#STRask - Would the Disciples Die for a Lie If They Believed It Was for the Greater Good?

Episode Date: January 13, 2025

Questions about whether the disciples would die for a lie if they believed it was for the greater good, how to start a conversation with an Uber customer who’s on his way to a Hindu temple, and what to say to someone who thinks there’s no way to know if God exists.   Would the disciples die for what they knew to be a lie if they believed the lie was essential for persuading the world to morally reform itself for the greater good? What would have been a good way to start a conversation with an Uber customer who told me he was on his way to the local Hindu temple? What would you say to someone who thinks God is a personal belief in your head and that there’s no way to know if there is a God or not?

– Hello, Amy. – Hello, Greg. Our first question today comes from Caleb. Would the disciples die for what they knew to be a lie if they believed that the lie was essential for persuading the world to morally reform itself for the greater good? Maybe the disciples valued the greater good more than their own life. This is Richard Carrier's objection. You know, Richard Carrier, the atheist, I guess what one would, let me back up and put it this way, maybe, is that a possible reason they might die even though they knew it was a lie, okay?

And what one has to do is they have to look at the possible options and ask whether they're plausible in light of all the other circumstances. Now what do we know from the historical record? We know that when Jesus was crucified, these guys were done. They were hiding, doors locked, lights out, knees knocking, expecting the same thing to happen to them. All right? They had no expectation, though they were warned by Jesus himself, that Jesus was going to rise from the dead. They had no expectation that a massive world movement would result that created a massive amount of good over the last 2,000 years. They had no expectation of any of that. They had a Jewish mindset about the Messiah that when the Messiah comes there would be a

chicken in every pot and a portion every garage kind of thing. You know, the kingdom would be here, their enemies would be defeated. And it turns out their Messiah, or the one they thought was the Messiah, was the one defeated. Now the question to Carrier is, does it make sense, is it plausible in light of all of those circumstances, that they're going to get together all of the 11 disciples and even commission an additional one to be to go out to go out and communicate to the world that Jesus rose from the dead, when in fact they knew he didn't. Because they were prescient, they could see into the future,

and know the great good that would come of this. What's so ironic is that for the first 300 years, up until the time of almost the Council of Nicea, Christianity was an outlawed religion. And one of the most fierce persecutors of Christians was Diocletian, who was just before, you know, the Emperor Constantine, you know, Constantine didn't make Christianity the national religion that came later. He just made it legal. So for those first three centuries, you have, let's see, three, yeah, three centuries, zeros,

one, two, three, yeah, that first four centuries, you have Christians being persecuted brutally around the entire empire. There is nothing about Carrier's explanation that is even remotely plausible even if one could say, well, that's possible. If you come up with possible alternatives, you have to look deeper and see whether they're plausible. What you can't do, it seems to me if you're intellectually honest, is you can't just seize on something that supports your own view, even though it's radically implausible. Especially for the atheists who pride themselves in being among the brights and the smart folk,

the rational folk, you don't want to seize upon the thing that is the thing that provides you with You don't want to seize upon the thing that is the thing that provides you with, you know, a justification for your view against the odds, as it were. So that's called a conformational bias. And this is really strong here. He wants to stay an atheist. He wants to deny the resurrection. He's faced with the disciples who have this testimony. So he's going to, rather than go with the odds-on favorite,

and that is that they were willing to die for the resurrection of Christ because Jesus had risen from the dead, instead of willing to die because they lied about it for this other reason, he's going to go with the most implausible thing because that fits his view. Now, what about Paul? What about James? What about these others who also changed their mind against the flow, as it were, certainly Apostle Paul, who was Saul of Tarsus, who was a persecutor of Christians himself, and changed completely such that he also became a martyr. Did it suddenly occur to him? Gee whiz, this sect of Christianity that's contrary to all my theological beliefs will probably end up doing a lot of good in the world,

and Judaism is going to die out, so I'm going to, I'm throwing my lot with the Christians for the sake of the good of humanity. I don't think so. So this alternative simply doesn't hold water because it's not plausible. Yeah, I agree, Greg. You have to look at what's going on here. And one thing you cannot forget is that we're talking about Jews. They weren't just random atheists in the world. These were Jewish people.

