The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell

My guess is that only one in every hundred Christians takes the time to look into the foundation of their religion in any detail. Josh McDowell’s book, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, is written for such conscientious students, who wish to be able to hold a rational case for their faith when under fire from sceptics. The book also serves as a great information source for anyone, whether sceptic or believer, who wishes to become more informed about Christianity. It is a titanic work of around seven hundred pages. Even that figure is deceptive, because if not for the dual-columns and tiny typeface, this book would be more like a thousand pages. The “New” of the title relates to the the book’s prior publication as a smaller edition, with a later sequel. Both volumes are now brought together as one, with revisions.

I approached this work as a sceptic, but as an open-minded sceptic who is willing to be changed by what he reads, not as one who is simply aiming to reinforce his scepticism. Although I was confident in my stance, I still had many gaps in my knowledge about Christianity. I’m happy to say that I now know a great deal more, and I’ve had some of my opinions changed, as a result of reading. Beforehand, I tended to view the person of Jesus as someone who had no historical substance, but now I’m quite confident that there was an influential first-century figure who had followers and who was executed for his religious troublemaking.

As I was reading, I was trying to ascertain where the real crux of the case for Christ lay. It’s essentially this: what should we do when we come across the presence of the supernatural in a historical text? The sceptic may say, “This is contrary to experience, therefore unhistorical,” whereas Josh McDowell maintains (and I paraphrase), “We must treat all historical texts on equal terms, without judging the value of a text based on an anti-supernatural bias.” I maintain that both approaches are extremes. If the supernatural really had invaded human experience in the distant past, the sceptic’s view is so restrictive that nothing could ever prove this to him. Meanwhile, McDowell relies on an overly simplistic stance on what is essentially historical probability, not fact. A more reasonable attitude would be that when we encounter the supernatural in ancient history, it is a legitimate warning bell that we may be reading something legendary, and so the standard for evidence naturally rises beyond what we would ordinarily demand. Good evidence for something as extreme as the resurrection of Jesus would be corroboration from multiple secular sources of the same time period. But we do not have this; we only have the Gospel accounts of the Christians.

One source for the historicity of Jesus, the Roman historian Tacitus, takes a sceptical stance to Christianity, calling it a “mischievous superstition.” McDowell never draws attention to this pertinent fact, only attempts to use Tacitus’s mention of Jesus as a proof for his life in general. This shows the one-sided bias in his approach.

The size of this book is a bit daunting, but in retrospect there’s a lot less in here than one might assume. Fifty percent or more of the volume is taken up by quotes. This makes it quite repetitive at times, as McDowell often cites lengthy sections by three or four Christian apologists, who are all covering the same ground. Worse still, some of the material is repeated in different chapters. There is also a massive reliance on rhetoric to back up evidence that is fairly flimsy, rather than a straightforward presentation of facts with the onus put on the reader to draw his own conclusions.

While the focus of the book is an attempt to establish the validity of the Bible as both a historical document and the “word of God,” there is a large part at the tail end tackling postmodernism and Eastern mysticism. These are included because the author sees them as contemporary threats to Christianity, but I think a far more important subject to tackle would have been the theory of evolution. It’s certainly far more influential in the West than Zen Buddhism! Evolution renders man’s “sinful nature” as null and void, because it sees all our behaviours as part of our evolutionary heritage, tracing our nastier base instincts to the reptilian brain. And if there is no sinful nature, then there is no need for redemption. So, evolution is one of the greatest threats to the survival of Christianity in the modern world. Yet the book contains nothing more than one passing mention of the topic in the introduction.

Amid the book’s rhetoric, there are occasional moments of very telling admission:

I took the evidence that I could gather and placed it on the scales. The scales tipped in favor of Christ as the Son of God, resurrected from the dead … Be careful. I am not saying that I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is the Son of God. What I did was to investigate the evidence and weigh the pros and cons. The results showed that Christ must be who He claimed to be … I was not looking for absolute truth but “historical probability.”

After a discussion on the Bible’s continuity, scope of circulation and translation, survival through time in the face of persecution and criticism, the quality of its teachings and prophecies, the scope of its influence on literature and civilisation, McDowell admits: “The evidence presented above does not prove that the Bible is the word of God. But …”

Here is a featured quote by Dr. A.C. Ivy, president of the American Physiological Society from 1939-49:

I cannot prove this belief as I can prove certain scientific facts in my library which one hundred years ago were almost as mysterious as the resurrection of Jesus Christ. On the basis of the historical evidence of existing biological knowledge, the scientist who is true to the philosophy of science can doubt the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, but he cannot deny it. Because to do so means that he can prove that it did not occur.”

