirmatively, with the promise of divine judgment where all will be held accountable in the afterlife.
How should we live our lives?
- Christianity provides ethical guidelines based on the teachings of Jesus and the Bible.

This extensive list of questions reflects Christianity’s scope and adaptability. It offers answers that, on their face, provide meaning, purpose, and reassurance. Yet, this freedom to offer expansive and unverifiable answers does not inherently reflect the truth of these claims. Rather, it emphasizes the flexibility of religious storytelling.

^{◉ Packaged ideologies eliminate the need for rational thought.}

Does the Quantity of Answers Imply Truth?

Having numerous answers does not correlate with having truthful answers. If a system is free to create explanations without accountability to evidence or falsifiability, it can generate an endless number of satisfying yet unverifiable responses. This is not unique to Christianity. Many religions and belief systems provide internally consistent answers to life’s mysteries, but consistency does not equal validity.

Consider an example from folklore: If I claim that a spirit called a “house sprite” is responsible for lost items, I could create an elaborate narrative around this being’s actions and motivations. This story may be internally consistent, comforting, and even explanatory. However, without evidence or the possibility of disproving this claim, it remains a story rather than a reflection of truth.

The same principle applies to religious answers. Christianity’s answers may be consistent and emotionally resonant, but without a method to substantiate these answers, they remain untested beliefs.

When History Confronts Religious Explanations

Historically, religious explanations have often been supplanted by scientific understanding. For instance, ancient religious beliefs explained natural events—such as lightning—as acts of gods or expressions of divine will. These explanations provided meaning and were widely accepted. However, science eventually uncovered the natural causes of lightning, rendering the religious answers obsolete.

This historical pattern suggests that religion can provide temporary “answers” to satisfy human curiosity or fear, but these answers do not necessarily reveal truths about the universe. Rather, they reflect humanity’s need for meaning in a world that can appear indifferent.

The Comfort of Answers vs. The Reality of Truth

*^{◉ Most religions offer neatly packaged answers.}*

Ultimately, the ability to answer profound questions with packaged answers does not automatically validate the answers themselves. Christianity, like many religions, offers a worldview that addresses the human desire for purpose, justice, and continuity beyond death. But while these answers may provide emotional comfort, they do not constitute evidence of truth. The quantity of answers Christianity provides highlights its adaptability and capacity to meet psychological needs rather than offering any factual basis for its beliefs.

In summary, while Christianity provides a vast and interconnected set of answers to life’s questions, this ability to answer does not imply truth. The freedom to present unfalsifiable answers enables religions to appear all-encompassing and satisfying but does not serve as evidence that these answers reflect reality.

An Explanation of the Graphic: Coherence vs. Testability in Religious and Mythical Beliefs

The graphic illustrates the difference between internally coherent but untestable concepts and coherent, testable concepts as they pertain to religious and mythical beliefs.

On the left side, labeled the Infinite Set, we see a collection of entities like “God X,” “God Y,” “God Z,” demons, and angels. These entities represent concepts that are internally coherent (i.e., they follow a logical structure within their own framework) but are untestable by science. This untestability arises because these beings are often defined as immaterial, non-interactive, or existing beyond the realm of empirical investigation. As a result, any belief in these entities can persist without challenge because science cannot verify or falsify claims that lack measurable characteristics.

On the right side, labeled the Finite Verified Set, there are entities such as atoms, DNA, bears, and whales—these are coherent and testable by science. These elements exist in a finite set that can be empirically investigated, verified, and potentially falsified through scientific methods. In this category, claims are subject to evidence-based scrutiny and can be validated or disproven over time.

Between these two sets is the Unverified Set, which includes mythological or speculative entities like Bigfoot, mermaids, and space aliens. These entities may have characteristics that, in theory, could be testable, but they remain unverified due to a lack of reliable evidence. While there are claims and stories around these beings, their existence has not been scientifically confirmed.

The question marks between the categories for ghosts and fairies indicates that their categorization depends on whether these entities are defined in a way that can be scientifically tested. So long as they these entities don’t lend themselves to testability, they remain in the unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable domain on the left with most if not all Gods.

The “set” graphic above demonstrates that untestable entities occupy an “infinite” category because there is no limit to the number of possible coherent, imaginative explanations that can be proposed without evidence. Testable entities, however, are finite because they are constrained by the observable universe and the limitations of empirical investigation.

Key Insight: Religions, by including untestable, coherent entities, provide answers that are immune to scientific scrutiny, which can lend these beliefs a sense of permanence and resilience in the absence of empirical validation.

A Companion Technical Paper:

FF-24 – Coverage-Risk Trade Off for Religious Ideologies Download

Dialogue:

😇 Everyone needs clear answers to the biggest questions — what our purpose is, where morality comes from, what our destiny will be. Christianity gives me all of that. Without it, people like you are left confused and hopeless.

🤔 I don’t deny that those are emotionally compelling questions. But notice: what you’ve listed are really desires, not neutral questions about reality. Wanting a castle doesn’t prove the gold mine exists beneath the hill. The promise of a gold mine may be accepted by those who feel incomplete without a castle, but the promise itself doesn’t produce evidence.

😇 But aren’t those desires evidence in themselves? Why would we long for meaning, justice, and hope unless there was a God who provided them?

🤔 That’s like saying our desire for treasure proves there must be buried treasure somewhere. Human desires tell us a lot about psychology, not necessarily about external reality. If we project our needs outward and mistake them for evidence, we collapse “what I wish to be true” with “what is true.”

😇 Still, Christianity offers clarity. I don’t have to say “I don’t know.” Isn’t that better than the uncertainty you’re defending?

🤔 But clarity is only valuable if it tracks reality. A forged map can give you very clear lines and labels, but if it doesn’t match the terrain, it leads you astray. “I don’t know” is not hopelessness; it’s intellectual honesty. Rational belief is not binary affirmation but a degree of confidence that must map to the degree of evidence.

😇 So you’re saying it’s better to be left in confusion than to have faith?

🤔 I’m saying it’s better to endure discomfort than to accept closure that isn’t earned. Real discovery begins when we resist the temptation of easy answers and let evidence guide us. If the castle is real, the gold mine will reveal itself with evidence. But if all we have is the promise, believing too quickly may stop us from ever finding what’s true.

The Logical Form

Argument 1: Unfalsifiable Claims and Perceived Truth

Premise 1: Religions, including Christianity, provide internally coherent answers to profound questions, which do not require scientific verification.
Premise 2: Internally coherent answers that are unfalsifiable (not subject to scientific scrutiny) cannot be disproven by empirical evidence.
Conclusion: Therefore, the presence of internally coherent but unfalsifiable answers in religions does not imply these answers reflect truth but rather highlights the adaptability of religious storytelling.

Argument 2: Quantity of Answers vs. Truthfulness

Premise 1: Christianity and other religions provide a wide range of answers to fundamental existential and moral questions, which often meet human psychological needs.
Premise 2: Providing a large number of answers does not guarantee the truthfulness of those answers, especially if they lack empirical verification.
Conclusion: Thus, the quantity of answers that Christianity provides does not equate to the truth of those answers; it only demonstrates an ability to satisfy human curiosity and psychological needs.

