Equal pay for equal work

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_pay_for_equal_work

Equal pay for equal work is the concept of labour rights that individuals in the same workplace be given equal pay. It is most commonly used in the context of sexual discrimination, in relation to the gender pay gap. Equal pay relates to the full range of payments and benefits, including basic pay, non-salary payments, bonuses and allowances. Some countries have moved faster than others in addressing equal pay.

Early history

As wage-labour became increasingly formalized during the Industrial Revolution, women were often paid less than their male counterparts for the same labour, whether for the explicit reason that they were women or under another pretext. The principle of equal pay for equal work arose at the sames part of first-wave feminism, with early efforts for equal pay being associated with nineteenth-century Trade Union activism in industrialized countries: for example, a series of strikes by unionized women in the UK in the 1830s. Pressure from Trade Unions has had varied effects, with trade unions sometimes promoting conservatism. Carrie Ashton Johnson was an American suffragist who related equal pay and wages of women in the industrial workforce to the issue of women's suffrage. In 1895, she was quoted by the Chicago Tribune as having said, "When women are given the ballot, there will be equal pay for equal work." However, following the Second World War, trade unions and the legislatures of industrialized countries gradually embraced the principle of equal pay for equal work; one example of this process is the UK's introduction of the Equal Pay Act 1970 in response both to the Treaty of Rome and the Ford sewing machinists strike of 1968. In recent years European trade unions have generally exerted pressure on states and employers for progress in this direction.

International human rights law

In international human rights law, the statement on equal pay is the 1951 Equal Remuneration Convention, Convention 100 of the International Labour Organization, a United Nations body. The Convention states that

Each Member shall, by means appropriate to the methods in operation for determining rates of remuneration, promote and, in so far as is consistent with such methods, ensure the application to all workers of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value.

Equal pay for equal work is also covered by Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 4 of the European Social Charter, and Article 15 of African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Constitution of the International Labour Organization also proclaims "the principles of equal remuneration for equal value".

The EEOC's four affirmative defenses allows unequal pay for equal work when the wages are set "pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) ... any other factor other than sex." A pay differential due to one of these factors is not in breach of the convention.

Legal situation by jurisdiction

European Union/European Economic Area

Post-war Europe has seen a fairly consistent pattern in women's participation in the labour market and legislation to promote equal pay for equal work across Eastern and Western countries.

Some countries now in the EU, including France, Germany, and Poland, had already enshrined the principle of equal pay for equal work in their constitutions before the foundation of the EU (see table below). When the European Economic Community, later the European Union (EU), was founded in 1957, the principle of equal pay for equal work was named as a key principle. Article 141 of the Treaty of Rome says 'each Member State shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is applied.' While socially progressive, this decision does not necessarily indicate widespread progressive attitudes among the signatories to the treaty:

While this is often viewed as an example of the progressive nature of the European community, some argue that Article 141 (previously 119) was included largely as a concession to the French who already had equal pay legislation and feared that they would be at a comparative disadvantage.

The EEC's legislation was clarified in 1975 by the binding and directly applicable equal pay directive 75/117/EEC. This prohibited all discrimination on the grounds of sex in relation to pay; this and other directives were integrated into a single Directive in 2006 (2006/54/EC).

At the national level the principle of equal pay is in general fully reflected in the legislation of the 28 EU member states and the additional countries of the European Economic Area (EEA), Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The EU candidate countries of Macedonia and Turkey also adapted their legislation to EU standards. The main national legislation concerning pay equity between men and women for different European countries is as follows.

