The Evidence for Christianity: An Interview with Scott Sullivan

Christ 101

Christ 101

Scott Sullivan knows a good fight when he sees one. He pursued a career in martial arts and became an international kickboxing competitor in the 90’s. He headlined fight cards in Las Vegas and Tokyo, and held U.S. Heavyweight titles in Shootboxing. Proudly, Scott also received his black belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu during his many years of training. He was living out his dream.

Scott SullivanHowever, something was missing. After having completed a BA in History at the University of Southern Indiana, Scott began examining the “big questions” of life. This line of questioning led to a lot of research on topics like the existence of God and the quest for finding a “true religion.” It was also this research that eventually brought about his conversion to Catholicism.

Scott taught many courses in philosophy and logic at various universities, but then decided he could reach a much wider audience by teaching through video.

He also sensed there was a much larger fight than kickboxing that was threatening the world. It was secularism, the slow drift away from God and faith. That insight led him to create “Christ 101”, the first complete, semester long, multimedia course specifically made to address the problem of using reason and evidence to establish the truth of Christianity.

With over three years in production and containing contributions from 15 top scholars, “Christ 101” is a massive program that consists of 28 lessons and nearly 14 hours of engaging video instruction.

Scott has gathered the best information he could find from scores of books and articles written in defense of the Christian faith, organized it, shot it all on HD video, edited it with attractive graphics and animation, and compressed all of that information down into this 28 lesson course for you.

Scott recently sat down with me to discuss apologetics, the Bible, Jesus’ Resurrection, and more.

Watch the video trailer below to get a sense of the course:

BRANDON: You just released a fantastic online video course called “Christ 101: The Evidence For Christianity”. Tell us about the course and the expert contributors.

Christ101aSCOTT SULLIVAN: “Christ 101” has been a dream of mine for quite some time. The reason why is because although I was raised as an evangelical Christian, I later fell away from the faith in high school. This falling away wasn’t merely due to moral temptations, but mostly because I had never been given any reason to think Christianity was true. I wasn’t an atheist, but I didn’t see any reason to think God had revealed himself in a particular way through Christ. So, I fell away from the faith primarily because I thought Jesus was a Santa Claus for grownups.

It wasn’t until later, as an adult, that I discovered that there were actually good reasons for thinking Christianity is true and strong evidential grounds for making that act of Christian faith. After reading many books on this subject, I became both angered and motivated. I became angered because nobody had ever taught me this stuff before. I became motivated to do what I could to help others not to be shortchanged on their Christian formation. It was at that point that I decided to do a full blown course on Christian apologetics.

I then pursued a PhD in philosophy at the University of St. Thomas and while completing my dissertation there I concurrently worked on the “Christ 101” course. It took me about three years to produce everything, and I wanted to make it both intellectually engaging and as entertaining as possible. I included a lot of content from other experts such as Peter Kreeft and Scott Hahn, and well-known New Testament scholars like Craig Evans (about whom Scott Hahn described as “one of the top New Testament scholars in North America”), Gary Habermas (a top authority on the resurrection of Jesus), and Michael Licona.

In a nutshell, “Christ 101” is a full course in Christian apologetics and covers everything from the question of why religion is important, the nature of truth and faith, why the Gospels should be considered as historically reliable, and a defense of some of the traditional arguments for the divinity of Jesus.

BRANDON: Why should Catholics care about apologetics?

SCOTT: Catholics who neglect apologetics are not only shortchanging themselves out of the rich intellectual side of the Christian tradition, but they are also hampering any hopes of evangelizing others—especially more educated unbelievers.

Unbelievers have a right to good reasons for faith. By asking others to become Christian we are asking them to make sacrifices, and why should they do so if there aren’t even any good reasons for thinking Christianity is true? Why go to all of the trouble?

I would also say that for most people, their faith is weaker without apologetics. The will and intellect work together. It’s nice to make an act of the will to believe, but that act typically takes deeper root in a person who knows the reasons for his or her faith, especially in an increasingly skeptical and secular society like the west.