Who cared about human flourishing, by the way. Right. I mean, of course, as Jews, they cared about human flourishing, but as Jews... No, I mean, there weren't random atheists who cared about human flourishing. That's my point. So you have to ask yourself, what is the greater good that Richard Carrier is talking about? If this was only about moral reformation, then they already had the law. Why did they need Jesus exactly? They had the law. That is the—if all they cared about was teaching people to do good, they already had that. Jesus didn't add to that law. The problem was that the law was

crushing them, not that they didn't have it. So, Christianity only leads to moral reformation if the people are actually made into new creations who are reconciled to God and who are enabled to follow God's law. So, that can only happen if it's true. So what does Christianity add to Judaism if it isn't true? That's the question you have to ask. That's the question he has to think about. That's a good point. Well, Paul said that what is the point of Christianity if it's false? Because then you're still in your sins.

It is pointless. It is pointless. It is useless. So what exactly would it add to morally reform the world if what Jesus came to do save us from our sins was completely made up? It's useless as Paul pointed out. So secondly, why would you think that getting people, why would any Jew think that getting people to worship a false God would reform the world? Hmm. The false God being Jesus. Right, right. Why would they make up, hey, as Jewish people who care most about, you know, the Lord our God, the Lord is one, the first commandment, you shall love the Lord your God,

why would they think introducing a new God would reform the world? That makes literally no sense. Paul says, moreover, if Christianity is false, if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, we are even found to be false witnesses of God because we testified against God that he raised Christ whom he did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. Right. That's 1 Corinthians 15. Exactly. So what exactly would Christianity add to Judaism if it was false?

What this indicates, I think, is how weak the case against the resurrection is. that if Carrier, who is a significant player in American atheism, if he offers this as an alternative, as weak as it is, this strengthens the case that the resurrection actually happened, transformed the lives of disciples, and they were willing to die for the testimony that they knew to be true because they had encountered the risen Christ. Alright, let's go on to another kind of practical apologetics question. This one comes from Kevin. I was giving an Uber drive the other day.

I drive to supplement my income and a customer said he was going to the local Hindu temple. I tried to think of a way to start a conversation with them, but I couldn't think of a good way. Any ideas? How about why? Just as a start, how about why? And that's I guess a kind of a very variation of what do you mean by that? But why would you go to a Hindu temple?

I think most Americans are interested in Hinduism because there is some kind of abstract element about it that kind of appeals to them aesthetically, not because they have delved into Hindu theology and have embraced it as true, as a true characterization of the world. The thing that appeals to Americans, I think, is this idea, well, we're all God, which is true in Hinduism, at least Vedantic Hinduism, in a very qualified sense. Probably the most accurate way of putting it is we are all nothing. We are part of the illusion, okay, of the only thing that's real is God. He's the only reality, the one reality, which is why they call this fumonism, one-ism, and we are simply part of God's imagination. And our problem is we think we're individuals when in fact we are just part of the Maya,

the illusion, and part of the essence of God himself. And we have to transcend this world and get back to the Godhead. So Brahman is Atman and Atman is Brahman. God is man. Man is God. That's really appealing on a superficial level. But when you look more deeply, you have to embrace the idea that you are just part of the illusion. And not just are you, you and I and all human beings, but everything else, that all distinctions are part of the illusion, which includes the distinction between good and evil. There is ultimately no distinction between them because there are no distinctions in

the final analysis, in a monistic view of reality. So I think that I'd be curious if I were having that conversation, why would you go? Well, I like it. What do you like about it? Is the key to finding, is the key here with religion to find something you like or is the key to find something that's true? By the way, that's a question I ask of lots of people. Are you a Mormon because you were raised a Mormon or are you a Mormon because you think it's actually true? Are you Jehovah's Witness because you were raised that way or because you think it's actually true?