Country	Main legal provisions
Austria	The 1979 Act on Equal Treatment on Men and Women (as amended since)
Belgium	The 1999 Law on Equal Treatment for Men and Women (Articles 12 and 25) and the Royal Decree of 9 December 1975
Bulgaria	Equal pay for equal work included in the labour code
Czech Republic	Remuneration for work is regulated by Act no. 1/1992 Coll. on pay, remuneration for overtime, and average income and by Act no. 43/1991 Coll. on pay and remuneration for overtime in state and some other organisations and bodies.
Denmark	The 1976 Act on Equal Pay for Men and Women, as amended since to include additional points
Finland	The 1995 Constitution (section 5, paragraph 4) and the Act on Equality between Men and Women (section 8, paragraph 2)
France	The 1946 Constitution and Articles L.140.2 and thereafter of the Labour Code
Germany	The 1949 Constitution or "Basic Law" (Article 3)
Greece	The 1975 Constitution (Article 22(1)), as amended in 2001, and Law 1484/1984 (Article 4)
Hungary	Equal pay for equal work was previously included in the constitution, but it has changed; there is now only equality between men and women, and the pay is in the Labour Code.
Iceland	The 1961 Equal pay act (#60/1961), 1976 Law for Equality between women and men (#78/1976), 2008 Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men (#10/2008) and the amendment added to the law in 2017: Law on equal pay certification  according to the Equal Pay Standard introduced in 2012 (ÍST 85:2012)
Ireland	The 1998 Employment Equality Act (IE9909144F), repealing the 1974 Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act and the 1977 Employment Equality Act
Israel	The 1998 Law for Option Equality at Work and the 1996 Law for Equal Pay for Female Worker and Male Worker
Italy	The Constitution (Articles 3 and 37), Law 903/1977 (Article 2), and Law 125/1991
Latvia	Equal pay for equal work included in the labour code
Liechtenstein	Equal pay for equal work included in the civil code
Lithuania	Equal pay for equal work included in the labour code
Luxembourg	The 1981 law relating to equal treatment between men and women and the 1974 Grand-Ducal Regulation of relating to equal pay for men and women (Articles 1, 2, 3(1), 3(2) and 4)
Malta	The Constitution (Article 14) and the Equality for Men and Women Act
Netherlands	The Constitution (Article 1) and the 1994 Law on Equal Treatment
Norway	The 1978 Act on Gender Equality
Poland	The 1997 Constitution, Chapter II, Article 33.2 enshrined the equal pay for equal work principle, already included in the 1952 Constitution.
Portugal	The Constitution (Article 59) and Law 105/1997 relating to equal treatment at work and in employment
Romania	Equal pay for equal work included in the constitution
Slovakia	Equal pay for equal work included in the constitution
Spain	The Constitution (Article 35) and the Workers' Statute (Articles 17 and 28).
Sweden	The 1980 Act on Equality between Men and Women/Equal Opportunities Act, as amended since
UK	The Equal Pay Act 1970, as amended by Equal Value Regulations of 1983, and the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 and 1986, superseded by the Equality Act 2010

2018 Update Law on Equal Pay Certification based on the Equal Pay Standard in Iceland

Iceland introduced an Equal Pay Standard in 2012, ÍST 85:2012 (Equal wage management system - Requirements and guidance). The standard was developed by the Icelandic trade unions, the employers’ confederation and government officials with the goal in mind that it would help employers prevent salary discrimination and enable them to become certified.

In 2017, the Icelandic government decided to add an amendment to the 2008 laws Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men (#10/2008). The amendment is a law on equal pay certification and was put into effect on January 1 in 2018. According to the amendment companies and institutions employing 25 or more workers, on annual basis, will be required to obtain equal pay certification of their equal pay system and the implementation thereof. The purpose of this obligatory certification is to enforce the current legislation prohibiting discriminatory practices based on gender and requiring that women and men working for the same employer shall be paid equal wages and enjoy equal terms of employment for the same jobs or jobs of equal value.

United States

See also: Gender pay gap in the United States

Federal law: Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Main articles: Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

By the 20th century, women made up about a quarter of United States workforce but were still paid far less than men, whether it was the same job or a different job. There were different laws for women in some states such as, not working at night and restriction of their working hours. Women started entering more factory jobs when World War II began to replace men who were enlisted in the military. The wage gap continued to escalate during the war. The National War Labor Board put policies in place to help provide equal pay for women who were directly replacing men.