Argument 3: Freedom from Scientific Scrutiny and Religious Claims

Premise 1: Christianity and other religions are not bound by scientific scrutiny, allowing them to provide answers that may be comforting but remain untestable.
Premise 2: Concepts that are untestable are immune to falsification, which means they cannot be proven or disproven through scientific methods.
Conclusion: Consequently, the freedom from scientific scrutiny allows Christianity to maintain beliefs that provide emotional satisfaction, but this freedom does not establish the truth of those beliefs.

Argument 4: Historical Examples of Religious Explanations

Premise 1: Historically, many religious explanations for natural phenomena, such as attributing lightning to divine will, provided satisfying answers before scientific explanations were available.
Premise 2: Over time, science has replaced many religious explanations with empirical evidence-based answers, demonstrating that religious answers were not truthful but merely temporary solutions to unknowns.
Conclusion: Therefore, the historical pattern of scientific advancements replacing religious explanations indicates that religious answers may provide comfort but do not necessarily reflect truth.

Argument 5: Coherence and Verifiability

Premise 1: Entities that are coherent and testable by science exist within a finite verified set that can be empirically investigated and either confirmed or falsified.
Premise 2: Entities that are coherent but untestable exist within an infinite set and can never be disproven if they lack empirical characteristics.
Conclusion: Thus, while coherence provides internal consistency, it does not imply truthfulness unless coupled with verifiability through scientific methods.

#24 Formalization

^{(Scan to view post on mobile devices.)}

A Dialogue

Examining Christianity’s Claims and the Nature of Truth

CHRIS: Christianity provides answers to the most profound questions in life—questions about purpose, suffering, justice, and the afterlife. Isn’t the fact that Christianity addresses these existential concerns evidence that it’s the true path?

CLARUS: I understand that Christianity offers a comprehensive set of answers to these questions, but the mere ability to provide answers doesn’t automatically equate to truthfulness. A system of beliefs can be internally coherent and emotionally satisfying, but still lack a basis in reality if it isn’t subject to empirical verification.

CHRIS: But isn’t it compelling that Christianity has answers for so many existential questions? Surely, this scope of explanation points to something real, something more than random invention.

CLARUS: Not necessarily. The ability to answer many questions is often a result of freedom from scientific scrutiny. Christianity and other religions aren’t required to verify their answers in the way science is. Religions can construct narratives that are untestable, meaning they’re protected from disproof. Just because something can’t be proven false doesn’t make it true.

CHRIS: Are you saying that because Christianity’s claims aren’t scientifically testable, they’re invalid?

CLARUS: I’m saying that untestable claims are neither validated nor invalidated by science—they’re simply unverified. Historically, religions often provided explanations for phenomena like lightning or disease before science developed evidence-based answers. Those religious answers met psychological needs at the time, but they weren’t true. Over time, empirical science replaced them with verifiable explanations.

CHRIS: But what about the existential answers that science can’t touch, like the meaning of life or the existence of God? Doesn’t Christianity’s consistent, coherent approach to these questions imply its truthfulness?

CLARUS: Consistency and coherence don’t imply truthfulness without verifiability. I can create a coherent story about invisible fairies stealing lost keys, and it might even be satisfying. But if that story includes elements that are untestable, it remains a narrative rather than a reflection of reality. Coherence alone isn’t enough to establish truth—the testability of claims matters.

CHRIS: So you’re saying that untestable concepts, like many of those in Christianity, are potentially infinite because they’re beyond falsification?

CLARUS: Exactly. There’s an infinite set of possible untestable entities and explanations, limited only by human imagination. But the set of entities that are coherent and testable by science—like atoms, DNA, and species we can observe—is finite. Religions, by allowing for untestable entities, have the freedom to construct answers that may feel complete but aren’t subject to the same standards of truth as scientific claims.

CHRIS: But what if Christianity offers a level of comfort and hope that science simply can’t provide? Isn’t that valuable in itself?

CLARUS: Absolutely, the comfort Christian assertions provides can alleviate many human fears and worries. But comfort and truth are different matters. Christianity’s capacity to comfort does not establish its truthfulness. A belief system can fulfill psychological needs without accurately describing reality. Truth requires more than just satisfying answers—it requires answers that withstand scrutiny and verification.

CHRIS: I see your point. You’re saying that while Christianity may answer deep questions in a way that feels meaningful, this doesn’t confirm its factual accuracy. The answers might be internally consistent but still lack empirical support.

CLARUS: Precisely. The fact that Christianity offers extensive, coherent answers reflects its adaptability and appeal to human psychological needs, but this doesn’t inherently make those answers true. A system that avoids falsifiability can appear all-encompassing, but that very unfalsifiability is why we can’t assume it accurately represents reality.

CHRIS: I appreciate your explanation. It’s a challenging perspective to consider, especially when we’re so used to equating coherence and comfort with truth. I’ll need to think more about the role verification plays in understanding reality.

#24 Companion Youtube Video

#24 Companion Spotify Episode

Notes:

Helpful Analogies

Analogy 1: The Detective’s Infinite Suspects

Imagine a detective trying to solve a mystery with no eyewitnesses or physical evidence. With no constraints, the detective can create an infinite list of suspects—from unknown strangers to imaginary characters—each with a detailed backstory and motive. While these hypothetical suspects might offer a coherent explanation for the crime, they are unhelpful without any testable evidence to support them. Similarly, religious answers to existential questions, while coherent, can include untestable elements that prevent verification, leaving them in the realm of hypothetical narratives rather than truth.

Analogy 2: The Invisible Bridge Builder

Imagine a community claiming that an invisible bridge builder constructed a bridge overnight. The bridge is visible and functional, but there is no evidence of the builder’s existence beyond the community’s word. They insist that this invisible builder is the only explanation, and because he is defined as undetectable, there’s no way to verify or disprove his involvement. Just like this unfalsifiable claim, many religious explanations rely on invisible or supernatural agents that cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny. The claim might be internally consistent but lacks the verifiability required to establish truth.

Analogy 3: The Comforting Map of Imaginary Lands

Imagine someone creating a detailed map of an imaginary land, complete with mountains, rivers, and towns. The map is coherent and follows all the rules of cartography, making it easy to understand and even comforting to envision as real. However, if the land it represents doesn’t exist, the map, while detailed, is ultimately a fiction. Similarly, Christianity and other religions offer comprehensive answers to life’s questions that can feel comforting, but without empirical evidence, these answers resemble a well-drawn map of an imaginary place—satisfying but not necessarily a reflection of reality.

Addressing Theological Responses

Theological Responses

1. The Limitation of Empirical Science on Spiritual Matters

A theologian might argue that empirical science is inherently limited to the physical realm and therefore cannot address spiritual or metaphysical questions. Just as science doesn’t attempt to answer questions about love or purpose with hard evidence, religious answers aim to provide meaning rather than scientific verification. From this perspective, untestability doesn’t diminish the value or truth of spiritual insights, as they operate in a different domain from empirical inquiry.

2. The Universality of Existential Questions and Their Answers

Theologians might argue that the widespread existence of certain existential questions across cultures and history suggests an innate human need for answers that go beyond material explanations. Religions, especially Christianity, provide responses that address this universal human longing for understanding life’s purpose, justice, and the afterlife. The comprehensive nature of Christianity’s answers could thus be seen as evidence that it addresses fundamental truths about human existence that empirical methods overlook.

