It Would Be Stranger If The Bible Is False

 

When you look at everything contained in the Bible that purports to show the truth of God – the prophecies, the miracles, the testimonies, the Incarnation, the resurrection, the eyewitness accounts, and so forth – you are being asked to consider the probability that it speaks true propositions about God. You have to decide which is more probable, that when interpreted correctly the Bible A) does speak the truth about God, or B) that it does not. Here is why A is much more likely than B. 

Every time someone wins the lottery, the sequence of six balls is highly improbable, yet someone wins regularly. The chance of guessing the six winning numbers is about 1 in 45 million - extremely unlikely. Still, we don’t dismiss the outcome simply because it’s improbable; we look at the context and evidence. The improbability of an event does not automatically disqualify its truth. The same principle applies when evaluating claims in the Bible: the question is not whether the events are rare, but whether the surrounding context makes them credible. Faking the winning lottery by guessing the correct numbers beforehand is just as unlikely as actually winning. Likewise, the idea that the Bible’s unified narrative, fulfilled prophecies, and theological depth were all fabricated - and yet converged so seamlessly over centuries - strikes me as at least as improbable as the proposition that it is, in fact, the divinely inspired word of God.

To be crystal clear – I’m not making the non-sequitur that says “The Bible is highly unique; Therefore, it's unlikely to be false; Therefore, it is probably from God”, and nor am I saying that someone couldn’t easily make up a story that they correctly guessed the winning lottery numbers, but didn’t really. I also acknowledge that this is a subjective assessment where the priors are not numeric like they are with the lottery win. But the point is, the Bible is such a remarkable book, with such a completely unique set of stories, prophecies, linked text, historical accounts and integrated composition – all cohesively tied up with the proposition that Jesus is God (call this proposition x) – that the theory that it’s not the word of God is much less likely than the proposition that it is. In other words, I think the Bible has a lower probability that it’s all fabricated, made up, false, inaccurate, or a mixture of the four, than the proposition that it’s a true account of Jesus being God. It would be more remarkable and improbable if it isn’t from God than if it is. It would be stranger if the Bible were false than true.

If you want to proceed in Bayesian terms (as I did here, here and here), then we begin with a prior probability that Christianity is true (call that hypothesis A), and we then ask whether the evidence in the Bible makes that hypothesis more likely than its alternatives (that it's false, inaccurate or fabricated - call that B). I’m saying proposition x so greatly increases the probability of A over B that it would far more remarkable if B is true not A. In other words, such a remarkably consistent narrative written over many centuries by dozens of authors from different backgrounds; the fulfilled prophecies; a compelling account of the resurrection, with multiple witnesses, early proclamations, and a dramatically transformed early Christian community; and a coherent theological system centred around Jesus Christ, whose life and teachings have exerted a more profound and lasting influence on the world than anyone else - together, they form such a strong cumulative case that it would be far stranger if B was true not A.

Footnote: If you disagree that Christianity is true, you may have some objections on similar grounds to what I would have if someone used Bayesian reasoning and a lottery analogy to make a case for something I thought was untrue. So, let me consider the objections I’d offer to that person, and tackle them on my own article.

Objection 1: James, you're using probability theory without any numbers, models, or defined probability space, so a Bayesian analysis is difficult for Bible analysis.

My comment: Indeed, and I too am cautious about the use of Bayes to "prove" God, but the hyperlinked blog posts above show that if we are simply looking for evidence, then it can be applied to increase the probability. Under the frequentist interpretation of probability, calculating the probability of an event requires defining the broader context or reference class within which that event occurs – and if we nest all those contexts together surrounding reasons to believe, and priors, the weight of evidence is stacked in favour of Christianity. It’s fine to use a Bayesian structure to frame reasoning even when precise values are unavailable, as long as we are clear and transparent about what we are doing.

Objection 2: James, the lottery analogy is problematic. Lottery outcomes are random and well-modelled, whereas Biblical authorship and theology are historical, intentional, and deeply contextual.

My comment: Don’t worry, it’s fine. The point of the analogy is epistemic, in that it shows that improbability alone doesn't justify disbelief, especially when there’s a known context that supports the outcome. I acknowledge that the subjectivity and imprecision in such cases are not exactly the same as the lottery, but then analogies are not exactly the same as the real thing. The lottery analogy is good for showing that the probabilistic framework still helps articulate the idea that certain types of evidence (like cumulative coherence, fulfilment of prophecy, and unique historical influence) shift the balance in favour of one hypothesis over another.

Objection 3: James, you're arguing that the evidence strongly supports Christianity, but you have neglected to mention the base rate.

My comment: Indeed, and in many blog posts you’ll find me making the same criticism of other writers who neglect the base rate in a way that undermines their argument. But in this case, it’s difficult to meaningfully assign base rates to metaphysical events like divine revelation, because such events are one-off and unique, not repeatable in a way that makes statistical base rates meaningful. In this case, priors must be informed by the weight and coherence of the available evidence. And as per comment 1, it’s absolutely fine, as long as we establish what we are doing. And what we are doing is saying, over several blog posts, that Christianity justifies significantly updating our priors in huge favour to its truth.

Objection 4: James, your category B “Not from God” is too broad, and you risk lumping all alternatives (fabricated, inaccurate, partly true, culturally evolved) into one single hypothesis B, which oversimplifies the spectrum of possible explanations.

My comment: It’s not a problem, because we are basically saying either the Bible is the word of God or it isn’t. It’s a binary proposition. This highlights that none of the alternative explanations, taken together or separately, account for the cumulative complexity, depth, and consistency of the Biblical narrative – so either Christianity is the truth (with a correct interpretation - especially of the fundamentals) or it isn’t. There can’t be a “It’s sort of true’ or “It’s partly true” because the whole creation story hangs on it being the truth or not. In fact, the multiplicity of alternative theories weakens them, because they lack the unified explanatory power that the divine authorship hypothesis has. Bayesian reasoning often involves comparing clusters of alternative hypotheses with a single well-defined theory when the alternatives individually lack explanatory strength, and that is what we are doing here.

Objection 5: James, aren’t you in danger of selectively emphasising the positive features of the Bible (coherence, influence, prophecy) and downplaying purported counterevidence (apparent contradictions, moral difficulties, historical issues).

My comment: Well, every worldview involves a degree of interpretive weighting of the evidence - but that doesn’t invalidate the process of evaluating cumulative credibility. I am familiar with all the purported counterarguments, and I’m not ignoring them; I’m saying that in totality, the affirmative evidence for Christianity not just outweighs the objections, but actually renders those kinds of counterarguments either moot or easily explainable through the lens of Biblical truth and justification – especially once we realise that if a document is 2,000+ years old, written in multiple languages across centuries, some tension points are inevitable. What’s surprising isn’t that these exist, but how consistently the central message holds together despite them – which is why the positive features are strong enough to frame the purported counterevidence in their right place, and in a way that actually reinforces the Bible’s authenticity, rather than undermines it.