The first attempt at equal pay legislation in the United States, H.R. 5056, "Prohibiting Discrimination in Pay on Account of Sex," was introduced by Congresswoman Winifred C. Stanley of Buffalo, N.Y. on June 19, 1944. Twenty years later, legislation passed by the federal government in 1963 made it illegal to pay men and women different wage rates for equal work on jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and are performed under similar working conditions. One year after passing the Equal Pay Act, Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VII of this act makes it unlawful to discriminate based on a person's race, religion, color, or sex. Title VII attacks sex discrimination more broadly than the Equal Pay Act extending not only to wages but to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment. Thus with the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, an employer cannot deny women equal pay for equal work; deny women transfers, promotions, or wage increases; manipulate job evaluations to relegate women's pay; or intentionally segregate men and women into jobs according to their gender.

Since Congress was debating this bill at the same time that the Equal Pay Act was coming into effect, there was concern over how these two laws would interact, which led to the passage of Senator Bennett's Amendment. This Amendment states: "It Shall not be unlawful employment practice under this subchapter for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of sex ... if such differentiation is authorized by the provisions of the [Equal Pay Act]." There was confusion on the interpretation of this Amendment, which was left to the courts to resolve. Thus US federal law now states that "employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment."

New York state

In 1944, the state of New York outlawed wage discrimination based on one's gender. On 10 July 2019, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law legislation guaranteeing equal pay for equal work regardless of one's gender. This builds on the 1944 law by prohibiting employers from asking job candidates about their previously salary, a loophole that has had a history of enforcing pay inequality based on gender. Cuomo signed the law in tandem with the 2019 Women's World Cup victory parade in New York City.

Washington state

In Washington, Governor Evans implemented a pay equity study in 1973 and another in 1977. The results clearly showed that when comparing male and female dominated jobs there was almost no overlap between the averages for similar jobs and in every sector, a twenty percent gap emerged. For example, a food service worker earned $472 per month, and a Delivery Truck Driver earned $792, though they were both given the same number of "points" on the scale of comparable worth to the state. Unfortunately for the state, and for the female state workers, his successor Governor Dixie Lee Ray failed to implement the recommendations of the study (which clearly stated women made 20 percent less than men). Thus in 1981, AFSCME filed a sex discrimination complaint with the EEOC against the State of Washington. The District Court ruled that since the state had done a study of sex discrimination in the state, found that there was severe disparities in wages, and had not done anything to ameliorate these disparities, this constituted discrimination under Title VII that was "pervasive and intentional." The Court then ordered the State to pay its over 15,500 women back pay from 1979 based on a 1983 study of comparable worth. This amounted to over $800 million. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned this decision, stating that Washington had always required their employees' salaries to reflect the free market, and discrimination was one cause of many for wage disparities. The court stated, "the State did not create the market disparity ... [and] neither law nor logic deems the free market system a suspect enterprise." While the suit was ultimately unsuccessful, it led to state legislation bolstering state workers’ pay. The costs for implementing this equal pay policy was 2.6% of personnel costs for the state.

Minnesota

In Minnesota, the state began considering a formal comparable worth policy in the late 1970s when the Minnesota Task Force of the Council on the Economic Status of Women commissioned Hay Associates to conduct a study. The results were staggering and similar to the results in Washington (there was a 20% gap between state male and female workers pay). Hay Associates proved that in the 19 years since the Equal Pay Act was passed, wage discrimination persisted and had even increased over from 1976 to 1981. Using their point system, they noted that while delivery van drivers and clerk typists were both scaled with 117 points each of "worth" to the state, the delivery van driver (a male-dominated profession) was paid $1,382 a month while the clerk typist (a female dominated profession) was paid $1,115 a month. The study also noted that women were severely underrepresented in manager and professional positions, and that state jobs were often segregated by sex. The study finally recommended that the state take several courses of action: 1) establish comparable worth considerations for female-dominated jobs; 2) set aside money to ameliorate the pay inequity; 3) encourage affirmative action for women and minorities and 4) continue analyzing the situation to improve it. The Minnesota Legislature moved immediately in response. In 1983 the state appropriated 21.8 million dollars to begin amending the pay disparities for state employees. From 1982 to 1993, women's wages in the state increased 10%. According to the Star Tribune, in 2005 women in Minnesota state government made 97 cents to the dollar, ranking Minnesota as one of the most equal for female state workers in the country. Five years later in 2010, full pay equity for women in state employment was finally achieved, with recurring, typically minor pay adjustments in local governments occurring regularly.