3. The Role of Coherence as Indication of a Divine Design

A theologian could argue that the internal coherence within Christianity, as well as its ability to address diverse human experiences and questions, suggests a divine origin. While coherence alone doesn’t establish empirical truth, theologians might propose that a consistent worldview across varied aspects of life points to a higher design. This cohesive structure in Christianity’s teachings could be viewed as evidence that its answers come from an intelligent and purposeful source.

4. Historical Validation Through Lived Experience and Tradition

Theologians might emphasize the historical resilience of Christianity and the way its teachings have been validated by the experiences and testimonies of countless believers. Christianity has endured over millennia, shaping societies and inspiring people to lead meaningful lives. Theologians may argue that practical, lived validation—from personal transformation to communal moral guidance—serves as a different form of evidence that complements empirical knowledge.

5. Faith as a Necessary Foundation Beyond Empirical Limits

Theologians often assert that faith itself is a response to the limits of human knowledge and the inability of science to address certain questions. Faith allows individuals to accept truths that lie beyond the reach of evidence but are crucial for personal and moral development. Theologians may argue that faith-based answers to existential questions should not be dismissed merely because they are untestable, as they provide an essential foundation for a meaningful life that science cannot supply.

6. The Complementary Roles of Science and Religion

Some theologians view science and religion as complementary rather than contradictory. They might argue that science explains the mechanisms of the physical world, while religion addresses the “why” behind existence and purpose. By providing answers to metaphysical questions—which science cannot measure or validate—Christianity complements scientific understanding, contributing to a fuller picture of reality that encompasses both empirical and spiritual dimensions.

Counter-Responses

1. Science’s Scope and the Testability of Spiritual Claims

While it’s true that empirical science is limited to the physical realm, many religious claims extend into domains that directly impact the observable world, such as miracles or answered prayers. When religions make assertions that should, in principle, have detectable effects—such as divine intervention in human affairs or the efficacy of prayer—these claims should be testable. If a claim has real-world implications, then evidence becomes relevant, and a failure to verify such claims may suggest they do not accurately reflect reality.

2. Universal Questions Do Not Validate Specific Religious Answers

The presence of universal existential questions does not imply that any particular set of religious answers is true. The fact that humans across cultures seek meaning and purpose may simply reflect a psychological need for narratives that make life’s difficulties more bearable. Different cultures have produced vastly different answers to these same questions, which suggests that existential needs drive the creation of comforting explanations rather than pointing to any specific truth in one religious framework, including Christianity.

3. Coherence Does Not Equal Truth

While internal coherence within a belief system may make it appear logically consistent, coherence alone does not imply truthfulness. A coherent story can be entirely fictional—just as fictional universes in literature can be internally consistent without reflecting reality. The cohesiveness of Christianity’s worldview could simply reflect its ability to adapt and reinterpret its doctrines over time, rather than any indication of a divine design. Truth requires more than coherence; it requires external verification.

4. Lived Experience as Subjective Validation, Not Objective Evidence

While personal testimonies and historical endurance may offer subjective validation for some, these elements do not constitute objective evidence of a religion’s truth claims. Many belief systems, some of which contradict Christianity, have also endured and positively impacted individuals and societies. Personal experiences, while powerful, are vulnerable to confirmation bias, cultural influence, and emotional needs, which makes them unreliable indicators of universal truth.

5. Faith Does Not Justify Beliefs Beyond Evidence

Faith may indeed address questions that science cannot answer, but this does not make faith-based answers true or justifiable. Resorting to faith to accept untestable claims does not confer any epistemic authority on those beliefs. Faith, in the absence of evidence, merely reflects a psychological commitment rather than a rational endorsement. Embracing faith as a foundation for answers could simply mean accepting comforting assumptions without the necessary scrutiny to determine their validity.

6. Science and Religion as Complementary is Problematic

The claim that science and religion are complementary ignores the fundamental difference in their methods. Science relies on evidence, falsifiability, and the willingness to discard incorrect hypotheses, whereas religion often resists revision even in the face of contradictory evidence. If religions make claims about the “why” of existence, these claims remain speculative without evidence to back them. True complementarity would require that both fields uphold similar standards of verification, which is not the case with religious beliefs that are resistant to empirical testing.

Clarifications

Intellectual and Emotional Questions Addressed by Religions Through Untestable Answers

1. What happens after we die?

Religions frequently claim to provide answers about the afterlife, presenting ideas such as heaven, hell, reincarnation, or eternal soul existence. For example, Christianity teaches that the faithful will enter heaven, while those who reject its tenets face eternal separation from God in hell. Hinduism and Buddhism offer answers in the form of reincarnation or spiritual liberation. These concepts are untestable because they rely on non-physical realms or immaterial souls that lie beyond empirical observation, making them impossible to confirm or disprove scientifically. They provide emotional comfort by alleviating the fear of oblivion without requiring any verifiable evidence.

2. What is the purpose of life?

Religions often assert that human life has a divinely ordained purpose. For example, in Christianity, believers are taught that their purpose is to worship God and live according to His will, aiming for eternal life in God’s presence. This answer provides emotional fulfillment and direction but is untestable because it presumes the existence of a transcendent deity with specific intentions for human life, which cannot be empirically investigated or measured. As such, this answer functions as a narrative tool rather than a verifiable statement about the human condition.

3. Why is there suffering and evil in the world?

The problem of evil is a central intellectual question for which religions provide varied answers. Christianity, for instance, often explains suffering as a result of original sin, human free will, or as a test of faith and character that ultimately leads to spiritual growth. These answers imply a divine purpose behind suffering that is beyond human comprehension. Such explanations offer psychological comfort but are untestable, as they rely on assumptions about an unobservable divine plan and moral justifications that cannot be validated. The existence of suffering and evil remains unsolved by evidence, leaving these answers as philosophical assertions rather than verified truths.

4. Does justice exist beyond human society?

Religions frequently claim that ultimate justice exists in a divine realm, even if not realized on Earth. For example, Christianity teaches that God will administer final judgment after death, rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked. This concept of divine justice addresses emotional needs for fairness in a world where justice is often imperfect. However, it is untestable because it presumes the existence of a supernatural judicial system that cannot be observed or measured. There is no way to verify that divine justice is real, making it a comforting yet speculative solution to human dissatisfaction with earthly justice.

5. Why does the universe exist?

Many religions offer creation stories that explain the origin of the universe. For instance, Abrahamic religions teach that God created the universe out of nothing, motivated by His will or purpose. This explanation satisfies intellectual curiosity about cosmic origins but remains untestable, as it involves a transcendent act beyond the realm of empirical investigation. Science offers explanations like the Big Bang Theory but does not address the ultimate “why” behind existence, whereas religious explanations assume intentional divine causation without evidence to substantiate this claim.

6. Is there meaning in suffering or hardship?

Religions often claim that suffering has a greater purpose beyond human understanding. For example, some religious frameworks suggest that hardship is meant to build character, cleanse karma, or prepare believers for a better life after death. This provides emotional solace by assigning purpose to seemingly senseless suffering. However, this answer is untestable, as it assumes an invisible mechanism or cosmic plan that cannot be empirically validated. The idea that suffering is meaningful operates on an assumptive belief rather than observable evidence, functioning more as a psychological comfort than a factual explanation.

