Problematic Christians and Consistent Bible Text, Vol II

Brian Greene is quickly becoming one of my favorite “science writers.”

Consider the brief summary of his book “The Fabric of the Cosmos”:

Space and time form the very fabric of the cosmos. Yet they remain among the most mysterious of concepts. Is space an entity? Why does time have a direction? Could the universe exist without space and time? Can we travel to the past? From Newton’s unchanging realm in which space and time are absolute, to Einstein’s fluid conception of spacetime, to quantum mechanics’ entangled arena where vastly distant objects can instantaneously coordinate their behavior, Greene takes us all, regardless of our scientific backgrounds, on an irresistible and revelatory journey to the new layers of reality that modern physics has discovered lying just beneath the surface of our everyday world.

Greene surveys the various secular conceptions of reality, and paints for us all a very entertaining and informative picture of what modern scientist generally agree is the “Fabric of the Cosmos”… at least for the moment.

He says this in his preface:

…on the perplexing question of whether completely empty space is, like a blank canvas, a real entity or merely an abstract idea, we follow the pendulum of scientific opinion as it swings between Isaac Newton’s seventeenth-century declaration that space is real, Ernst Mach’s conclusion in the nineteenth century that it isn’t, and Einstein’s twentieth-century dramatic reformulation of the question itself, in which he merged space and time, and largely refuted Mach. We then encounter subsequent discoveries that transformed the question once again by redefining the meaning of “empty,” envisioning that space is unavoidably suffused with what are called quantum fields of possibility a diffuse uniform energy called a cosmological constant…

We can see that in the secular realm, there have been various different conceptions of the nature of reality over the years.

I’d like to point out that most likely (at least in my experience) the Non-Christian Google Scholar will fall into two categories, the more interesting of which, will hold to some view of reality as briefly hinted at by Brian Greene in the above survey. The other, less interesting NCGS is usually the zealous Muslim apologist, who’s favorite polemic tends to be a constant barrage of attacks against the sufficiency and infallibility of Christian scripture.

Thus, for the remainder of my post (at least here in Vol II) I’ll be discussing that NCGS, ranging between the ages of 15 to latter twenties (and beyond, as is the case with Mr. PaineFull Truth…who inspired the title of my series of articles) who approaches a critique of the Biblical text with a presupposed metaphysic of the like Mr. Greene describes.

Among these varying secular views, it is very unusual to find a laymen of the NCGS type who has a specific preference among the nuances of thought. They usually just affirm the truth of the most up-to-date thought on the matter, and allude to it as gospel truth. (Again, this is speaking from experience.)

Given the above, it’s possible for me to highlight a few similarities that these NCGS will have in their view of reality, and point out how these similarities, if presupposed and applied consistently, would make any sort of reasoning impossible, (let alone speculation about biblical texts.)

While I take issue with C.S. Lewis on some things, I find the following quote to be a great introduction into my point here:

“Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should have never found out that it has no meaning.”

A random universe, suffused with order at key points is the ultimate presupposition of the NCGS, and thus, the material realm (whatever it may consist of) is all that exists and all that exist can only be interpreted and predicated by the NCGS. When he approaches the Biblical text, it is with this naturalistic presupposition firmly in place.

Therefore, when the Biblical text claims to reveal a truth from beyond this natural realm, or when it posits events that are outside the realm of normal operations within this natural realm, the NCGS is naturally inclined to be skeptical. Also, contrary to the God taught in scripture, the NCGS does not believe that God is consistent. Since God is not consistent, His words are not necessarily able to be harmonized, and thus any attempt to do so is neglected at the outset.

When viewed by the NCGS, the text becomes rife with contradictions, and inconsistencies.

However, as I’ve claimed…the very universe the NCGS presupposes leads to his downfall. In such a universe, knowledge and rational speculation about texts is impossible. Before the Bible can be read, the NCGS must first prove the legitimacy of his own empirical observations, as well as the validity of past observations in future predictions. (Humes problem of induction.) Also, the age old philosophical problem of the “One and the Many” must be surmounted.

It is only by dropping this naturalistic view of reality and accepting a Christian metaphysic (which presupposes the Triune God of scripture) that the above problems can be surmounted in a way that will allow for discussion of the scriptures in the first place.