Federal law: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

In 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, permitting women to sue employers for unfair pay up to 180 days after receiving an unfair paycheck. On 29 January 2016, he signed an executive order obliging all companies with at least 100 employees to disclose the pay of all workers to the federal government, with breakdowns of pay by race, gender, and ethnicity. The goal is to encourage employers to give equal pay for equal work by increasing transparency.

Massachusetts

In August 2016, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed a bill to improve upon the already existing Massachusetts Equal Pay Act. On July 1, 2018, this updated amendment went into effect to protect employees from being asked their previous salary by their current employer. Governor Baker sought change in the current system after recognizing that women in their respective fields, on average, were making 76 cents on the dollar compared to men doing the same job. Under the updated Massachusetts Equal Pay Act, employers are not allowed to have disparity in pay for employees doing a job that requires the same level of skill, effort, and responsibility. The Massachusetts Equal Pay Act only permits differences in pay when it is based on merit, seniority, revenue generated, education, and location or travel. At the time of its arrival in 2018, the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act became the strongest advocate for equal pay between genders in the United States. It became the first state to provide affirmative defense to employers under the condition they have performed a self-audit of their pay practices. In order to be protected, there needs to be proven record of efforts made to close the disparity in pay before they become liable for double of the discriminated employee’s lost wages.

State and local laws, 2010s

California and New York City have adopted laws which prohibit employers from asking about salary history to determine the salary that will be offered for a new job. This is intended to narrow the gender pay gap by reducing the impact of past discrimination. Many other U.S. states were considering similar laws, as of May 2017.

Australia

Main article: Gender pay gap in Australia

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights started to recognize equal pay for equal work. The Equal Remuneration Convention was released in 1951 by the International Labour Organization. The convention stated that it recommends jobs to be classified according to the nature of the work rather than who is performing the work. Women and men participated in protests, calling the government to fix the 1951 convention and make equal pay the law in Australia. In 1969, there was a case brought to the ACAC by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union against the Meat and Allied Trades Federation. Workers argued for equal pay for every employee and the ruling of the commission was that the general female award minimum wage at 85 per cent of the male wage. This decision helped equal pay for women who were working the same job that traditionally the men would do, but all the other women got the 85 per cent. In 1972 the decision was reassessed and rules that either women or men who are working at a similar job that has a similar value, are eligible for the same working rate.

Under Australia's old centralised wage fixing system, "equal pay for work of equal value" by women was introduced in 1969. Anti-discrimination on the basis of sex was legislated in 1984.

Canada

In Canadian usage, the terms pay equity and pay equality are used somewhat differently from in other countries. The two terms refer to distinctly separate legal concepts.

Pay equality, or equal pay for equal work, refers to the requirement that men and women be paid the same if performing the same job in the same organization. For example, a female electrician must be paid the same as a male electrician in the same organization. Reasonable differences are permitted if due to seniority or merit.

Pay equality is required by law in each of Canada’s 14 legislative jurisdictions (ten provinces, three territories, and the federal government). Note that federal legislation applies only to those employers in certain federally regulated industries such as banks, broadcasters, and airlines, to name a few. For most employers, the relevant legislation is that of the respective province or territory.

