The Scientific Search for Christ
Over my last few articles, I have been sketching out why and how skepticism can undermine rather than aid our quest for knowledge. The scientific method, beloved of the "rationalist" new atheist set, does not fit historical inquriy in most cases. Unlike in science, history is not repeatable. Most of the data has been irretrievably lost, and so there is simply no evidence for the vast majority of historical events -- not to mention prehistory.
For example, almost all Mycenaean writing has been lost. The clay tablets they wrote on have simply dissolved over the centuries. Only because certain tablets were unintentionally baked by a fire are we able to read any of their writing. Think of how many interesting civilizations have come and gone only to have their memory irrevocably fade away with their decaying scrolls. To cope with the real world limitations imposed upon them, historians have devised the historical critical method. Although similar to the scientific method, it is distinct.
By the historical critical method, we can know much more than by the scientific method about the events of the New Testament. For instance, we can know that Jesus Christ lived, was from Nazareth, was baptized in the Jordan and was crucified. Historians are generally in agreement on these points. Yet, the so-called "Rational Response Squad," a aggressive group of New Atheists, dispute all of these facts. Why?
Personal biases certainly play a role, but a systematic misapplication of the scientific method is what gives their theories a veneer of intellectual rigor. They demand secular sources and archaelogical evidence. Religious sources are unreliable, and therefore without value in their view. These sorts of demands are unreasonable when put in the context of the historical critical method. Historians and archaeologists rarely, if ever know in advance what evidence they will find. This makes hypothesizing in the manner of a chemist or a physicist impossible.
If we were to apply the same standards, we could doubt the historical existance of Socrates. Only through the writings of his followers, Plato and Xenophon -- hardly disinterested 3rd parties -- do we know anything about him. Yet his teachings and martyrdom have been sources of inspiration for more than 2000 years.
In another case analogous to scripture, we have the examples of Homer's epic poems. We cannot scientifically prove the existance of Homer, much less his heroes. Yet, his writings inspired generations of ancient Greeks to heroic bravery. These texts even took on religious meaning over the centuries. In part because of this, skeptics also doubted that these stories had any basis in fact. Surely, they were only legends intended to teach moral lessons. Then Heinrich Schliemann found Troy, and the smug skepticism that had previously dominated was dissipated.
I do not know if we will ever find undisputed archaeological evidence for the life of Christ. I would say that the Shroud of Turin is compelling, but that is not enough for the New Atheists. Nevertheless, as I intend to explore in more detail next time, the historical evidence is strong when analyzed by modern standards of historical criticism. Despite having primarily religious content, Christian scripture can be mined for secular, historical data, just like Homer's Iliad. If we insist on hyperskeptical scientism, though, we shut off other fonts of knowledge.