This is a follow-up to yesterday's post about Valkyrie. I actually hadn't intended to post these thoughts here. Originally, I was writing a response to Chris' comments on the "What if Jesus had never been born?" post of a few days ago. But my usual windy self got the better of me and resulted in a comment that was less than brief. :) And given the importance of the subject under discussion (and the potential for some of our blog discussions to be overlooked by some of our readers), I decided to bring it here to the front page instead. Hopefully, it is of some benefit to all of us.
A bit of context: In response to my inclusion of a portion of C.S. Lewis' famous quote about the nature of Christ--as a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord--Chris wrote,
cs lewis was wrong: there are more than three options.
one more for consideration: it's a myth.
does the phrase "too good to be true" strike a bell?
many of the sayings attributed to, and stories about, jesus of nazareth have roots in Mesopotamian and Asian culture.
google for "pagan origins of the Christian myth".
And here is my response for your contemplation:
Chris, you're right. C.S. Lewis is assuming the life and sayings of Jesus in Scripture as a matter of historical record. And because of that assumption, there are only a few logical options available, as he succinctly points out. Entertaining that assumption for a moment, no matter where we start with our understanding of Jesus, we have to deal with not only what He said about His own deity, but also what He did to back up those radical claims. As you know, the Bible (in both the Old Testament, and especially the New Testament) contains many passages that affirms Christ's claims to deity (Matthew 11:27; Matthew 12:38-42; Matthew 16:1-4; Mark 2:5-7; Mark 14:28; Mark 14:61-64; Luke 4:31-37; Luke 5:17-26; John 10:30; John 14:6-7 etc.). So if Jesus lived and if the Bible is accurate in its portrayal of Him, then how does one get around His own self-promotion as God? (After all, as Dr. Gary Habermas confirms, "It may surprise many to learn that we have no reliable historical data that any of the founders of the world's major religions--apart from Jesus--ever claimed to be God.") In this way, Jesus is unique, and that uniques warrants our attention.
It's certainly possible, however, that C.S. Lewis (and the countless other Bible scholars before and after him) are wrong about the life and sayings of Jesus. It could very well be a myth concocted to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses. But to be fair, your contention that it is all simply a myth could itself be a myth as well. So as we've discussed before, it goes back to the need to reasonably and open-mindedly examine the evidence in order to determine the reality of Christ, to the best of our ability.
Regardless, there is at least one reality that cannot be overlooked, which was the main point of my post. Myth or not, the person of Jesus Christ has so outdistanced any other person on earth that anyone who is inclined to consider Him must contend with that phenomenon. What was it about this one man who, in such a short period of time, had such a pervasive impact on the world that we are still debating Him today? (...even here on the blog. After all, we all here don't spend even a fraction of the time arguing for/against the historical merits and influence of people like Julius Caesar or Genghis Khan, or even Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Confucius, and Krishna for that matter) Why is that?
Your explanation seems to be that it is all part of "the Christian myth". Fine, but I must confess, I would disagree, if for no other reason than all of those people in Foxe's Book of Martyrs (and beyond) who paid with their lives because of their faith in Christ. I tend to concur with Chuck Colson's assertion that people will die for what they believe to be true, even if it is not (i.e. Romeo and Juliet are a classic example, and in our modern context, the Islamic jihadists could fall into that category), but they will never die for what they know to be false.
So how do we account for the literally thousands upon thousands of people in the history of our world who have given their lives for the sake of Christ? There are at least a few explanations, and probably more. Either they, and we who are Christians, have attributed truth to what is actually a myth (which assumes that they were, and we are, essentially ignorant and know no better, much like an imbecile in an asylum perhaps. But then again, how could so many people be so ignorant and so utterly wrong--particularly when many of them were brilliantly minded people like Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Justin Martyr, Blaise Pascal, Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, C.S. Lewis, Dr. Francis Collins, Dr. Ravi Zacharias, etc.?). Or the Christians do know it's a myth and those martyrs chose to embrace the myth even if it meant being torn apart by a lion on the floor of the gladiatorial arena. (I suppose it's possible, but it doesn't seem likely.) Or, (and this is obviously my contention) there is actually something there--at least some strand of truth that such Christians recognize to the point of being willing to sacrifice everything for it if necessary.
I wonder, what are we willing to die for today? I would certainly give up my life for my family. But faith is a different matter, because faith by definition clearly assumes that it cannot be proven with 100% certainty. (But then again, what in life can? Not much actually.) So, I have to ask myself, what worldview would I be willing to give everything for, even my life is necessary? (I can't remember the last time, for example, someone was willing to go to the stake for the sake of evolution or atheism. This is no knock on either idea, merely an observation that there seems to be something different about religious worldviews, particularly Christianity.) Not being in such a life-or-death situation at present it's difficult to affirm what exactly I would do if the fire was being lit at my feet. Would I recant? Or, would I hold fast? I hope and pray I would do the latter.
But I do know this, I would never die for something that I knew to be false. It's just not worth it. 
I don't think that judging the truth of something by how many people are willing to die for it is a particularly good measure of accuracy. You know what else a lot of people have died for? Monarchies. Does that validate that ideal? In fact, I would make the case that people who are willing to die for something may be the last people to listen to. Perhaps they are the ones that aren't smart enough to come up with another alternative besides death. If death defines godliness, then we should all be signing up to the Church of Marlboro.
Now the more compelling point to your argument is how could so many intelligent people be taken in by a myth. I think there are a combination of factors that answer that question;
1) Intangibility of Religion - religions, particularly the ones that last, are nebulous enough that they are impossible to prove or disprove
2) Human Desire for More - people yearn to know they will always exist, to survive
3) Human Fear of Change and Bias Towards Cultural Norms - people, often subconsciously, mold their worldview around their beliefs instead of the truth. Is it a coincidence that most people practice their parent's religion?
4) Enjoyment of Religious Social Network - the social safety net and the general lack of any real reason to challenge the status quo lead to perpetuation of the myth.
I think all these things combine to strengthen religion. The religions that don't meet some of these criteria often die out. So why is Christianity so successful? Because no other idea is better at replicating itself (yet).
Finally, you seem to imply that we non-believers think that the religious must be borderline retarded ("ignorant imbeciles", I believe you said). We think no such thing. We understand that it is difficult to overcome all of the internal and external pressures that push one towards religion. We realize that it is uncomfortable to come to the realization that you are insignificant. While it may be difficult for us to understand how you can continue to ignore the overwhelming lack of evidence, we realize that smarter men than ourselves have never reached the likely truth on this subject. I guess my point is that you shouldn't assume that we view you as 'rubes', like you frequently say. Quite honestly, I liken it more to incredulity that such bright people can be so misguided on this single issue.
Posted by: Resident Atheist | January 09, 2009 at 12:47 AM