For federally regulated employers, pay equality is guaranteed under the Canadian Human Rights Act. In Ontario, pay equality is required under the Ontario Employment Standards Act. Every Canadian jurisdiction has similar legislation, although the name of the law will vary.

In contrast, pay equity, in the Canadian context, means that male-dominated occupations and female-dominated occupations of comparable value must be paid the same if within the same employer. The Canadian term pay equity is referred to as "comparable worth" in the US. For example, if an organization's nurses and electricians are deemed to have jobs of equal importance, they must be paid the same. One way of distinguishing the concepts is to note that pay equality addresses the rights of women employees as individuals, whereas pay equity addresses the rights of female-dominated occupations as groups.

Certain Canadian jurisdictions have pay equity legislation while others do not, hence the necessity of distinguishing between pay equity and pay equality in Canadian usage. For example, in Ontario, pay equality is guaranteed through the Ontario Employment Standards Act while pay equity is guaranteed through the Ontario Pay Equity Act. On the other hand, the three westernmost provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan) have pay equality legislation but no pay equity legislation. Some provinces (for example, Manitoba) have legislation that requires pay equity for public sector employers but not for private sector employers; meanwhile, pay equality legislation applies to everyone.

India

Constitutional protections

As part of its Directive Principles of State Policy, the Constitution of India through Article 39 envisages that all states ideally direct their policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women, and also ensuring that men and women have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. While these Directive Principles are not enforceable by any court of law, they are crucial to the governance of the country and a state is duty bound to consider them while enacting laws.

While “equal pay for equal work” is not expressly a constitutional right, it has been read into the Constitution through the interpretation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 – which guarantee equality before the law, protection against discrimination and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The Supreme Court of India has also declared this to be a constitutional goal, available to every individual and capable of being attained through the enforcement of their fundamental rights set out in Articles 14 through 16. In a popular Supreme Court decision, the conditions of employment of the air-hostesses of Air India was challenged. The terms of employment required the mandatory retirement of females: (i) upon attaining the age of 33; (ii) if they were married within four years of service; or (iii) upon their first pregnancy. The court however struck down these provisions and held them to be arbitrary and discriminatory as it violated Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.

Statutory Protection

In 1976, the Equal Remuneration Act was passed with the aim of providing equal remuneration to men and women workers and to prevent discrimination on the basis of gender in all matters relating to employment and employment opportunities. This legislation not only provides women with a right to demand equal pay, but any inequality with respect to recruitment processes, job training, promotions, and transfers within the organization can also be challenged under this Act. However, its scope does not extend to situations where: (i) a woman is attempting to comply with the requirements of laws giving women special treatment; and (ii) a woman is being accorded special treatment on account of the birth of a child, or the terms and conditions relating to retirement, marriage or death. Companies and individual employers can both be held accountable to maintain the standards prescribed under this Act. In various cases, the Supreme Court of India has also held that discrimination on the basis of gender only arises when men and women perform the same work or work of a similar nature. However, it clarified that a flexible approach is required to be taken while deciding which kinds of work may be similar by considering the duties actually performed as a part of the job, and not the duties potentially capable of being performed.

Taiwan

Taiwan legislated the Act of Gender Equality in Employment in 2002. It regulates that an employer must give the same salary to the workers who do the same work. The law prescribes that employers shall not discriminate against employees because of their gender or sexual orientation in the case of paying wages. Employees shall receive equal pay for equal work or equal value. However, if such differentials are the result of seniority systems, award and discipline systems, merit systems or other justifiable reasons of non-sexual or non-sexual-orientation factors, the above-mentioned restriction shall not apply. Employers may not adopt methods of reducing the wages of other employees in order to evade the stipulation of the preceding paragraph.