7. Is there a way to gain supernatural protection or intervention?

Religions frequently claim that prayer, rituals, or sacrifices can lead to divine intervention or protection. For instance, many faiths teach that by praying or performing specific rituals, believers can invoke divine aid or ward off evil. While these practices may foster a sense of security or empowerment, their effects remain untestable and unproven beyond the psychological benefits of ritual. Claims that supernatural beings respond to human requests are not observable and often rely on confirmation bias or subjective interpretation rather than objective validation.

8. Are there moral absolutes dictated by a higher power?

Religions frequently assert that moral values are derived from divine commandments, such as the Ten Commandments in Christianity or the Five Precepts in Buddhism. This claim provides a sense of moral authority and certainty in ethical decision-making. However, it is untestable because it assumes the existence of an invisible deity who defines morality without providing empirical evidence. The notion of divinely ordained moral laws functions as a moral framework but remains speculative without any verifiable source beyond religious doctrine.

9. Can we communicate with divine beings or spirits?

Many religions teach that humans can communicate with deities or spiritual entities through prayer, meditation, or rituals. For example, Christianity encourages prayer as a means to speak to God and receive guidance, while other traditions promote contact with spirits for healing or insight. These practices fulfill the emotional need for connection with a higher power but are untestable because there is no observable interaction that can be measured. Claims of divine communication rely on personal belief and subjective experience, which cannot be corroborated by objective evidence.

10. Why do people die at different times and in different ways?

Some religions claim that death occurs according to a divine plan or cosmic purpose, suggesting that when and how people die is beyond human understanding but meaningful within a larger framework. For example, some Christian teachings hold that God determines the time of each person’s death as part of His will. This explanation can provide comfort in the face of unexpected loss but is untestable because it presupposes a hidden divine reasoning behind individual life spans. Such claims are ultimately philosophical assertions without empirical support, offering emotional relief rather than a scientifically grounded explanation.

These examples illustrate how religions often provide untestable answers that fulfill psychological needs rather than empirical inquiries. While they address fundamental intellectual and emotional questions, their lack of verifiability means they remain within the realm of narratives and beliefs, rather than validated truths.

Other Considerations:

7 responses to “#24 ✓ Consider: Aren’t the number of questions that Christianity answers evidence of Christianity’s truth?”

Ron Morley

July 6, 2025

Hi Phil,

I’m not sure I understand the exact argument that you are making here, and where you are going with it, and what the downstream consequences are. Your initial question is “Aren’t the number of questions that Christianity answers evidence of Christianity’s truth?” My initial response to that question would be… not necessarily, but that’s not the question. You then summarize the overall argument, and embedded within the summary is the notion that “Christianity… (is) offering emotional comfort and meaning without the constraints of scientific evidence or falsifiability.”

I’m trying to get at, then, what you mean by “truth,” and how you’re using that term. Are you arguing that scientific truth is the only truth that can be deployed here? I think you’ve argued elsewhere that that’s not the case. You seem to argue that all Christianity offers is “emotional comfort” as opposed to scientific evidence and falsifiability. The major questions you’re asking here, though, do not lend themselves to scientific or falsifiable answers. Whereas some, or many, professed believers in God probably get some, or even a lot of, emotional comfort from what they say that they believe, it is not limited to that. Maybe I’m misreading what you’re saying, but you seem to be arguing that scientific methodology offers evidence and falsifiability on things (upon which you later expound), things like “what happens after we die?,” but that all Christianity really offers is some “satisfying narrative.” I would strongly contend with that claim.

It seems odd that you’re attacking Christianity ostensibly from an atheistic perspective (assuming here that you’re a professed atheist… it seems like a decent bet). So then a question that has to be asked is… do you embrace an ideology that purports to try to give better answers to these questions than Christian ideological proposals. Atheism doesn’t even attempt to give any reasoned response to these questions. “What happens when I die?” “ What of the immense amount of evil and suffering in the world?” In my experience atheists tie themselves to scientific methodologies that stand upon “evidence” and “falsifiability,” but scientific methodologies have zero to say about what happens after we die, or about any judgment upon evil after we die, at least none that I’ve ever been made aware of.

I would agree that if we can appeal to scientific methodology to answer empirical questions then we should do so, and we should seek further information that is available to us through that methodology. At the end of the day, however, science has nothing substantive to say, if anything at all, to the 150K to 170K people who will die by the end of the day. That’s just not something that atheistic/scientific argumentation ever attempts to respond to (I use scientific somewhat loosely there).

So essentially (if I’m correct) you’re saying throw out Christianity because it doesn’t employ (at least in this area) scientific methodology. The follow up question would be “well, what do you have that works better with these questions?” to which the answer is… nothing?? That’s not emotive, that’s just a reasonable question in the face of the questioning. So yes… if I can trust, within a reasonable framework, the biblical account then that’s something that Christianity answers, and that’s something that atheistic, or secular humanistic, ideology (or lack thereof with atheism) does not answer. That doesn’t make either true or not true. It just gives a more plausible response (and perhaps more emotionally satisfying, but that’s not the argument). We’re both going to die. I will die believing in an ideology which addresses and has some answer to this stuff. You (at least in your current state from what I can tell) will not. Am I wrong?

Reply
1. Phil Stilwell
  
  July 6, 2025
  
  Ron, let me clarify my position by addressing your key points one by one:
  
  ➘ “Are you arguing that scientific truth is the only truth that can be deployed here?”
  Not quite. I’m saying that when it comes to evaluating claims about reality—particularly those with existential or explanatory stakes—we should favor the methodologies that have proven themselves most reliable. Science, broadly construed as any disciplined model-building grounded in evidence and predictive success, currently leads the pack. If there’s a superior methodology for tracking reality—one that makes better predictions, reveals deeper explanatory patterns, or eliminates more error—I’m open to it. Until then, science holds the epistemic high ground.
  
  ➘ “You seem to argue that all Christianity offers is ‘emotional comfort’ as opposed to scientific evidence and falsifiability.”
  Let me reframe that. I’m pointing out that Christianity’s explanatory power comes largely from its flexibility—its ability to generate narratives that resonate emotionally and existentially. But unless you can apply some constraints that distinguish these narratives from fictional ones, there’s no principled way to regard them as anything more than comforting speculation. And absent an external method of arbitration—some mechanism for filtering truth from projection—you’re left with little more than personal conviction.
  
  ➘ “The major questions you’re asking do not lend themselves to scientific or falsifiable answers.”
  That’s precisely the problem. When a question resists testability, the intellectually honest response isn’t to create answers out of thin air and call them “truth”—it’s to acknowledge the limits of what we can currently know. There’s no shame in deferring judgment. Learn to say, “I don’t know.” But constructing an entire belief system to retroactively fill those blanks doesn’t increase our understanding; it insulates us from it.
  
  ➘ “All Christianity really offers is some satisfying narrative.”
  If there’s more to it than narrative—if it offers claims that genuinely correspond to reality—then you need a method for showing that. Not internal coherence, but external adjudication. Otherwise, any internally consistent system (e.g., astrology, Scientology, or Norse mythology) could claim the same legitimacy. We need a metric that differentiates meaningful structure from well-crafted myth.
  