And it can be applied to any worldview. But Americans, characteristically, are eclectic. That is, they're not looking for a coherent worldview, assessment of reality. They are looking to grab onto things and put them in their box of religious views because they like them. Oh, I like this and I like that. I like the idea of reincarnation.

I like Jesus. I'm a Christian, but I like reincarnation too. So I'm a Christian who believes in reincarnation. The problem is reincarnation doesn't do any work for Christianity. It's like putting a carburetor on a computer. It doesn't fit into our system. But that doesn't matter to most Americans. They're just picking and choosing.

And so this would be a question to delve a little deeper to find out what is the motivation of the person going to Hinduism. And if they do think it's true, how do they know it's true? That would be our second Colombo question. Well, Kevin, I have good news for you because your question is, I tried to think of a way to start a conversation with him and the good news is he already started it. Oh yeah, that's great. He just said he's going to the local Hindu temple. This is a huge opening. This is a dream beginning to a conversation. It's very, you don't have to start off thinking

about exactly how you're going to go from A to B or how you're going to get to the gospel or anything like that. The first, as you mentioned, Greg, the first Colombo question is just, what do you mean by that? So just be interested in him. I think if someone said they were going to the Hindu temple, I would be really excited to ask them questions because I would say, oh, that's so, you know, I don't know anything about Hinduism and I'm really interested in hearing what do you think is the main goal of being a Hindu?

What's your goal? You could say, what are you gonna do there? I don't really know what goes on in temples. Can you tell me a little bit about what goes on there? There's all sorts of questions because if you don't know anything about Hinduism, just ask normal questions that you would ask somebody if they said they were going to be doing something you didn't know anything about. Right. Excellent. Right. So I don't think you have to try too hard to be really clever, especially when you're

starting out. Now, as you're talking to him, things will present themselves that will give you an idea of things to ask. And you have some great questions, Greg, that you can try to move the conversation there. Maybe you could ask something about, you know, Christianity is all about having your sins forgiven because we're guilty and we need to be restored to God. What – do you do anything about guilt or is that not part of Hinduism? And that's a way of bringing the gospel into it. Yeah, excellent.

So there are all sorts of things. The key is just be interested like a normal human being and other people. You don't have to be clever. Just be listening to what he's saying and find out more about what Hinduism is about. Right. There's a section in the Street Smarts book that talks about the value of questions and the way of characterizing it easy in, easy out. And sometimes I think there may be, and I've shared this myself, it's actually an anecdote in the book, that, gee, I don't know if I want to take on a big giant conversation here in a witnessing environment with a person.

I don't know if I want to do that. And it occurred to me with the game plan, the tactical game plan, if I'm asking questions, the only, the way, the simple way to end the conversation is to quit asking questions. So I can get out very easily. I'm not committed myself to a long time if I begin to ask questions. So I could get out easily, and that means it's easy for me to get in psychologically. Okay. So some people may not want to get into a big long hassle with a cab drive.

It's a Uber, you know, trip, whatever. I don't know if I want to get into a big long hassle with a cab drive, it's a Uber, you know, trip, whatever. I don't know if I want to get into that. Well, wait a minute, why don't you start asking these questions? And when the person explains whatever, whenever you want, you stop asking questions. And then the conversation comes to a close. No problem. Easy out, easy in. Okay, I would offer one bit of advice though, if you're an Uber driver, and this is not just good advice for Uber drivers who could get graded, you know, five stars, four stars, three stars complaints,

and that looks bad on the record for future clients. It's, you might ask, do you mind if I ask you some questions about that? It's just a simple transitional question. Do you mind if I ask you some questions about that? It's just a simple transitional question. Do you mind if I ask you, I'm very curious about it. Do you mind if I ask questions? Then if he says, no, I don't mind at all, then when you start asking your informational questions,

they're not in any mindset to take offense, okay? And doesn't mean they may not downgrade you, depending how the conversation goes, but it's just a way to protect yourself there. And to keep in mind, I mean, you are doing this as a, you're making a living and you don't want to jeopardize that if you can avoid it by offering a question like that, it makes the transition smoother.