I suspect that our resulting conversation will expose the truth of my above case…unless you guys would just like to take my word for it…

Again, I think the easier explanation, which you seem to point toward here, is that there is a tendency to treat Scripture as history and God as an existing super entity. The resulting inconsistencies can quickly be settled if we take Scripture and God for what they are: namely a piece of fiction and its star character.

I don’t think the Trinity is the only way to reconcile the inconsistences or that my move somehow undermines God or Scripture. I identify myself as Christian through and through and yet the fictional nature of God and Scripture is my first principle. We need to stop thinking that things only have value if they actually “exist” or have existed.

You and I could have a great discussion in another thread…I’d love to point out to you exactly why you’re not a Christian.

Call me “judgemental” if you will…

Besides…if you don’t presuppose the triune God of scripture, then, as I’ve implied to you before, you’re going to be in the same prediciment as most of the NCGS I’ve described in this blog.

Maybe I’ll start a thread with you in mind? It will be later on tonight, or tomorrow morning if I do.

Hi Shotgun,

I’m not very well read in the realm of philosophy, as you know, so I hope I’m not getting in over my head here…

Okay, I did some reading on Hume’s problem of induction on Wikipedia. It says:

So from my understanding, if you are the very first person ever to drop a bowling ball, you can’t reasonably assume what’s going to happen when you drop it. It could go up, down, fly away, etc. It’s only after dropping it several times that you can inductively reason it will do the same thing next time. So inductive reasoning is unreasonable. It requires an assumption that the two propositions as seen above are validly connected.

Assuming all of that is correct, my question is, what effect does this have on the legitimacy of empiricism?

Also, I had to read up on the “one and the many” problem. I found this:

Why does the infinity of things in the universe have to be “reducible to a single, unifying substance or concept?”

Why does accepting a Christian metaphysic reality surmount these problems? Well, I could see that it would eliminate the problem of the “single, unifying substance or concept,” but what about the problem of inductive reasoning? Aren’t you just replacing one assumption for another?

By the way, you might have to replace the “Non-Christian Google Scholar (NCGS)” title for “Non-Christian Wikipedia Scholar” for me. :smiley:

Shotgun: Where did Jesus Christ mention the trinity?

If I look at Jesus’ teachings (and so the meaning of Christianity), what I see is that the only law is love, that we are to love our enemies even.

Jesus also tells his disciples (who are presumably the first Christians), that when they go out they shouldn’t bring supplies, but rather they should help whoever they find and be grateful for the hospitality they’re given. I see this as a clarification of what love means (it means to serve).

To me, this is the essence of being Christian. How is that inconsistent with my views, i.e., that the Bible is fiction and God just a character? Otherwise, tell me the true essence of being Christian and how it derives from Christ’s teachings This is something you’ve yet to do…

Being Christian is not believing in some super entity or in the historical reality of Scripture. Christianity is a way of life.

I really would like to hear why I’m not Christian, but I’ll await your separate thread. I’ll address you more precisely here…

From my reading, it seems like the ones you are attacking here, the ones who claim the inconsistency of Scripture, are the ones who “affirm the truth of the most up-to-date thought on the matter”.

Question: is “the matter” cosmology, or is this just an example to serve your purpose and the real matter is theology? In other words, are those who can’t help but see inconsistency (the NCGS’s) the ones who affirm the most up-to-date theological thinking or cosmological? If theological, I agree wholeheartedly. If cosmological, I wonder what this has to do with religion… The Bible is not a science text, nor is it history. If theological, I agree because the “most up-to-date” thoelogical thinking, or at least the common sense, is that God is a super-being. Theology is onto-theology, and this leads to my initial responses to your posts (I and II)…

Either way, you go on to say there is something(s) common to these NCGS’s, and that this common feature(s) makes reasoning impossible for them (making their claims of inconsistency in the Bible null and void).

In other words, I now expect you to make a connection between “affirming the most up-to-date thought on the matter”, which is what NCGS’s do, and the impossibility of reason…

Instead of this you say that the most common presumption of the NCGS’s is that the universe is “random” while at the same time being “suffused with order at key points”, and that this statement is somehow an argument leading to the conclusion that the “material realm (whatever it may consist of) is all that exists”.

You go on to suggest there is something, some truth claimed by the Bible, that comes from beyond this material realm. And that because the NCGS’s have limited themselves to material existence, they are ill-equipped to reason, including to reason over the Bible.