  ➘ “Assuming here that you’re a professed atheist…”
  I don’t treat belief labels as fixed identities. I regard all claims—including theistic and atheistic ones—as provisional hypotheses, with my degree of belief tied to the weight of evidence available. When the evidence shifts, so do I. That’s not fence-sitting—it’s just epistemic discipline. I don’t call myself an “atheist” for this reason. I am not sure why Christians are eager to categorize me as such other than to clump me into the group of irrational and undesirable self-proclaimed atheists for whom they have a well-developed apologetics script.
  
  ➘ “Do you embrace an ideology that purports to give better answers to these questions?”
  Only if “better” means “more predictive,” “more constrained by evidence,” or “less prone to distortion.” If “better” means “more comforting,” then we’re simply talking about psychological appeal, not truth-tracking power. A hallucination may be more soothing than a diagnosis, but that doesn’t make it real.
  
  ➘ “Atheism doesn’t even attempt to give any reasoned response to these questions.”
  If you are referring to my disbelief, let’s simply call it my disbelief. And disbelief isn’t a worldview. It’s just the absence of a belief in your deity. But the larger secular framework—rooted in empiricism, fallibilism, and provisional belief—does offer a response: it says, “Let’s see what we can reasonably infer based on available data.” When asked what happens after death, for instance, it doesn’t invent stories; it observes that consciousness appears to be a function of the brain, and when the brain ceases, so too does conscious experience. This isn’t evasion. It’s restraint.
  
  ➘ “Science has nothing substantive to say to the 150,000 people who will die today.”
  I’d counter that. Science gave them medicine, extended their lives, illuminated the cosmos, and helped many live more meaningfully through understanding. That it doesn’t promise immortality is not a bug—it’s a mark of its integrity. Death isn’t made less real by inventing tales to soften it. What matters is how honestly we face it. And more importantly is how we face life. I’m living life to it’s fullest. I enjoy many things in life such as this sunny shoreside coffee shop at which I’m seated. But I also find much satisfaction in helping others find that rationality that most frequently tilts the balance of experience from suffering to happiness. I’m very happy. I want others to become very happy. For this reason, I strongly promote rationality and call out faith for the life-diminishing mindset it is.
  
  ➘ “Throw out Christianity because it doesn’t employ scientific methodology?”
  If a belief system makes claims about the structure of reality but insulates those claims from scrutiny, then yes—it forfeits credibility. If you think Christianity gets to bypass these norms, then you need to explain why it should be the lone exemption among thousands of unfalsifiable systems.
  
  ➘ “What do you have that works better with these questions?”
  The goal isn’t to out-narrate Christianity. I could invent a religion that provides a better afterlife than the one Christianity asserts. I won’t. The goal is to remain answerable to reality. The alternative to unjustified belief is not silence or despair—it’s intellectual modesty. We admit what we don’t know and refuse to pretend we know more than we do. That isn’t failure. That’s honesty.
  
  ➘ “If I can trust, within a reasonable framework, the biblical account…”
  Then we need to talk about what “reasonable” means. Because when you examine the epistemic underpinnings of the Bible—its inconsistencies, its folklore inheritance, its theological evolution—you’re left with a book that mirrors the culture-bound assumptions of its time, not the fingerprints of a transcendent author. And I think you’ll find value in learning and practicing the following: Rational belief is a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the relevant evidence.
  
  ➘ “It just gives a more plausible response.”
  More plausible to whom? It appeals to minds primed for meaning, narrative, and cosmic justice—but those are human appetites, not indicators of truth. The world is under no obligation to satisfy our intuitions. That something feels plausible is no substitute for it being verifiable. And a commitment to mapping our degree of belief to the degree of the relevant evidence is foundational.
  
  ➘ “I will die believing in an ideology which addresses and has some answer to this stuff.”
  And I will die with my beliefs calibrated to the evidence available to me. If some transcendent surprise awaits, I’ll greet it with curiosity. But I will not trade intellectual honesty for psychological comfort. Some of us choose to walk into the unknown with eyes open. For this reason, I will die happy. I have been faithfully committed to intellectual integrity.
  
  In sum: The number of questions a worldview attempts to answer does not correlate with its truth-value. What matters is the reliability of the method used to arrive at those answers. If your method cannot distinguish between truth and comforting fabrication, it’s not a virtue—it’s a liability. Come to truth. Come to rationality.
  
  Happy to continue the conversation if you’d like to defend an epistemology that is demonstrably superior in term of predictive success to the scientific method.
  
  Reply
  1. Ron Morley
    
    July 12, 2025
    
    Hey Phil:
    
    I highlighted several sub-responses you made in your overall response here. I know that this will come as an utter shock to you, but I have a very different take then what you have. I’ll try to briefly address some of these:
    
    But constructing an entire belief system to retroactively fill those blanks doesn’t increase our understanding; it insulates us from it.
    
    I really don’t think Christianity fits your description here. It doesn’t insulate us from increases in understanding, and I personally have zero problem saying I don’t know when that is the case – I know many professing Christians that would echo that sentiment. It’s an unfortunate reality that many other professed Christians do isolate from increases in understanding. The ideology, however, does not promote that. From other conversations we’ve had (e.g. #22), I am aware that you disagree with that. I, and others like me, however, do not insulate ourselves against these increases. I incorporate previous understandings with new understandings, and then see if the two can be synthesized. If not then I re-evaluate. Perhaps I had a bad reading on what it was that I said that I believed. Perhaps what I’m being told now is not entirely accurate top to bottom. Perhaps it’s something else that needs to be considered.
    
    E.g. – I used to believe that the Earth was 6K to 10K years old. I came across new information that I came to see as trustworthy and changed that belief (or view). The added baggage, however, that came along with that change (i.e. – the Earth is older therefore the Bible is unreliable and wrong here) I looked at, evaluated, and found it to be left wanting. The atheistic/non-believing/skeptic response, I found, was as problematic as the original belief in a 10K year old Earth.
    
    I also “used to” believe that the complexity of the cell required intelligent input, or that that belief was a better explanation than alternative explanations to the massive levels of complexity that I see in cells. I have not seen any “new” information that would cause me to abandon that “belief.” If I come across information that does have that content (more or better explanatory power) then I will re-examine accordingly. That said, the Bible doesn’t say how life originally got here (not at a granular level), outside of making a strong case that, at some level, life was put here by a sentient source (God specifically).
    
    I’d counter that. Science gave them medicine, extended their lives, illuminated the cosmos, and helped many live more meaningfully through understanding.
    
    Your answer here is a non-sequitir. Science is great in answering scientific inquiries using scientific methodologies, and has given us some fantastic things. It has nothing to say to the original question though – I’ve asked many times now to many different individuals. It has nothing to say to people who die at the hands of massive levels of evil (holocausts and other genocides, sex slavery, etc.). I hold an advanced degree in the biological sciences. Biological questions need to be investigated and answered empirically as best we can, and to any extent that we can. I also understand that scientific endeavor can only go so far. That seems obvious, but apparently you do not agree with that sentiment. I don’t even know how to respond to that. It seems patently obvious to me that scientific inquiry has limits.
    
    Because when you examine the epistemic underpinnings of the Bible…you’re left with a book that mirrors the culture-bound assumptions of its time, not the fingerprints of a transcendent author. And I think you’ll find value in learning and practicing the following: Rational belief is a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the relevant evidence.
    