By the way, not just if you're an Uber driver. In general conversation, especially if you're going to offer something contrary or offer a question that might be viewed as contrary to their view, asking permission is a great way to start. Mm-hmm. But as it turns out, I think we're so worried about upsetting someone, but I think as it turns out, people really like talking so worried about upsetting someone, but I think as it turns out, people really like talking about what they believe and what they're doing and why they're doing it.

And as long as you do not get really defensive and upset, and you're actually going in there with an attitude of, I really want to understand what your beliefs are, and it's really interesting to me to hear about other beliefs. As long as you're going in there with that attitude, I really doubt anyone will take offense. Right. So I wouldn't worry so much.

I would just be interested in people and start asking questions and see where it goes. And if somebody takes offense, that's going to be the outlier. And so it's worth giving it a try since it's probably not going to happen. All right, let's squeeze one more question in here. This one comes from Southern Bell. Southern Bell? Yes. Okay. How do you talk to someone that believes God is a personal belief in your head and that there is no way to know if there is a God or not? God or not? Well, if there is no way to know, then it is a personal belief that you can't verify. All right?

The key here is whether there's any way to have a confidence that the belief matches the way the world is, that it corresponds to the world, which is another way of saying that the belief is true and that God's existence is a fact. All right? And it's kind of interesting when I've had conversations about this with other people. People are comfortable with all sorts of ways of learning about things, and whether it's through empirical scientific kind of a process or a personal experience or a reflection on history or getting things by an authority who tells you, and that's

in science and that's in history, it's a whole bunch of other things. Oh yeah, I think that's true. Why? Well, that guy said so, and that guy knows a thing or two about it. Okay, well that's knowledge by authority, knowledge by intuition or reflection. How do you know your own thoughts? Well, you're directly connected to your own thoughts. You don't know them because you sense them

with your five senses, et cetera. So there's lots of ways that people know things, but when it comes to religious claims, all of a sudden that's all off the table. You can't know any of that. That's just a belief. Well, it seems to me you can know those claims like you know about those claims, the truth

of those claims or untruth of those claims, the same way you know about a whole bunch of other things. And this is where the classical arguments for God's existence comes in. And those, the three main ones are the cosmological argument, which basically is where did the cosmos come from? We know it came into existence, what caused it to come into existence? There's only two options, something or nothing. Something caused the universe to come into existence, that means it would be something outside of the universe,

the natural realm that's powerful, smart, an agent capable of making something happen, initiating a causal chain, so to speak, or not. That is, there was no cause to the universe, it just popped into existence with no cause, for no reason, and with no purpose. And by the way, those all go together. So like So what's the most reasonable alternative? It isn't that the universe just popped into existence, because that's contrary to all of our experience about the nature of cause and effect. So we see an effect, something happens, some change takes place, the universe comes into existence.

What caused it is a fair question. So what we are doing is trading our normal intuitions about cause and effect that we apply to science in general. We use the same notion and apply it there. Why can't that be applied to the God question with the origin of the universe? Okay. Now somebody might reject the argument, the cosmological argument, but Somebody might reject the argument, the cosmological argument, but it's not nothing. They might think, well, I think it's more likely that the universe popped into existence out of nothing, with no cause, for no reason, and no purpose. Okay, well, you're welcome to that, but that doesn't seem to me the smart money decision, all right?

Or the teleological argument, the design argument, that the universe looks pretty orderly. Even the idea of natural law implies that there is an order to the universe that seems to have been imposed upon it. Who imposed that? Who created the order? And so that's another argument. We look at something physical and we infer from that a designer. Just like I'm looking at this pen on the table. No one would think that that happened by accident. We would, based on what we know, we look at the nature of the thing and we infer a cause,

a particular kind of cause, a designing cause, not just a cause that brought the substance into existence. Or the moral argument, which is the world is filled with morality. What best explains that? All right. We know the world is filled with objective morality because people are always complaining about the problem of evil. That requires objective morality to be a problem. For the problem to exist is my point. So I just went through a bunch of things that we've talked about in more detail here on other shows and standard reasons, so it's disgusting,

but I'm just laying them out very quickly, three different lines of argument, cosmological, teleological, and moral, to show that we can use our standard ways of knowing lots of different things that we feel very confident we know, and apply them to the question of God's existence along those three lines, and come up with a conclusion that's a reasonable conclusion that God exists.