BRANDON: You begin your “Christ 101” course on the Problem of Happiness. What’s the problem and why start there?

SCOTT: The Problem of Happiness is for atheists what the Problem of Evil is for theists: why is there so much happiness, joy, and beauty in the world? Would we expect that if the world just blindly and randomly evolved?

It’s easy to view religious discussion as an abstract matter without much practical application. I like the Problem of Happiness because it brings the issue down to a personal, experiential level.

BRANDON: Many critics of Christianity say we can’t trust the biblical documents as reliable, historical sources. Is this true?

Christ101bSCOTT: As I point out in the course, this criticism involves the fallacy of special pleading. That is to say these critics make unwarranted exceptions regarding the historicity of the New Testament that they would not make in any other area of ancient history. Starting with an extreme suspicion towards the historicity of the Gospels is simply unwarranted.

This error is sometimes coupled with another error, namely the claim that David Hume’s argument against belief in miracles is a good one. This is not true. David Hume’s argument proves too much actually and misunderstands the nature of probability.

BRANDON: What evidence is there that Jesus actually rose from the dead?

SCOTT: You have to start with a set of basic facts that can be established as certainly as any other commonly-accepted facts about ancient history. When we do this we can come up with at least five such facts. Then we ask, what is the best explanation for these facts? Given that the naturalistic hypotheses of conspiracy or hallucination do not seem plausible, the resurrection hypothesis gains in credibility. This inference can be strengthened with arguments in natural theology that show that God exists. As Richard Swinburne put it, if you are in the snowy mountains and you already know there is a gorilla on the loose, you need less evidence to show that a gorilla has acted in this particular location. If we have in fact established the existence of God through philosophical arguments, then the burden of evidence for a miracle occurring becomes lessened when we approach the Gospels with a theistic worldview already in hand.

BRANDON: You close the course by promoting “Pascal’s Wager.” What is this proposal and how can it lead people to God?

SCOTT: Well, there is a lot I can say about this because I’ve been studying this argument for a long time. Pascal’s Wager is the claim that in the absence of conclusive evidence either way for God’s existence, if one finds themselves not sure about the issue, then practical reason can step in and lead to belief in God based on self interest. Since speculative reason leaves us at a dead end in such a case, it is entirely rational to let practical reason decide.

In other words, it is immensely more reasonable to choose to believe in God rather than not because those who choose not to believe have an incredible amount to lose and little to gain for their unbelief. Thus, believing in God is much more reasonable on practical grounds.

Now Pascal’s Wager is one of the most underestimated arguments in the philosophy of religion. Critics who attack it with the “many God objection” are committing a straw man fallacy. When the Wager is used in conjunction with the standard apologetical arguments for the divinity of Jesus it becomes quite powerful on practical grounds. In other words, the standard apologetical arguments for Christ are what rules out other religious options such as Zeus or other crackpot gods like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Christianity at that point is the only reasonable religious option. Thus the only live options at that point are Christianity and atheism – that’s where the wager kicks in. And it can lead people to God. People who are either not sure in the beginning, or who have already believed in God but are experiencing periodic doubts, are especially helped by the Wage.

Acting as if one believes in God—that is, sincerely doing so—can actually bring one to belief. Choosing to pray, going to Church, reading good apologetics books—all of these things are within our choice and can be reasonably chosen based upon self-interest and practical considerations. Faith can mature at that point. God’s grace can begin to work on a person who has been more opened up to the truth. The person can then find themselves at a point where they really do in fact believe in God.

 


 
Find out more about Scott Sullivan by visiting his website, ScottSullivan.com. And be sure to pick up your copy of the “Christ 101” course.

Christ101BuyNow

If you liked this discussion you’ll find several more on my Interviews page. Subscribe free via feed reader or email and ensure sure you don’t miss future interviews.