DIALOG WITH AN ATHEIST: PART 4

Unknowables

I believe that you misunderstood me if you thought I said that nothing supernatural can be understood by man and therefore it is not worth pursuing those avenues of inquiry. The exact opposite is true of revealed religion since it is a case of the supernatural entering into our world and helping us understand at least all that we need to know in that direction. A theist is free to use whatever tools are at his disposal (Occam's Razor, the scientific method, historical investigations, linguistic study of pertinent documents, probes into his own psyche, etc. etc.) to examine the cosmos and whatever may be beyond it. It is actually the atheist who gives up the struggle without a fight and chooses to put on blinders so that he does not even have to consider what does not fit into his preconceived box.

More on Miracles

I take issue with your assertion that the early Christians who wrote the New Testament accounts obviously had a vested interest in spreading their lies. An unprejudiced reading of the texts should convince most reasonable readers that the followers of Christ were completely disillusioned after his death and wanted nothing better than to disappear into their holes and stay out of the limelight. By openly proclaiming him just a few weeks afterward, they accomplished nothing for themselves but prison sentences, beatings, being ostracized by their friends and families, eventual exclusion from the synagogue worship, and death in many cases.

As another example, Paul was not even one of the original followers of Christ but a violent persecutor of Christians instead, as he freely admits on more than one occasion. Something earthshaking happened to him that caused a complete turnabout in his behavior and beliefs so that he was shunned by both his colleagues in the Jewish hierarchy and the Christian community (until he managed to gain their trust some time later). A noted historian, Michael Grant, has written an interesting biography of Jesus (Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels) from a skeptic's perspective. Time after time he pooh-poohs the various accounts of Jesus' miracles as not meeting his strict standards of historicity (somewhat like yours). However, at the end of his book, when he deals with the Resurrection and its aftermath, he surprisingly concludes after careful analysis that this miracle has all the earmarks of a totally authentic account.

The question of which group's miracles to consider as possibly valid can't be answered in a totally logical manner. But I would go about it in much the same way I approached the truth claims of the different religions in general. Thus, start out with only the major world religions as a safe bet. Among those, (a) the early teachings of the Buddha (and even more so with Confucianism) are notably free of all supernatural elements (miraculous stories of the Buddha's life come much later in time); (b) Islam recognizes only one miracle, the Koran itself. Again, miraculous stories about Mohammed's life come from a later time period; and (c) Hinduism is loaded with the supernatural, but its polytheism is totally antithetical to the scientific process if taken seriously. That leaves only the Judeo-Christian tradition in which God is said to periodically enter into the world in various ways. Even in this case it should be pointed out that the “miraculous” is not a persistent element throughout the Bible, but generally reserved for certain landmark events in the history of the chosen people (which, by extension, I also include Christians, both Jew and Gentile).

Regarding your last brief reply, one commonsensical approach to sorting out the various miraculous claims would be to just read the claims from various sources and get a gut feel for which ones appear to be obviously ludicrous, trivial, and/or arbitrary. C. S. Lewis in Miracles makes a convincing case for the biblical miracles echoing to a great extent, but often in a compressed time frame, the natural processes of the world, thus exhibiting God's “fingerprint” or mode of operation. This observation can be best appreciated, even staying within the Christian tradition, by comparing the biblical accounts of the miraculous with those produced at a later time frame: the apocryphal writings from about 200 AD through the Middle Ages. One compilation of these writings that has been around for years and makes for entertaining reading is called The Lost Books of the Bible and Forgotten Books of Eden (later editions may go under different names). The difference between these two groups of writings is like night and day. The Old and New Testament writings get right to the point and generally tell their stories with little or no elaboration in a matter-of-fact way, with little supporting detail or comment other than to perhaps add a one-line explanation as to the theological importance of the event. The apocryphal accounts pile on detail after detail (What was that Gilbert & Sullivan line about the necessity of adding details so that a bald and unconvincing lie would be swallowed by an audience?) using flowery language and stressing the absolute wonderment of the audience. However, they rarely tie the story into any useful context or meaning.

Alien or Supernatural

You bring up an interesting point that is a bit on the speculative side but worth considering. I have heard variations on this theme at least twice before: once from the charlatan von Daniken in his Chariot of the Gods and more recently from some serious scientists trying to get around the apparent contradiction between (a) the time estimated to be necessary for random genetic variations to produce the biological diversity and complexity we see today and (b) the relatively short available time for such processes to occur given the estimated age of the earth and its age at the various geological stages favorable for life to develop. I have every confidence that the scientific method will eventually find a way out of this crux. However, even if it doesn't, that will not at all catch me off guard or shake my faith in the basic tenets of science since there are supernatural elements in the overall process that I am willing to consider as well.

