Faith evidence
From Sir Graham Sutton Sir: In his sincere and well argued letter in your issue of May 10, Mr Adrian Barrett compares the evidence for the Resurrection with that for the moon landings. But I think that the camparison is not valid. A sicentific result is believed if, and only if, one is assured that it can be repeated at any time by anyone, anywhere. The moon landings called for immense technical skills but essentially they were based upon familiar and well established physical principles. No one who understands these principles can entertain any doubt that any country with adequate technical and industrial facilities could, if it so wished, repeat the feat. No esoterical knowledge or supernatural intervention is required, and the number of witnesses in the control room at Houston is not relevant in this connectiOn. The credibility of an historical event clearly cannot be assessed in this way. As I understand it, orthodox Christian belief insists that the Resurrection was an event unique in the whole of history. The number and character of the witnesses is therefore important, but eseentially belief in the Resurrection is an article of faith, not open to rational argument, and it is futile to compare the evidence for it with that for a scientific feat. After two thousand years its truth cannot be proved, but possibly could be disproved by some future discoveries. If a comparison is to be made with scientific thought the closest analogy might be with the status of the celebrated second law of thermodynamics (Whittaker's 'postulate of impotence'). This, being a negative, cannot be definitely established by experiment, but it is accepted unreservedly by all scientists. However, it is possible that it could be disproved by some experiment but so far no one has done this.
0. G. Sutton 4 The Bryn, Swansea.
Previous page