Question: what is beyond the material realm? What are the NCGS’s excluding? It seems to me there is only nothing outside the material realm… (Note: I include in the material realm such things as feelings, thoughts, etc, all of which may classically be called immaterial).

Also why must the NCGS “first prove the legitimacy of his own empirical observations, as well as the validity of past observations in future predictions”? How does this follow from thinking the most up-to-date thoughts, or tthat the universe is random with spots of order, or that the material realm is all that exists? I’m sure you’ll bring up that big word again, epistemology, and I welcome it, because something is missing in your thinking here! Why can’t the NCGS be a rationalist instead of an empiricist or even something else to avoid the problem of induction?

I can’t, for the life of me, see how materialism leads to the impossibility of reason… It seems to me you can say this only because you assume there is something beyond the material realm, and that therefore materialists are working with an incomplete metaphysics… But can you justify this claim? Can you prove there is something beyond the material? If it remains an assumption, how is it any more rational than the claims of the NCGS’s’?

The problem with substituting one set of presuppositions for another is that it ultimately either results in an argument over authority (and which one is correct, if any) or side-discussions about the goals of philosophy which is tied up in various subjective values . . .

Hi Shotgun,

So Omar was right, it is either the spotty-faced google/wikipedia surfer or, as you say, " the zealous Muslim apologist" against which this series is addressed. It isn’t the person who, from outside or inside Christianity, observes a contradiction in teaching - which, curiously, doesn’t have to be a problem with original sources, but the specific interpretation of them. In fact, such people would probably rain on your parade or be dubbed “unfair” or “zealous” or some other terminology.

This is quite correct and something that seems to be catching on. I have written to Ichthus on the same point. The subjectiveness of these discussions must lead us to realise that we are not being objective - because we are not talking about some object that we can study. We are talking about what we (or increasingly what others) have experienced and the plausibility of that experience. We are not talking about reality as such, but our take on it. This is valid as long as we don’t get them mixed up and we are open to discussion.

I think everybody has some problem with C.S.Lewis at some point, but you must also understand that he died in 1963, before many here were born, and that the intellectual world was at that time still stimbling over many conventions which younger intellectuals were breaking up. Although there is a certain haughtiness in what Dawkins and Co. say, we have passed the point at issue when Lewis was holding his radio programms, and the evangelical influence in society has grown. I think that C.S. Lewis would take issue with some evangelical issues today.

The Atheism of the fifties was too simple and the fact of awareness, the awareness of awareness, does argue that there is an enquiry in us that needs an answer. You can’t find the answer in the multiple scans that human beings can be put through, or in the dissection of his brain, or in the study of his atoms and molecules. But this doesn’t make our presuppositions of the presuppositions of others immediately correct, whatever camp we belong to.

You could say, that the extensions of our senses still do not give us evidence for anything more that we can see without them. We can see a number of things which an inquiring mind would find awe inspiring (aweful?), but it doesn’t explain a number of questions that we are asking. But it doesn’t either support the presuppositions of Christianity. There is no proof, only the realising that the questions are not answered.

I think that scepticism is to be expected, especially in view of the (pre-scientific) way these propositions (from beyond this natural realm) are expressed. Also, the portrayal of God in the Bible is inconsistent, or at least suggests a developing, learning God if you like. But, again, this is one aspect of the literary form in which we get such propositions.

However, if the “NCGS” does not believe that God is consistent and that his words “are not necessarily able to be harmonized, and thus any attempt to do so is neglected at the outset”, where is the issue? He is happy in this assumption, it is just that he contradicts your assumption that God is consistent - or at least he contradicts your portrayal of such a consistency - so if you insist of constistency, you will have to prove the point.

Suprised?

Now this is where you start claiming that the “NCGS” must prove “the legitimacy of his own empirical observations” - why? He is essentially saying that you (representative of others) want to persuade him that his experience and observation of the world is wrong. You are even attaching some moral issues with this claim, so who has to prove what?

If you would say, “Come with me and observe what perception is; experience what your mind is up to; look at what you are doing to your body; see how the various worldviews are also the result of conditioning and prejudice” then you might be able to open that person up for that awesome reality that astounds us. But you don’t do it that way.

You immediately expect him to swallow a great big chunk of Theology, saying “you will surely not die, but your eyes will be opened” and don’t even realise who you are emanating. Is this the way that Jesus taught? Is this the way that Paul taught? Perhaps he wrote that way, but according to Corinthians, that wasn’t the way he taught.