Criticism

Criticisms of the principle of equal pay for equal work by women include criticism of the mechanisms used to achieve it and the methodology by which the gap is measured. Some believe that government actions to correct gender pay disparity serve to interfere with the system of voluntary exchange. They argue the fundamental issue is that the employer is the owner of the job, not the government or the employee. The employer negotiates the job and pays according to performance, not according to job duties. The issue with that is men are perceived to be high performers based on the same skill that a woman would have been able to do. A private business would not want to lose its best performers by compensating them less and can ill afford paying its lower performers higher because the overall productivity will decline. However, the Independent Women's Forum cites another study that prognosticates the wage gap possibly disappearing "when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job".

The difference between equal pay for equal work and equal pay for work of equal value

Equal pay for equal work	Equal pay for work of equal value
Equal pay compares the pay of incumbents in the same or very similar jobs.	Pay equity compares the value and pay of different jobs, such as nurse and electrician.
In Canada, either men or women can complain that their work is undervalued. If a male incumbent is paid less than a female incumbent in the same job, he can file a complaint. As well, a woman or man can complain if she or he is paid less than a man or woman in the same job.	In Canada, only people (both men and women) in jobs traditionally reserved for women can complain that their work is undervalued. If nurses are paid less than electricians by the same employer, then they can file a complaint.

According to the Washington Center for Equitable Growth using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, occupations that are more male dominated tend to be paid better regardless of skill or education level.

For example, it often requires a similar level of skill and education to be an electrician as it does to be a nurse. However, electricians, a male-dominated field, earn more than nurses, a female-dominated field. In situations where, for example, the electrician is performing their job 200 feet above the base floor of an offshore oil rig, then pay should be higher because the risks are likewise higher. However, this doesn't explain the gap between the average work of electricians.

A criticism to equal pay for work of equal value is the lack of proper comparation mechanisms, it is based on subjective impressions and not based on real facts and statistics. As in previous example, checking statistic data from US BLS, we can prove that it is a false statement that electricians earn more than nurses. Based on the statistics electricians earn ~1015$/weekly while nurses earn ~1223$/weekly, so in this case proving that nurses, a female dominated field, earn more than electricians, a male dominated field.

Transparency laws

A woman holding up a sign protesting that she earns less than a "him" (a male coworker) for the same work.

Transparency laws require companies to disclose wages to employees or the government. This can reduce the gender pay gap by allowing women to negotiate for equivalent pay (rather than a salary history which may reflect past discrimination) and by shaming employers into treating men and women equally.

Historicity of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus 

The question of the historicity of Jesus is part of the study of the historical Jesus as undertaken in the quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus. Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, although not all events mentioned in the gospels (most notably his miracles) are accepted universally. Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel-narratives, and two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Historical existence and Christ Myth Theory

The Resurrection of Christ by Noel Coypel (1700)

 

Main articles: Quest for the historical Jesus and Christ myth theory

The quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus are based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts and applying the standard criteria of critical-historical investigation, and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other historical evidence.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that a historical human Jesus existed. Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."

The Christ myth theory, which developed within the scholarly research on the historical Jesus, is the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology," possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact." Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."

While this idea appeals to a minority in popular opinion, the overwhelming majority of scholars do not hold this view. Virtually all biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted, and in modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.

Sources

Main article: Sources for the historicity of Jesus

 

Judea Province during the 1st century

The New Testament represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity, and there are many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings in the first centuries AD that are related to Jesus.

New Testament sources

Synoptic Gospels

Main article: Gospels

 

An 11th-century Byzantine manuscript containing the opening of the Gospel of Luke

The Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded. These religious gospels–the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Luke–recount the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of a Jew named Jesus who spoke Aramaic. There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities, and were later translated into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Historians often study the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles when studying the reliability of the gospels, as the Book of Acts was seemingly written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke.

Pauline epistles

The seven Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine are dated to between AD 50 and 60 (i.e., approximately twenty to thirty years after the generally accepted time period for the death of Jesus) and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that may include information about Jesus. Although Paul the Apostle provides relatively little biographical information about Jesus and states that he never knew Jesus personally, he does make it clear that he considers Jesus to have been a real person and a Jew. Moreover, he claims to have met with James, the brother of Jesus and Jesus's apostles Peter and John.

