Blog Jones

I’ve just been very, very busy. I’ve had papers and speeches and a week long trip to NYC/Washington, DC with the University Business Association. I’m coming up on finals week now. (3 finals tomorrow. On a Saturday. Starting at 8:15. :-()

So, I should be studying. But I have to tell y’all about this crazy, crazy article from “Netscape News.” In fact, I thought it was parody at first, but it appears to be a real news article. Richard Swinburne, professor at Oxford University, claims to have created a mathematical formula that puts the odds of Jesus Christ’s resurrection at 97%. Take a look at his “proof”:

1. The probably of God’s existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn’t.
2. The probability that God became incarnate, that is embodied in human form, is also one in two.
3. The evidence for God’s existence is an argument for the resurrection.
4. The chance of Christ’s resurrection not being reported by the gospels has a probability of one in 10.
5. Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true.

Look, seriously guys: If you’re going to try to defend Christianity with math, science, or logic (as opposed to personal faith or biblical exposition), then you at least need to learn the basics of the subject you’re using.

For example, take his first point: Although it is true that God either exists or he does not, that does not mean that the odds of God’s existance are 1:2. Consider a parallel: Either an anvil will come hurtling out of the sky and land on my head as I type this post, or it will not. However, the odds of the anvil landing on my head are next to zero; certainly, the odds are less than 1:2. The fact that there are two possible outcomes does not mean that those two outcomes are equally probable.

Second: You can’t start off with 50% odds at the beginning (either God exists or not) and end up with 97% odds at the end (Jesus rose from the dead). That’s not how the math works, and it doesn’t even make sense logically. The very highest odds possible in that case would be 50%, because if God does not exist, he could not raise Jesus from the dead. Then when you take point two–either God came in the flesh or he did not–and put the odds at 50% again, you cut the probability of Christ’s resurrection in half again (1/2 times 1/2 = 1/4). And so on.

When you misuse tools like math and science in this way, you really hurt the testimony of Christ. (See posts about this article with titles like Dear Lord: Why are your minions so stupid? to see what I mean.) You portray Christians as ignorant and unlearned, and thus drive intelligent people who need Christ away from Him.

There’s nothing wrong with using math, science, and logic to argue for the cause of Christ, but you have to make sure that you’re using them correctly. Don’t reinforce the negative stereotype Christians already face in these arenas by making foolish claims like Swinburne’s.