In other words: “I can’t prove Jesus rose from the dead, but hey, you can’t disprove it either!” The fact that McDowell saw fit to quote something so logically fallacious demonstrates the weakness of his own thinking. Any rational thinker knows that one does not have to disprove something. The burden of proof lies upon the one making the astounding claim.

Norman Geisler is quoted, making the following observation on atheists – which he states without qualification or evidence:

Atheists who consistently try to live without God tend to commit suicide or go insane.

I advise anyone interested in Christianity to read this volume, in an open-minded but critical spirit, watching out for those weak arguments that sound good until properly examined. I remain confident that Christianity is a false religion, moreso after reading The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

When all is said and done, the choice of whether to believe in Christianity boils down to how much you want or need to believe and how easily you accept the supernatural in the absence of direct experience or concrete evidence.

When I am dead, If I am confronted by a God who asks me why I rejected his offer of salvation, my only reply can be, “Why did you make it so difficult to see you? Why did you put me in a position where I would have had to betray my own mind in order to accept it?”

For me, reading this book puts the final nail in the coffin of Christianity. Case closed.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell

  1. Henry "Hank" Bulger says:

    Thank you for this review of his book. I reallyu found it very informative. As I will be face to face with relatives that are bible thumpers. The information about Tactius along with other information I have gathered on my own over time by literally studying the so called holy bible, will assist me in my deebate with them.
    I never bring it up. However, when they do I try to have my side of the debate ready.
    I guess I’m getting better as the Mormons and the JW do not weant to study with me. The fundgelacals just leave tracts at my door and scurry away.
    As the apostle paul said And i paraphrase; Put on the armour to defend yourself.
    Keep up the good work.

  2. Steven Carr says:

    ‘what should we do when we come across the presence of the supernatural in a historical text?

    What should we do when we come across the prescence of an albino assassin in a text?

  3. Henry "Hank" Bulger says:

    Biggest part is they don’t want to know. Because, As one Christian put it; ‘Your taking my Jesus away’. Others have said it in differnt ways.
    I feel deep down inside they know, but keep hoping the bus going north is really heading southwest!
    A bible school educated man didn’t know that the Bible has two creation stories. When confronted with them and he read them, his reply was; ‘ I guess you can belive which one you like’.
    Hank

  4. N says:

    Thank you Darryl. I was raised Catholic and currently live in the bible belt of the US. You comfort me to know I’m not alone. I’ve had these arguments with myself, but felt I was alone and an outcast for believing what I believe. And, also had doubt, “what if I am wrong?” Your last paragraph sealed it. “If” we’re wrong, “He” is the one that gave us the brain to question it all. I don’t think I’m wrong, I just think I’m more aware to the mind games. Thanks for being so openly vocal about your beliefs. As I make my own peace, I’m listening.

  5. Steve F says:

    “when we encounter the supernatural in ancient history…..the standard for evidence naturally rises beyond what we would ordinarily demand”

    To paraphrase Carl Sagan: “Supernatural claims demand supernatural evidence”
    As Thomas Paine said: “If God reveals something to someone, it is revelation to that person, and hearsay to everyone else”
    To think that God would arrange it so that the salvation of our immortal souls depended on our believing a 2000 year old book full of contradictions, just doesn’t make sense.

    “One source for the historicity of Jesus, the Roman historian Tacitus, takes a sceptical stance to Christianity, calling it a “mischievous superstition.” McDowell never draws attention to this pertinent fact, only attempts to use Tacitus’s mention of Jesus as a proof for his life in general. This shows the one-sided bias in his approach”

    I think you’re being too easy on him, Darryl. If you would have accused him of willful deception, I don’t think you would have been out of line in this case.

    “evolution is one of the greatest threats to the survival of Christianity in the modern world”

    Yes, it most certainly is.

    “Yet the book contains nothing more than one passing mention of the topic in the introduction”

    That sure is a “red flag”!…..I wonder how McDowell would explain his avoidance of Evolution?

    “In other words: “I can’t prove Jesus rose from the dead, but hey, you can’t disprove it either!” The fact that McDowell saw fit to quote something so logically fallacious demonstrates the weakness of his own thinking. Any rational thinker knows that one does not have to disprove something. The burden of proof lies upon the one making the astounding claim”

    Not to mention that you can’t prove a negative. This really does show the weakness of his thinking.

    “Atheists who consistently try to live without God tend to commit suicide or go insane”

    This would show that McDowell is grasping at straws, even if it was correct.
    The suicide rate is slightly higher for Atheists than for religious people, but the insanity rate is way off the charts for religious people.

    Good review, Darryl!

    Steve F

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s