Is Evangelical Christianity Rational?

Rationality Rules (@RationalityRule) | Twitter

How many evangelical Christians would still believe in the resurrection of Jesus even if we were to discover his very bones? Believe it or not, many! Why? Answer: The perception of the resurrected Jesus “dwelling” within them. Even some highly educated PhD evangelical apologists hold this view. Here is a comment I left on evangelical apologist Randal Rauser’s blog (here). Rauser is an evangelical apologist with a PhD who has stated in a previous post on his blog (here) that finding the bones of Jesus might not be enough to dissuade him from his Christian faith:

Imagine that I were to claim that my (deceased) grandfather is the Creator of the universe. Not only that, I claim that three days after his death, my grandfather raised himself from the dead, transformed his body into that of a superhero, and then lifted off the earth to arrive at some, as yet unidentified, location at the edge of the universe where he rules as Lord and Master of the Cosmos.

What would any rational person propose to verify or disprove my claim? Answer: They would go to the grave of my grandfather, dig up his bones, and conduct DNA tests on them. If the DNA tests prove that the corpse in my grandfather’s grave is my grandfather, my claim has been disproven beyond any reasonable doubt to the overwhelming majority of educated, rational people on the planet.

Yet…you have stated on a previous post that even if we were to discover the very bones of Jesus, verified by DNA or some other reliable means of verification, you would not necessarily believe that Jesus was not resurrected from the dead.

This is not rational thinking.







End of post.

8 thoughts on “Is Evangelical Christianity Rational?

  1. Personal observations based on a couple of years reading your interactions with people such as ft and their ilk.

    Don’t use analogies. It allows a tentative bolt hole for them to say something such as ”No the same thing, apples and oranges, your grandfather was not divine etc etc,”
    Narrow your focus and hone the way you frame questions. Don’t deviate. Keep the objective of the question firmly on the table at all times.
    Keep questions, including follow ups, short, concise, and do not allow your interlocutor any opportunity to lead the discussion off on a tangent.

    Just a few thoughts ….

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Oh, and don’t provide an answer for whoever you are asking the question of.
      ”So, Mr. Hard-nose indoctrinated evangelical, how much verifiable evidence can you show me that Jesus rose from the dead? You can’t offer anything can you? Not a scrap.”

      Liked by 1 person

  2. any chance you could do a cut-and-paste of that conversation, in context?

    I’m aware that you’re probably not going to post this as a msg, so I’ll just tell you that it really might be a good idea for you to post that conversation, in context, because otherwise, this honestly looks like something you might have well just made up, and I’m sure you don’t want your readers to think that might be the case…


    1. I will provide a link to Rauser’s orginal post where he states that he “might not” abandon his faith if presented with the bones of Jesus and the post under which I left my comment. Readers can decide for themselves if I took his comments out of context.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Is Christianity rational, even Evangelical Christianity?

    No, not even close. Rational must include comprehensive historical context, evidence, and corroborating direct and indirect support. That is, INDEPENDENT support. Biased, Greco-Roman (Christian) Church Fathers and their commentaries does not substantiate independent support, as all Apologists have advocated for over two millenia. For example, of 41 known contemporaneous Pagan and Jewish authors/historians during Jesus’ lifetime or within less-than 100 years of his life, NONE OF THEM mention one word about Jesus/Yeshua. And the incredibly brief mentions by Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius have all been proven forged at later times and rendered spurious. Forty-one chances for INDEPENDENT affirmation. Yet nothing.

    How many evangelical Christians would still believe in the resurrection of Jesus even if we were to discover his very bones?

    The human brain is incredibly malleable over long extended periods of time and repetition. Its actual electrical pulses between masses of neurons can be changed and completely overhauled IF the individual wishes them changed/overhauled. This is indeed done all the time, past and present, whether reality or circumstances surrounding that individual dictate otherwise. In other words, individuals are absolutely capable of distorting reality around them, even to the point of delusion and grandiose (Evangelicals). Psychology and Neurology 101.


    1. For example, of 41 known contemporaneous Pagan and Jewish authors/historians during Jesus’ lifetime or within less-than 100 years of his life, NONE OF THEM mention one word about Jesus/Yeshua.

      This is an excellent point. The Jewish prophet who allegedly performed more miracles and raised more people from the dead than ANY previous Jewish prophet is not mentioned by even ONE contemporary author. In addition, if we are to believe the Gospels, Jesus brought all of Palestine to a fever pitch of rebellion on Palm Sunday, with thousands of Jews proclaiming him as the new Jewish king, the king that would establish a new Israel, which obviously meant the removal of the Romans, and yet again, no contemporary author mentions this man.

      It is ABSURD to believe that this man did all the grandiose news-worthy deeds that the Gospel authors allege and yet not one contemporary author mentions him.

      The Gospels are NOT reliable sources of historical informati

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Exactly spot on Gary. 🎯

        Modern Apologists who always, ALWAYS reference/rely on the Early Church Fathers—all of whom were born Greco-Roman (Hellenists) and educated in Greek Stoic philosophy and Apotheosis—as DEPENDENT reliable sources, not independent, do not understand the meaning of impartial, unbiased corroboration. It’s that simple. In a modern homicide court case they’d make HORRIBLE defense lawyers wouldn’t they? 😄

        Talk about an overly rigged Kangaroo Court case about Yeshua’s Jewishness, a Greco-Roman Kangaroo Court at that! And yet, they still dish-out the empty, antiquated apologetics today that have been debunked, refuted, and proven unreliable and HEAVILY biased time and time again, ad nauseum. Why does this persist to this day? Again, Psychology and Neurology 101… as I stated above/below in my comment. 🙂

        Great stuff Gary. Keep up the outstanding work Sir!

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s