    I don’t mean to say this flippantly, but apparently we are reading different Bibles. Genesis one indicates that “the Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep …” (Gen 1:2 NKJV). I am unaware of any non-biblically based culture that held to such a description. That looks like a pretty decent, albeit high level, description of early Earth from what we know of modern cosmology. Every non-biblical creation account I’ve read assumes some kind of form, and some kind of light – some kind of material already in place. I welcome you to point me to some cultural narrative, some ancient writing, with a version of “creation” that I’ve not yet encountered and that is more, or equally, plausible.
    
    Happy to continue the conversation if you’d like to defend an epistemology that is demonstrably superior in term of predictive success to the scientific method.
    
    I fully agree that scientific methodology is superior to other methodologies in terms of predictive success. It’s also empirical, and is limited to that sphere. It has nothing to say to the non-empirical realities that face us – unless one simply denies that those are not real. From my position I can embrace scientific methodology, and still see its limitations. Christian ideology/Christian belief at least allows me to speak to those who are in situations that science simply cannot speak to.
    
    I’ll leave it at that for now.
    
    Reply
    1. Phil Stilwell
      
      July 13, 2025
      
      ➘ “But constructing an entire belief system to retroactively fill those blanks doesn’t increase our understanding; it insulates us from it.”
      
      You argue that Christianity doesn’t inherently insulate, and you highlight your own openness to revising beliefs. I want to affirm that epistemic humility—your ability to say “I don’t know” or update in light of evidence—is indeed admirable. But the issue isn’t what you do; it’s what the system encourages or permits. Christianity as a theological architecture makes claims that are typically fixed before the evidence is in. And when new evidence arises, the interpretive priority almost always goes to preserving doctrinal coherence rather than allowing doctrines to be falsified. That’s what I mean by insulation.
      
      Your Earth-age example is illustrative. You rightly updated your view, but you then quarantined that new understanding from affecting your confidence in the Bible. You took the evidence seriously for geology, but not seriously enough to revisit the truth-status of a text that failed to anticipate that finding. If a sacred text leads to false conclusions when read plainly, and requires interpretive gymnastics to remain “reliable,” that should lower our credence in its divine authorship.
      
      ➘ “I’d counter that. Science gave them medicine, extended their lives…”
      
      You call this a non-sequitur, but I’d argue it directly addresses your implied claim: that science is somehow silent or impotent in the face of profound human suffering. You referenced victims of genocide and sex slavery. Science doesn’t offer cosmic justice—but it has reduced suffering through medical, psychological, and legal advances, and through better understanding of political and sociological mechanisms of harm. That’s not a sidestep; it’s the best available non-fictional response.
      
      You want answers that go beyond this—about justice beyond death, ultimate meaning, etc.—and I get that. But wanting a deeper answer doesn’t entitle us to posit unverifiable metaphysics just to feel better. The fact that science doesn’t give us comfort in the face of tragedy doesn’t discredit science; it only discredits the expectation that truth must feel good.
      
      ➘ “Because when you examine the epistemic underpinnings of the Bible…”
      
      Your citation of Genesis 1:2 (“formless and void; darkness over the face of the deep”) is interesting, but it’s not epistemically compelling. This description is not unique. Ancient Mesopotamian myths such as the Enuma Elish also begin with a watery, chaotic abyss. The Egyptian Nun is a primordial water. Darkness and disorder as a mythic starting point are standard in ancient cosmogonies.
      
      Even if Genesis had offered something rare, that wouldn’t make it predictive or divinely informed. The real test is: does it say anything that couldn’t have been guessed by an ancient human? Genesis doesn’t mention atoms, plate tectonics, or stellar nucleosynthesis—things we do know now, thanks to science. The absence of such predictive content in Scripture weakens the claim that it bears the fingerprint of a transcendent mind.
      
      ➘ “Happy to continue the conversation if you’d like to defend an epistemology that is demonstrably superior…”
      
      You say science is limited to the empirical sphere—and I agree. But you then elevate Christian ideology to fill what you see as a metaphysical vacuum. That only works if Christianity’s claims track truth better than silence or suspended judgment. If science can’t speak to X, and Christianity does, then the question becomes: does Christianity know or merely claim?
      
      And to your final point: that Christian belief gives you a way to speak to those who suffer. I’d say this: you don’t need unverifiable metaphysics to speak compassionately to people in pain. You can grieve with them, support them, comfort them—all without asserting a metaphysical architecture for which there’s no evidential anchor. False hope may soothe in the short term, but it risks long-term distortion of one’s orientation to reality.
      
      A claim that gives answers to unanswerable questions is not admirable if it bypasses the criteria of truth. It is, at best, fiction dressed up as revelation—and at worst, a mechanism of insulation from honest inquiry. You seem sincere in your intellectual posture, and I respect that. But sincerity doesn’t transform theological guesswork into epistemic gold.
      
      Reply
      1. Ron Morley
        
        July 16, 2025
        
        Hello Phil,
        
        Again, I can appreciate your response, although in several of these areas I vehemently disagree. You make assertions that I don’t find sustainable. Your version of Christianity is not the version that I’m familiar with.
        
        You said:
        
        “Your Earth-age example is illustrative. You rightly updated your view, but you then quarantined that new understanding from affecting your confidence in the Bible. You took the evidence seriously for geology, but not seriously enough to revisit the truth-status of a text that failed to anticipate that finding.”
        
        My confidence in the Bible doesn’t stem from it’s exegesis of modern geology, or any modern scientific endeavor. The Bible was written primarily to people who had little to no concept of scientific ideology, therefore I don’t put that demand on them. Modern skeptics appear to analyze the Bible through 18th to 21st century glasses, and then make requisite demands. One can do that, however a person like me is going to look at that and see it for what it is. I don’t blame a second grader for not knowing calculus, even though I may know it well. The God of the biblical narrative looks to be giving information to people that hit them where they were at. I don’t hold that against the Bible because it didn’t “anticipate” modern evolutionary theory. It gives room for it. That’s all I would expect.
        
        You seem to reject, and wish others to reject, the biblical narratives because those narratives don’t speak to issues that readers two and three thousand years ago knew nothing of, and had no way to access, and likely if they did would have used that information for nefarious ends. Only in a culture that allows for our sort of reflection and research is it even possible to begin to address the things we address in the modern sciences. I’m not going to throw out my confidence in the Bible because it was written in a time in which I was not around, and could not access modern conveniences and evidence.
        
        You took issue with my implied claim (I agree… it is implied if not outright stated)
        
        “science is somehow silent or impotent in the face of profound human suffering…Science doesn’t offer cosmic justice—but it has reduced suffering…But wanting a deeper answer doesn’t entitle us to posit unverifiable metaphysics just to feel better… it only discredits the expectation that truth must feel good.”
        
        I don’t believe that scientific methodologies have nothing to say to suffering, and I agree fully that modern science has done a lot to reduce suffering (and unfortunately there’s a flip side to that). What I’m saying is that scientific methodology has nothing to say to any judgment past the grave. That matters to me, and to many others I’ve met. Again, I hold a fairly advanced degree in the biological sciences. I wouldn’t have pursued that if I felt science was not important.
        