Shalom

Real quick here Shotgun, I need some clarification:

You state, from the link in your signature:

To which means that you are a Christian believing principally in predestination, and that because of total depravity that man is unable to choose God, but that God has already chosen those who will choose God and those that will not choose God ahead of time and that through this mercy of God man is able to find salvation through God, and that the price of this mercy was Jesus’ sacrifice.

If this is what you mean by stating "I am a ‘Calvinist’ ", then I have only but one question:
If you are one of those that God has chosen to choose God, then why condemn those that God has chosen to not choose God?

I’m going to quickly address a few folks here.

Unfortunately Mr. Dorkydood, the fact that you made a relevant counter-post means that you’ll have to wait until this afternoon for a thorough response. (Aly, hopefully many of your questions / objections will be answered then as well, at least the relevant ones.)

To Bob and Omar:

Produce a “Christian” scholar (the quotes denote my suspicion that there isn’t one in principal)who does not hold to the triune, immanent, and transcendent God of scripture as a foundational presupposition when approaching Biblical exegesis, and who also makes a habit of “launching” one supposed contradiction after another at orthodox Christians…and I’ll show you why his system will inevitably invalidate his own statements about the Bible.

To Xunzian:

If you mean to imply that there is a better approach to disagreements, then your statement presupposes “fact” that can stand on its own apart from any interpretation by man, and thus that it is possible (in theory) to objectively discuss it in some neutral way without alluding to your own worldview. This is a position I find to be philosophically unsupportable for various reasons. b[/b]

If (on the other hand) you were simply stating an unfortunate truth that none of us can avoid, then I’d agree with you in part. I would certainly agree with your observation about authority (though I’d get to the conclusion differently than you would, and would draw different ends from it than you would.)

To Mr. Stumps:

The quote you got from my blog is actually from an article I posted here at ILP under the “Essays and Thesis” section. I’d be happy to discuss the internal consistency of the Christian worldview with you there. I think I called the essay something like: “It’s a TULIP kind of worldview.” I look forward to the discussion.

Hope this satisfies you guys for now. After church I’m hoping to come back and write a more philosophical post, demonstrating my above claims in answer to Aly and Dork. I might also address some of Bob’s statements, though I’d hate to detract from the more interesting discussion.

i By way of quick demonstration: I would argue that for knowledge to be possible at all you must have self consciousness. You wouldn’t be able to talk about a page ripped from “Much Ado About Nothing” as being knowledgeable, even though you could claim it contains knowledge. Therefore, to have knowledge, you must have at the very least, two facts side by side. (This is a different discussion from whether or not these “facts” can stand alone uninterpreted.) You must have the fact of “self” (or consciousness) and the fact of the object. I would then claim that it is impossible, (even if granted consciousness) to hold knowledge of one fact apart from knowledge of another. (I’ve argued this in other threads at ILP.) My point being, if someone wants to posit a man / woman who does not have a “worldview” or is not biased in his or her outlook, then they need to demonstrate a single “fact” that can be known apart from also knowing another fact. [/i]

While I largely meant it in the second fashion, I do actually have some sympathies with the first position. What you’ve described is a classic example of a hermeneutic circle, something that post-modernists are always harping on. The problem with it, of course, is that it doesn’t actually work. If the hermeneutic circle were true, I wouldn’t be able to understand Much Ado About Nothing. Since I can understand it, I don’t really see how the position holds weight. Though I do agree that all our information is passed through a human semiotic filter. But since I am a human, discussing these matters with humans, I don’t see how that significantly effects the equation.

So, before you are willing to speak with me, I have to fulfil a number of prerequisites. I have to be:

  1. a Christian scholar
  2. someone who does not hold to the triune, immanent, and transcendent God of scripture as a foundational presupposition when approaching Biblical exegesis,
  3. someone who makes a habit of “launching” one supposed contradiction after another at orthodox Christians

Pastors I know have told me that I am as much at home in Scripture as any scholar they know, although I lack the formal qualifications and therefore some of the works or religious philosophy which belongs to such a study. If that isn’t enough, then I am not “worthy” to speak to you from the outset.