Could be mistaken, and that's true about all things, but we're not starting with nothing. We are not just believing for no good reason, all right? And I mentioned authority, Well, that's another thing that can be packed in here, the argument from authority, those who know better. And we look at the life of Jesus and the miracles he did, and he becomes now an authority about spiritual things because of the nature of his miracles, if they actually took place. And now we've got an historical argument. What I'm saying is we have lots of tools of knowledge available to us to be able to assess religious claims. Religion isn't outside of the realm of

our knowledge. That is a philosophic notion that came out of the Enlightenment, that all you could know are those things that basically science tells you, you know by your five senses, the empiricism. And that's obviously false anyway, because it doesn't even fulfill its own requirement. People consider empiricism to be an element of knowledge. Yeah, we can only know it if, but that particular truth isn't secured by the empirical method. So it doesn't even satisfy its own requirements for truth. It's on the face of it, it's self-refuting.

So those, I think, are some of the things that are in play. And it's a matter for us as Christians and also non-Christians to realize there are lots of ways that we know things. And all those ways that we are confident we know things are all available to addressing the question of religious truth. So as you're talking, Greg, I'm thinking about how I would introduce these ideas to this kind of person who made this argument.

I think the first thing I would say is, why do you think there's no way to know if there's a God or not? Because I think how you proceed is going to depend on what they say. What do you think someone would say, Greg, if you said, why do you think there's no way to know if there's a God? I can't see him, so why should I believe in him? So I think whatever comes out I I'm trying to think if there's another option I don't I actually I don't know what they would say so I think it's hard to know where we would go from there Well, they might raise the problem of evil or something like that. And so there's a contradiction

That's about why they think God doesn't exist. That's not about why they think we can't know. Oh, that's right So why why do you think we can't exist. That's not about why they think we can't know. Oh, that's right. So why do you think we can't know? Why would you think God wouldn't be something—if God is real, why couldn't we reason about Him? Why would we not know? I think ultimately somebody who says God is just a personal belief in your head, they're already assuming He doesn't exist. I think that is the giveaway here. God is just a belief. God is just a belief in your head. So that's worth pointing out.

Well it sounds like if you think he's just a belief in my head, it sounds like you already are assuming he's false. But when you come to figure out what's true about reality, you can't start with an assumption that he's false. You have to look at what reality looks like before you can decide. So can you lay aside that kind of assumption for a second? If I could make a reasoned argument for the existence of God, would you consider it?

So that way, hopefully that will kind of shake them up a little bit and make them realize that they've just been assuming something. Because it seems to me, if God really does exist, there's a very good chance that He would want us to know that, so we should be able to figure it out or at least reason or at least see evidence or any of those things. So unless you assume He doesn't exist at all, if He didn't exist at all, then of course

we could never know anything about Him. I mean, that's obvious. There would be no evidence of Him. There would be no indication of Him. He wouldn't have revealed Himself. That's true. But if He exists, then There would be no evidence of him. There would be no indication of him. He wouldn't have revealed himself. That's true. But if he exists, then there would be. So let's not start with the assumption that he doesn't exist.

Are you willing to look at that? Are you willing to hear my arguments and then see what happens? Well, we're out of time, Greg. We went over time. I just had to do that last question. What can I say? All right. Thanks, Kevin.

Thanks, Southern Bell. Thank you, Caleb. We appreciate hearing from you. Send us your question on X with the hashtag STRask or go to our website at str.org. This is Amy Hall and Greg Kockel for Stand to Reason.