        That said, you seem to keep trying to sneak (I don’t know how else to describe it) this concept of verifiability, by which I can only assume that you mean scientific or empirical verifiability. I’m aware that the Bible doesn’t offer scientific verifiability (not empirically speaking anyway). It gives room for it. I’m aware that you disagree that the Bible gives room for it (a response that still baffles me, but you and I disagree on what the Bible is actually saying). I don’t read the Bible like I read a scientific treatise. It’s not written that way. I see more than enough historical and rational evidence for the Bible to make it amply plausible for me. It also (as I have droned on repeatedly about at this point) gives a plausible avenue for transcendent justice (which you apparently call cosmic justice). The atheistic, or non-believer, or skeptical response offers nothing to people who just lost loved ones in massive Texas flooding (c. July, 2025). It offers nothing to victims of the holocaust, or victims of sex slavery (or any other slavery). True… it’s not verifiable, in a strictly empirical sense, that there will be any transcendent justice on these things. I believe there will be. I don’t shy away from that. That’s baked into the Christian message. It’s not, however, just to make me, or others, feel good. It’s a reality that we have to deal with, regardless of feelings. It’s nice if it makes me “feel better” about it (which often it does not), but that’s not the basis for it.
        
        You bring up ancient writings like the Enuma Elish. I’ve had this discussion many times now, and I’ve read the Enuma Elish many times. From what I can tell, and even though it uses a few similar terms, it still reads nothing like Genesis one. If you think it does then our conversation on it is not going to go anywhere. They just have very different content. I vehemently disagree with the assertion behind the question “does it (Gen 1) say anything that couldn’t have been guessed by an ancient human?” It gives a progressive account, again albeit a high view so not granular, of a very plausible and accurate discussion of the early earth. I don’t know how someone writing 3K years ago could have discerned that on their own. Other ancient accounts that I’ve read get nowhere close to that. They all start with pre-existing material of some sort. Genesis one is creation ex-nihilo.
        
        To your ending summary…
        
        I would agree with much of what you say here. I don’t need Christianity to show compassion. I think far too many professed Christians make that assumption (along with many other assumptions that I think miss the mark, but that’s another discussion). Assumptions that professed Christians make, however, do not necessarily mirror what the Bible actually says. You imply that the biblical narrative (I’m making a leap here from actual biblical claims/ideology to Christian profession of biblical claims/ideology which may, or may not, be biblically sustainable) ostensibly provides “False hope (that) may soothe in the short term, but (which) it risks long-term distortion of one’s orientation to reality.” This is a claim (if indeed this IS the claim that you’re making) to the biblical narrative being little more than false hope. I disagree with that claim. I would argue that that claim is patently unsustainable. When I compare biblical ideology to non-believing/atheistic/skeptical ideology (provided they offer me an ideology that I can actually examine) I find the biblical ideology giving answers that are important, empirically very plausible, internally consistent, and experientially relevant, even if they are not empirically verifiable in the strict sense. Science does well with the empirical. It’s not so good on the other stuff that we face.
        
        I think I’ve said my piece. I appreciate your challenges, even though I disagree with some/many of them.
        
        Reply
        
        Phil Stilwell
        
        July 16, 2025
        
        There’s clear sincerity and nuance in your position, and I respect that. But since we’re attempting to hash out what actually earns belief—especially in the context of existential claims—I’ll press again on a few core areas that I think remain epistemically unresolved or confused.
        
        ➘ On the Bible “giving room” for science
        
        You write:
        
        “The Bible was written primarily to people who had little to no concept of scientific ideology… I don’t hold that against the Bible because it didn’t ‘anticipate’ modern evolutionary theory. It gives room for it.”
        
        Let’s pause on that. When a text “gives room” for multiple, even contradictory interpretations depending on the age, audience, or level of scientific awareness, that’s not a mark of transcendent authorship. That’s a mark of semantic plasticity. A text that “gives room” for a 6,000-year-old Earth and a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth can be preserved at all costs precisely because it says nothing precise enough to be falsified.
        
        You wouldn’t trust a scientific theory that “gives room” for heliocentrism and geocentrism—so why tolerate it in divine revelation? If Genesis doesn’t anticipate modern science, then it should at least distinguish itself from ancient cosmological tropes. But it doesn’t. The idea of a formless void, watery abyss, and the divine hovering over it isn’t a conceptual outlier—it’s genre-consistent.
        
        So the deeper point: ambiguity plus retroactive compatibility isn’t predictive power—it’s interpretive salvage.
        
        ➘ On the problem of unverifiable metaphysics
        
        You write:
        
        “Scientific methodology has nothing to say to any judgment past the grave. That matters to me.”
        
        Understood. But your conclusion doesn’t follow. That science cannot answer X does not entail that Christianity can. You say Christianity offers “room” for transcendent justice. But so does Islam. So does Mormonism. So do many tribal afterlife stories. So does any belief system unconstrained by testability.
        
        If the afterlife matters deeply to you—as it does to many—then yes, it is uncomfortable that we do not have reliable access to it. But what you do next determines whether you are operating epistemically or emotionally. If you lower your evidential standards because the stakes feel high, you’ve left the realm of responsible belief.
        
        We must be wary of desperation epistemology—where the gravity of a topic tricks us into accepting stories that feel good instead of waiting for methods that work.
        
        ➘ On “plausibility” and ancient authorship
        
        You say:
        
        “Genesis gives a progressive account… of a very plausible and accurate discussion of the early earth… I don’t know how someone writing 3K years ago could have discerned that on their own.”
        
        Let’s grant that Genesis is more abstract and less anthropomorphic than Enuma Elish. Fine. But “progressive” and “plausible” are not the same as evidentially unique or epistemically surprising. There are no atomic models, no reference to heliocentrism, no germ theory, no curved spacetime. Instead, we get a flat, dome-like firmament, evening and morning before the sun exists, and plants before the sun—a sequence incompatible with modern biology.
        
        And again, the existence of some parallels with modern cosmology (like darkness preceding light) means little if those are also culturally ubiquitous or narratively inevitable.
        
        We shouldn’t confuse high abstraction with divine insight.
        
        ➘ On biblical justice and suffering
        
        You argue:
        
        “True… it’s not verifiable, in a strictly empirical sense, that there will be any transcendent justice on these things. I believe there will be. I don’t shy away from that.”
        
        And I don’t fault you for wanting justice. But here’s the catch: justice that cannot be tested, observed, or even probabilistically assessed is indistinguishable from fiction. That doesn’t make it false, but it removes any rational warrant for calling it knowledge.
        
        The Christian claim isn’t just that there might be justice. It’s that there is, and that it’s tied to specific doctrines (e.g., faith in Christ) that determine eternal outcomes. If you can’t test that claim, and no one outside your system has independent access to verify it, then your belief is either an accident of birth, or it’s indistinguishable from countless competing unverifiable afterlife models.
        
        Comfort is not a credential.
        
        ➘ On “plausibility” and the superiority of biblical ideology
        
        You claim:
        
        “Biblical ideology gives answers that are important, empirically very plausible, internally consistent, and experientially relevant, even if they are not empirically verifiable.”
        
        But every worldview can say this. The Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, the Bhagavad Gita—they all claim internal consistency, experiential relevance, and existential significance. The only way to adjudicate between these claims is to apply external constraints—evidence, predictive utility, coherence with known facts.
        