I approach scripture without presuppositions and just read what I am being told. To have presuppositions would be to block out certain possibilities. I also try to understand where the writers are coming from originally, not what a Christian exegete has written about their presuppositions. At the same time, after a meditative and prayerful approach, I do then think about what various scholars have already said, whether Jewish or Christian, and I also consult those things that philology scholars have written.

I do not “launch” contradictions, I observe them. I hold respect for people who stumble across these things and I do my best to dispel any problems they may have. None the less, there are reasons for people to become frustrated with the Bible, especially in the light of evangelical presuppositions, and I try to show these people that such presuppositions need not be a problem, and that they can also be ignored if one wants to reach the “soul” of the text in question.

Shalom

Bob, the issue isn’t whether you’re worthy to speak to Shotgun (or speak about the content of the Bible.)

The question is, are you JUSTIFIED in doing so (given the truth of your worldview.)

Without presupposing the truth of the Christian God at the outset, then I would claim that you, like the Non-Christian Google scholar, are unable to make definitive statements about the text in the first place, let alone speculate on supposed contradictions.

Hi Shotgun,

Presupposition
definitive statement
speculation

I just listen to the Word of God because, “faith is of hearing”. Presupposition takes for granted instead of being open to what God is doing or saying now. I can make definitive statements about the text because I know the text, but to make definitive statements about God is presumptive. I find that the Bible makes more definitive statements about human beings than about God.

Shalom

Gentlemen,

Imagine if you will, a smoke filled, back alley bar filled with shifty characters.

In the backroom, gathered comfortably around a card table, sits a few shady looking men slapping down cards and smoking cigars.

The men are well known. Wittgenstein, Hume, Bertrand Russell, and Nietzsche.

They are grumpy because they all realize that given the truth of their foundational presuppositions, the card game they are playing would be meaningless. In fact, unlike many Non Christian Google Scholars, they are honest enough to explicitly state the conclusions of their philosophical system.

You see, these men gambled it all on their philosophy. They tried to go the distance. Each of them are legends in their own right, notoriously brilliant, and very passionate. Where the Non Christian Google Scholar attempts “off the top of his head” philosophical reasoning, these men spent lifetimes forming systems.

These men began by presupposing the type of autonomous, natural (materialistic) universe that I presented, and sought to find certainty within it. Indeed, Russell pursued “certainty” his entire life in a way that he compared to “looking for religious truth.”

While I intend to briefly go through and answer DorkyDood’s questions (since they are the most direct, and relevant) I will admit that to truly see the relevance of my critique you’d have to study the greatest proponents of the system under question, and see what they say about the matter.

So, where do the presuppositions of a natural, autonomous, “empirical” epistemology lead Hume?

Hume explicitly states that it leads to irrational subjectivity and a complete lack of intelligibility. Consider this quote by Hume:

“The mind has never any thing present to it but the perceptions and cannot possibly reach any experience of their connection with objects. The supposition of such a connection is therefore without any foundation in reasoning.”

Thus, to answer DorkyDood…

Suppose we drop a pencil. The act of your hand opening, and the pencil falling, are just two perceptions with no empirically verified link. Therefore, you can never know with any certainty (or even probably) that the event of “hand opening” will always lead to the event of “pencil falling.”

This destroys all possibility of logic or science. Therefore, in order to keep logic and science, it is necessary to give up empirically based epistemologies, and I would argue, it is necessary to accept Christian epistemology, (as evidenced and implied by Christian teaching derived from the Bible.)

Therefore, the NCGS who presupposes (along with Hume) an empirically based epistemology and a metaphysic similar to that I highlighted in my first post, will have to agree (with Hume) that it is impossible for him to rationally discuss his own empirical observations. In the end…it would be wise of the NCGS to strive to harmonize scripture since his ability to reason, use science and logic, depend on it.

What does Bertrand Russell say on these matters?

He to presupposes a materialistic, natural / autonomous world. He spent his entire life trying to overcome the challenges of Hume, and find certainty in this world. Where did he end up?

Consider this quote from “My Philosophical Development”

“If we know only what can be experienced and verified, then most of what passes for knowledge is not knowledge at all.”

Also, this quote from his “Human Knowledge: Its scope and limits” is very telling:

Although our (the atheist) postulates can be filled into a framework which has what may be called an empiricist flavor, it remains undeniable that our knowledge of them insofar as we do know them, cannot be based on experience. In this sense, it must be admitted that empiricism as a theory of knowledge has proved inadequate.

