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.