From time to time, I am blamed for being wishy-washy in my beliefs. I grew up a Mormon, became a Unitarian Humanist, then a Christian. Perhaps this spectrum of change might appear wishy-washy, but for those who know me, there has been a steady evolution of thought grounded in a healthy scepticism, and from there a careful allowance for intuitive acceptance of reasonable possibilities.
I have already explained my objections to the religion of my upbringing. I have also discussed what I consider a reasonable possibility for the existence of God when I wrote of my change of mind to portions of Humanist Manifesto II:
Why would such a being create if said being did not care for its creation? Such a faith would only be outmoded if proved otherwise, not if simply left unproved. But, the sceptic will inevitably argue that the burden of proof is on the claimant. However, the theist's claim is not a legal claim, but a profession of hope grounded in
reasonable possibility,if not probability. Faith is a principle of trust and relationship within that hope.
The question of the man Joshua the Gallilean, a Pallestinian Jew who lived before the destruction of the second Jerusalem temple, provides a unique possibility for a personalization of the God that has thus far seemed untouchable and unknowable, and perhaps the key to the mystery of existence. It seems fantastic to accept the claims of one who claimed himself to be Messiah, claimed for himself miracles, claimed himself to be the return of the king of the line of David that post-Babylonian Jews hoped to restore Israel, and yet who died mercilessly one of the most tortuous, humiliating deaths known to man. This mediocre rabbi had utterly failed. His disciples fled in terror, afraid that they would share his fate (which most in the end did), but what for? For a failed messiah?
The arguments go back and forth regarding the historicity of these
events and legitimacy of accepting such fantastical notions. David
Hume wrote in his Inquiry on Human Understanding, No testimony
is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of
such a kind that its falseness would be more miraculous than the
fact which it endeavors to establish.
Once again, however, this is not a legalistic claim, but a profession of hope. Of course, such a hope must be questioned for its reasonableness, but certain facts remain regarding Jesus. His disciples claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. This claim is recorded as being witnessed by approximately 500 people who believed that they had encountered the man brought back to life in contradiction to all that is natural. Either this was an event from God, or a hoax. The arguments for such a hoax are on record, as is the unconvincing nature of those arguments. (Arguments against the Christian claim should be evaluated, and reevaluted, for their legitimacy and probabilities. I'm not trying to dismiss arguments against the Christian claim, but only state that my own inquiry into them have not convinced me that they are likely.)
Only one argument against it remains of any usefulness: David Hume's, stated 1700 years after the fact. Hume's argument is what the apostolic letters address as the wisdom of the world which claims the foolishness of the Christian hope.
Perhaps this hope is foolish. Perhaps such political tragedies, such as the crusades, spurred on by Western Christian indulgences for every muslim heritic killed while defending Jerusalem, are the great bane of the Christian claim. However, the teachings of Jesus remain, carried down by word of mouth and liturgical gospels, ultimately teaching a message of God's kingdom: a spiritual realm of love, caring, redemption, and fulfillment in relationship, with God and our neighbour. By their fruits shall ye know them, Jesus said. Where Christians have succeeded, they have born the fruits of peace, love in community, and charity. Where God is, by definition, capable of intervention in the created world, perhaps miracles are the one hope that Christian experience finds to be the most real in a world scarred by pain, suffering, and fear. In my mind, this seems both reasonable and virtuous.