Does truth have a shelf life? (Part 2)
“I fear that we live in an ahistorical age in which we believe that we are so wise that we no longer need the lessons of the past, perhaps most disturbingly of all that technology has put us beyond the lessons of the past.”
Per the foregoing, Professor Fears makes an excellent point about the modern predisposition to treat the past as primitive. Given this bias, many regard the views and practices of those living back then as irrelevant and therefore unworthy of serious consideration today.
However, the lessons of the past are often in the moral realm whereas technological advances are in the physical. Of course, the physical realm frequently overlaps the moral - for example, the use of nuclear or surveillance technologies. That said, Fears implies that we can learn from history - and not just that it shouldn’t be repeated!
…chronological snobbery - the past is passé - is ubiquitous.
In fact, chronological snobbery - the past is passé - is ubiquitous. Dazzled by the wonderful contribution of technological progress to human flourishing, many today treat ideas previously regarded to be true as well past their “best before” dates. Indeed, by their pronouncements and actions, many self-labeled progressives (see Part 1) seem to believe that, in light of past defects, some present day institutions such as religion and family must be transformed to meet their more enlightened standards of moral rectitude.
A good example of chronological snobbery is the common view that Christianity came out of a more primitive time when naive people didn’t possess the knowledge and wisdom to differentiate between truth and fiction. Perhaps the best example relates to the claim of the first disciples that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead. Some would argue that since this assertion makes no sense in the context of current experience and scientific knowledge, it is obviously mythical.
In Chapter 8 of “More Than Your Business Card,” I address questions concerning the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection in some detail. The truthfulness of this claim cannot be adjudicated using the scientific method but rather by examining history. In other words, there are limits to science’s explanatory power. The conclusion reached in my book is that the physical resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of all the historical data on which most Christian and non-Christian scholars are in agreement. These data include the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, Jesus’ post-mortem appearances to over 500 people, and the startling growth of the early church in the face of intense persecution.
Skepticism concerning the accuracy of the first Christians’ testimony is unwarranted. Indeed, in many ways, they were much more anchored in reality than many moderns. Strictly monotheistic, these Jews would not have been predisposed to believe that Jesus is God. Moreover, from their uniform experience, they knew dead bodies stay dead! Yet they gladly died for their belief in the resurrection based on firsthand experience or eyewitness testimony that Jesus was raised from the dead.
The resurrection is a foundational truth underpinning the Christian worldview. This fact brings to mind C.S. Lewis’ statement: “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”
The fact that the resurrection is true (and therefore of infinite importance) should catch the attention of critical thinking moderns!
Photo by Artturi Jalli on Unsplash