        If your criteria for belief are “internal consistency + experiential relevance,” then you are epistemically defenseless against any well-developed mythology. That includes systems you would reject as false.
        
        ➘ Final thoughts
        
        You’ve said your piece, and I appreciate your tone. I’ll close with this:
        
        If Christianity offered claims that were clearly ahead of their time—undeniably specific, verifiable, and explanatory—I’d be more inclined to revisit my credence in its claims. But what I see instead are post hoc rationalizations, vague symbolic language, and the constant shifting of interpretive goalposts in light of modern knowledge.
        
        That isn’t revelation. That’s cultural evolution of ideas.
        
        If Christianity helps you live better, I respect that. But when its claims cross into reality-mapping, they must face the same evidential trials as any other system. Until then, I remain committed to this:
        
        ➘ Rational belief is a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the relevant evidence.
        
        That’s not just an epistemic rule. It’s a moral safeguard against being deceived—by others or by ourselves.
        
        Reply
        
        Ron Morley
        
        July 23, 2025
        
        Hello Phil,
        You have 5 points here, final thoughts, and then a post facto statement. I’ll address what I can here.
        
        In your first point response you say quite a bit.
        
        When you say “When a text ‘gives room’ for multiple, even contradictory interpretations…that’s not a mark of transcendent authorship.”
        
        How would one know? It’s possible that it’s not a “mark of transcendent authorship…” but it seems apparent, if not obvious, that it would depend on the intended use of the passage, who the transcendent Author is speaking to, what their situation is, etc. I don’t know how one would claim “it’s not a mark of transcendent authorship” without reading into the mind of the transcendent Author. One can posit that as a possibility, even a valid possibility, but to say that as definitive would be unsustainable. People interpret things and at times they contradict each other. There’s nothing new there. The question becomes: Is their interpretation in line with the original sourcing, and is their interpretation empirically adequate and consistent?
        
        You said “A text that ‘gives room’ for a 6,000-year-old Earth and a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth can be preserved at all costs precisely because it says nothing precise enough to be falsified.” True, and so I actually agree here to a certain extent. The issue or observation, though, is that what is precise enough is to be able to look at the word (Hebrew yom in this case) and determine what the possible translations and/or interpretations of that word can be. The word can designate different durations. Whether you or I like that or not we still have to be honest about it. If it’s a concern (what duration the word is indicating) then we might have to look elsewhere, even outside of the text/Bible itself, to find answers to that. Non-believer types seem to have a big issue with that, that somehow the biblical God was supposed to include a glossary and full orbed explanations complete with graphs of all this stuff, and if he didn’t do so then that’s a sign that the Bible is now unreliable. I don’t understand that line of reasoning. The biblical writings were given to many people across many cultures and timelines. It had to be within reach of those people. We live in the 21st century. We can look back and grasp who things were written to, and possibly why it was done that way. How were people from 3K years ago supposed to grasp modern concepts?
        
        You revisited this notion. “If Genesis doesn’t anticipate modern science, then it should at least distinguish itself from ancient cosmological tropes. But it doesn’t. The idea of a formless void, watery abyss, and the divine hovering over it isn’t a conceptual outlier—it’s genre-consistent.”
        
        I’ve read a couple of these other “ancient cosmological tropes” again (at least those you’ve mentioned) and they read nothing like Genesis one. I’ve already mentioned that. I strive for agreement with people, for some common ground if achievable, but sometimes there’s some foundational element at work that is not readily visible in a disagreement – some fundamental viewing of reality. I can’t help but think there’s some of that going on here. You’re of the persuasion that Genesis one doesn’t distinguish itself from these other ancient cosmological tropes. I guess that I don’t, at this point, know what you’re referring to. You would have to point me to something other than the Enuma Elish for an example of that, because I’ve not seen what that would be. The EE seems to be wholly out of any ballpark here. When I compare the two (EE and Gen 1), they read very differently, and although they use a few similar terms, the content of the messages are very different. We have a pretty good idea of what was happening with the early Earth. Gen one captures that at least reasonably well, albeit not granularly. I’ve not read another ancient cosmological narrative that doesn’t anthropomorphize most, if not all, of their whole account. If you’re referring to some creation story that reads like Genesis then you’re going to have to let me know what that is and I can take a look.
        
        The last part of what you said is interesting:
        
        But what you do next determines whether you are operating epistemically or emotionally… and…
        We must be wary of desperation epistemology
        
        It’s interesting to me because the Bible does “operate” in many ways at an emotional level. In terms of its message I believe that it has to. You seem to think, however, that because it does so, or because some or too many professing Christians operate primarily or exclusively in that emotive sphere, that now there’s no epistemic rigor to it. Those are, however, two separate things. You then bring up “desperation epistemology.” I think that I know what you’re getting at, but I don’t think I could contend more against that connection. I’m looking at reality and drawing inferences from it. People, and their stories, are a mixed bag. They’ll operate sometimes at the epistemic end of things, and then they do the same with the emotional or visceral end of things. Some folks are given to one mode of operation more than the other. That’s not desperation… that’s observation. You apparently, if not obviously, disagree, and I guess that I can live with that. We don’t see these things the same way.
        
        You said…
        
        That science cannot answer X does not entail that Christianity can.
        
        I fully agree. I don’t accept Christianity because it posits something… a narrative that provides some answer that science cannot. I accept Christianity because from what I’ve seen/experienced/thought about Christianity does actually provide a plausible answer to the reality I experience, including what happens past our immediate circumstances and approaches to reality. Science offers me much, but in some areas it offers no explanatory power (as I’ve already mentioned ad naseum). Nothing “entails that Christianity can”… my argument is that Christianity does. You and I differ greatly on that conclusion. You’ve made a case for your position… I don’t think the case, from what I’ve seen, is strong. At the very least I disagree strongly with what I see as the ideological position, at least to the degree that it’s been stated.
        
        As for Islam, Mormonism, etc… my problem with those ideologies is not that they do or do not offer an explanation in some of these areas that empirical science does not. My problem with those particular ideologies is that they both make claims about Christianity which I find to be patently unsustainable within their own ideological frameworks. Islam claims that Christ is the Messiah (apparently retrieved from the Bible). It also claims that God has no son (retrieved from…???… well, not the Bible anyway). I spent six months dining with Mormons. The ideology is highly (HIGHLY) problematic and inconsistent with the Christian foundations that they claim adherence to.
        
        For my final thought: I can appreciate, at least to some degree, that you have issues with what you’ve seen, and what you’re defining as Christianity. I don’t fault anyone for that. Do I know that I’m right. No… I can’t know that. Do I believe it… yes. I find the foundation more than plausible. Much of the stuff that you bring up against Christianity I’ve seen in other professing Christians. I’ve had professing Christians shut me down because they simply don’t want to think about what it is that they believe. They simply don’t want to think about it. Others hold to some of the more bizarre things that I could imagine and then call it Christian. I’ve had professed atheists, though, do the same.
        
        I disagree with you on much. You seem civil in your responses, at least as civil as one could expect on a disagreement of this nature.
        
        Rational belief is a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the relevant evidence.
        In my journeys I’ve found enough evidence, albeit not empirical in large enough part, to find this belief to be rational. I’ll leave it at that.
        
        Reply