Rather than taking a completely hypothetical case, let's look at the only historical figure who claimed to be divine and is still taken seriously in that vein today: Jesus.

If a non-supernatural being from another part of the cosmos came to earth, it is highly probable that he would come from a technologically advanced race capable of, at the least, traveling at speeds greater than the speed of light. (That consideration alone should drastically lower the odds of the occurrence, but let's not rule it out for the sake of argument.) This technology would probably include abilities to heal and control nature to a degree we do not yet possess—thus explaining any “miracles” that this alien performed.

Next to consider is the alien's motive for coming to earth, using popular sci-fi sources as possible guides. This is not an unreasonable approach since we are using our human reasoning to imagine a being who is only quantitatively, not qualitatively (as would be the case with a supernatural being) different from ourselves.

He might have come with an evil intent, in which case he could use his superior intellect and technology to wipe us out in open warfare (War of the Worlds), turn us into zombies to do his bidding (Invasion of the Body Snatchers), lure us to his planet where he could have his way with us (the classic Twilight Zone episode “To Serve Man”), or populate the world with halflings as in Village of the Damned. None of these possibilities even remotely fits the case of Jesus of Nazareth.

He might have the intent to merely observe us without interfering with our culture (instances of “recovered memories” of those who have supposedly been abducted by aliens and examined medically.) If this were the case, we wouldn't even realize that he had come to earth.

He might be stranded here by accident, trying desperately to return to his own planet (ET) or to blend in unobserved in a borrowed body (Starman) to escape capture and/or persecution. The latter is unlikely given the public nature of Jesus' ministry.

He might have come from a race of good people who are trying to enlighten us and bring us up to a higher plane of understanding. This could be best accomplished by appearing at visible government forums (The Day the Earth Stood Still) and announcing his intention for all to hear, accompanied by unmistakable works of power to convince his audience. Since this was not the case with Jesus, there is still the possibility that a more subtle approach was known by this superior race to produce more long lasting results in the general populace. If that is so, and I must admit that it is a viable working hypothesis, then it would still be to our advantage to listen to everything he said carefully, even if he were not supernatural. If this is the case, then it is interesting that his message was delivered to one of the most technologically backward cultures of the time and contained no technological content at all. This would tell us a lot about the matters of ultimate interest to a truly advanced race.

The model I have preferred to use for years is that of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Arthur C. Clarke intended his book to be taken on a more or less literal basis with a superior alien race “jump-starting” mankind by interfering with natural processes at two crucial junctures: the transition from (a) an advanced animal to a rudimentary human being and (b) from modern man dominated by the technology he has created and at a sterile dead end into a spiritually reborn being. Some of these points and their implications as a Christian parable are made more obvious in the screenplay co-scripted by Stanley Kubrick. The same is even more true in Kubrick's later films such as The Shining, Eyes Wide Shut and A Clockwork Orange. This last-named film was even denounced by Pravda as being blatant Christian propaganda.

Since you are infinitely more familiar with sci-fi literature than I am, I am curious how you would play this game and choose another paradigm that might fit the case of Jesus as an alien, but one whose message we could safely ignore as irrelevant even if it happens to come from an advanced race.

[At this point in our correspondence my friend replied briefly and I responded.]

The Last Word on Aliens 

Just one more comment on your brief reply: “An alien arriving in the Middle East could have deliberately emulated a god told of in local village legends, or the Mesiah (sic) of Jewish tradition” As I stated earlier, the real test is to look at his possible motives for doing so and seeing if they fit the case of Jesus. It certainly was not similar to the Roger Delazny novel [It might have been This Immortal.] in that the various accounts of Jesus' words and actions are very consistent in portraying one who had the power over the populace but repeatedly refused to exercise it. Instead, he commanded people to keep quiet about the miracles they had seen, withdrew from the crowds when they began to get too enthusiastic, told his followers not to use force to defend him against his enemies, constantly taught by word and example that the only true leader was one who was willing to become a servant to others, and said “My kingdom is not of this world” to defuse his follower's aspirations for an earthly king to depose the Roman government. This is in stark contrast to several other “messiahs” of the same time period, who all rallied Jewish troops in attempts to accomplish the same ends.