So we find the NCGS in a position of critiquing his own empirical observations, when he (in so far as he presupposes a system similar to that of Hume and Russell) doesn’t have the justification to do so.

What’s more, just as I claimed Hume’s conclusions destroy all possibility of science, logic, and reason, Russell can verify.

In “Inquiry Into Meaning and Truth” Russell states:

When (science) most needs to be objective, it finds itself plunged into subjectivity against its will. Naive realism leads us to physics, and physics, if true, shows that naive realism is false. Therefore naive realism if true is false. Therefore, it is false.

Not only can the NCGS not critique Biblical texts (if granted the truth of his non-Christian system) he couldn’t use science or logic.

Nietzsche comes to the same conclusions although he is much more consistent in his reaction to them. He admits in “Twighlight of the Idols” that we have not yet escaped God as long as we insist on using language. (That’s a paraphrase.)

Also, Wittgenstein concludes his Tractatus with a very ominous statement: Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen (What we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence.)

I wish that the NCGS would head those words.

(To DorkyDood, I ran out of time, but I would love to discuss the “One and the Many” at some point. Just as empiricism refutes itself, so also non-Christian systems of metaphysics lead to undesirable ends…perhaps another time we can discuss it.)

Shotgun:

You show that empiricism is insufficient by quoting various philosophers. However, after showing the insufficiency of empiricism, you conclude that only some sort of Christian epistemology, which you still haven’t articulated, can provide “certainty”. Can you please articulate your epistemology? And what about rationalism? (To name empiricism’s historical antagonist…) Why can’t reason lead to certainty? I asked this before, so sorry for being repetitive.

And that ominous statement from Wittgenstein is not his. Nietzsche uses it in Twilight of the Idols (I believe). So does Berkeley in his dialogues and even Parmenides, way back in the history of philosophy…

“There are two ways, that of what is and that of what is not. We cannot speak of what is not.” And so Parmenides didn’t speak of it… The problem is, “what is not” was then excluded from his philosophy…

But again, as I asked before, can you speak of what is not? What is beyond being? What is this truth or knowledge you speak of?

Also, just to be clear, what is the unspeakable to you? Is it the “thing-itself”, i.e., what lies behind the perception?

Is this what “the beyond” amounts to to you? Something like Kant’s noumenal world?

OK, thank you for clearing that up as it was getting confusing.
I’ll get around to reading your essay in detail and respond in that thread when I do.

I’ll re-read this thread (and Kill Bill Vol I as well) and get back to responding here.

Shotgun:
“Produce a “Christian” scholar (the quotes denote my suspicion that there isn’t one in principal)who does not hold to the triune, immanent, and transcendent God of scripture as a foundational presupposition when approaching Biblical exegesis, and who also makes a habit of “launching” one supposed contradiction after another at orthodox Christians…and I’ll show you why his system will inevitably invalidate his own statements about the Bible.”

Since you already presuppose the non-existence of such a creature (your explanation for using quotation marks), I find it a waste of MY precious time to mention one. But, That said, there are Christian scholars who fit the bill. Neither you, nor any other apologist holds the right to judge who actually is or isn’t a Christian scholar. Now, as to the second part of your blurb I just hold one question: Do you think that faith is logical?
Perhaps Van Til would have said:
“Paul’s preaching to the Greeks was similar to Noah’s preaching to the men of his time. When at first Noah claimed that God had given him a word of warning which men reject only to their own peril, they were nevertheless sure that they could dispose of such claims in terms of their own wisdom. There were, they said, no “facts” or “valid reasons” to support Noah’s claim, unless one accept the “fact” that God spoke to Noah. But there was only Noah’s word for this and who was Noah? But when the last men were drowning they saw themselves and their wisdom for what they really were, namely, foolishness. It was then too late. Even so at the end of time, in the face of the wrath of the Lamb, men will again see themselves and their wisdom for what it is and will call upon the hills to cover them lest they fall into the hands of an angry God.”
Up until that time when the heavens part and Jesus returns to this Earth to render judgment upon it…up until then the so-called “fact” can only be believed as “fact” by him with faith, yet faith is not reason-- it is a choice made. You can make a leap of faith but not a leap of reason. Everyone has faith; the world is filled with religious faith for example and each and every one of them, if pressed, could make claim to the same presuppositions. Each warn of that Judgment Day when God will find them in the wrong even if they thought of themselves as being right about God.