But is it true? (Let’s hear it for reality)

Tom Holland’s book Dominion is much touted these days by those proclaiming a “Christian revival”. He is described by his publisher as a historian. This historian reports (Page 145) that, in 492 AD, the archangel Michael alighted on Mount Gargano, in Italy, and proclaimed himself its guardian. “Further wonders soon followed. Overnight, inside the cave discovered by the errant bull, an entire church appeared, and then the mysterious imprint in marble of the archangel’s feet.” A bull, we were told at the beginning of the chapter, had been shot at with poisoned arrows by the owner of the cave, but the arrows turned around in mid flight and hit the cave’s owner instead. On the next page, the historian records that in 589, a snake the size of a tree trunk washed up on the bank of the Tiber.

This well-written book is crammed full of similar accounts of events which, the author knows full well, never happened. Presumably he relies on his readers to understand that they never happened. Nobody capable of reading a book is fool enough to think that an entire church could suddenly materialise out of nothing overnight. But Holland relates other events which might have happened, or might not. In such cases we who are not historians rely on the historian to guide us. But how do we know whether to trust his word on events which might have happened, given that he states as facts events which certainly did not happen.

For example, he recounts as fact, without qualification, the biblical story of the plagues rained down upon the Egyptians when Pharaoh refused to “Let my people go”. Once again, he knows perfectly well that the miraculous plagues never happened. The Egyptian firstborn children and animals certainly didn’t perish overnight. The Red Sea didn’t part for the benefit of the fleeing Israelites, and then close in on the pursuing Egyptian soldiers. But there easily could have been a plague of locusts. Was there in fact? It is just possible that Jews were held as slaves in Egypt and led out of captivity by a man called Moses. It’s not obviously ridiculous, like the story of the arrows boomeranging back to give the aspiring tauricide his come-uppance. There is no evidence that Moses ever existed, nor for the captivity in Egypt. But both are possible, and if Holland is a good historian his views on the question will be interesting and worth considering. My point is that this historian forfeits all credibility by his habit of wantonly muddling legends with facts. And muddling facts for which there is evidence (such as the Babylonian captivity) with possible facts which might be true or might not. We who are not historians, how can we trust a historian who cries wolf in this way? And he does it not just in this one chapter but again and again and again.

Jordan Peterson, an even more famous soothsayer of the so-called Christian revival, not only ignores facts, he openly disdains them. Drunk on symbolism, he seems sincerely not to care whether something is factually true or not. In a filmed conversation, I asked him point-blank, “Did a man have intercourse with Mary and produce Jesus? That’s a factual question.” After a long pause in which Peterson declined to answer, I added, “It’s not a value question.” The moderator, Alex O’Connor, an extremely intelligent young man who read Theology at Oxford, then chimed in: “You must understand what you’re being asked here.” And he continued to cross-question Peterson, trying in every possible way to get him to answer the simple factual question. Did Jesus have a human father or no? Time and again, Peterson made it abundantly clear that he has not the slightest interest in whether such propositions are factually true or not, Well, I suppose that’s his privilege, just as it’s my privilege to hate beetroot. But some of us think factual questions matter. To put it mildly, scientists do, lawyers do, police officers do, journalists do, historians do (at least they damn well should care) and I strongly suspect you do too.

Earlier this year, a dear friend, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, announced her conversion from atheism to Christianity. We then had a public discussion in New York, during which her sincerity shone like a beacon. She believed that Christianity had saved her from a severe bout of depression. I could sympathize with that, and the audience clearly did. But I still pressed her with my one fundamental question. “IS IT TRUE?” Not, “Is it true that it saved you from depression?” It surely was true in her case. Not, “Does Christianity do good in the world?” Maybe it does. Not, “Would it be a good thing if most people were Chistian?” Maybe it would. The latter two questions are value questions, not factual questions at all.

I meant none of those things. I meant, “Do you think the truth claims of Christianity are valid? Is it factually true that the universe was designed by a supernatural intelligence, God? Is it true that Jesus was born of a virgin? Is it true that he rose from the dead? Is it true that people have a soul that can survive bodily death?” There are three respectable answers to any of these questions. “Yes (I think the evidence supports a yes answer).” “No (I think the evidence supports a no answer).” “I don’t know (not enough evidence).” Ayaan’s answer was, “I choose to believe.” I don’t think believing is something you can choose to do. What do you think?

My purpose in this short essay is to blow the trumpet for facts. Reality. Is it true? Did it really happen? I’m not denigrating myths, legends, parables, metaphors, symbols, allegories, fiction, human comfort. All have value. All I’m asking is that we should make a clear distinction between those good things and factual truth. Let’s hear it for reality.