Non-Christian sources

Josephus and Tacitus

Non-Christian sources used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include the c. first century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources, such as the Pauline letters and synoptic gospels, and are usually independent of each other; that is, the Jewish sources do not draw upon the Roman sources. Similarities and differences between these sources are used in the authentication process.

In Books 18 and 20 of Antiquities of the Jews, written around AD 93 to 94, Josephus twice refers to the biblical Jesus. The general scholarly view holds that the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, most likely consists of an authentic nucleus that was subjected to later Christian interpolation or forgery. On the other hand, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman states that "few have doubted the genuineness" of the reference found in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".

Tacitus, in his Annals (written c. AD 115), book 15, chapter 44, describes Nero's scapegoating of the Christians following the Fire of Rome. He writes that the founder of the sect was named Christus (the Christian title for Jesus); that he was executed under Pontius Pilate; and that the movement, initially checked, broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself. The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.

Mishnah

The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus as it reflects the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or magician. Other references to Jesus and his execution exist in the Talmud, but they aim to discredit his actions, not deny his existence.

Critical-historical research

Main articles: Historical criticism, Textual criticism, and Biblical hermeneutics

Quest for the historical Jesus

Main article: Quest for the historical Jesus

Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during that phase. Various criteria of authenticity are developed and employed to distinguish early oral elements from later literary elements in the Gospel stories, regarding those early elements as original elements of Jesus' teachings and biography.

Currently modern scholarly research on the historical Jesus focuses on what is historically probable, or plausible about Jesus. Since the late 2000s, concerns have been growing about the usefulness of these criteria.

Historical Jesus

Main articles: Historical Jesus and Portraits of the historical Jesus

 

Part of the ancient Madaba Map showing two possible baptism locations

 

Bronzino's depiction of the Crucifixion with three nails, no ropes, and a hypopodium standing support, c. 1545

There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus, the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings. Many scholars have questioned the authenticity and reliability of these sources, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.

Baptism and crucifixion

The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain. He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts' they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission." John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader. The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent. Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus.

Amy-Jill Levine has summarized the situation by stating that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life" in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, and over a period of one to three years debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who officiated 26–36 AD.

Other episodes

There is much in dispute as to his previous life, childhood, family and place of residence, of which the canonical gospels are almost completely silent.

Scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to other episodes. E. P. Sanders proposed eight "indisputable facts" about Jesus's life as a framework for biographical discussion: Jesus was a Galilean preacher.

• His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea.
• He was baptized by John the Baptist.
• He called disciples.
• He had a controversy at the Temple.
• Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem.
• After his death his disciples continued.
• Some of his disciples were persecuted.

Scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal. Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus; the miracles, such as turning water into wine, feeding the multitude, walking on water, and various cures, exorcisms, and resurrections; his own resurrection; and certain details about his crucifixion.

Portraits of the historical Jesus

Main article: Portraits of the historical Jesus

 

In the 21st century, the third quest for the historical Jesus witnessed a fragmentation of the scholarly portraits of Jesus.

The portraits of Jesus constructed in the quests have often differed from each other, and from the image portrayed in the gospel accounts. There are overlapping attributes among the portraits, and while pairs of scholars may agree on some attributes, those same scholars may differ on other attributes, and there is no single portrait of the historical Jesus that satisfies most scholars. The mainstream profiles in the third quest may be grouped together based on their primary theme as apocalyptic prophet; charismatic healer; Cynic philosopher; Jewish Messiah; and prophet of social change; but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it. There are, however, overlapping attributes among the portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.

Efficacy of prayer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer 

 

A child praying before lunch in the United States, during the Great Depression in 1936

The efficacy of prayer has been studied since at least 1872, generally through experiments to determine whether prayer or intercessory prayer has a measurable effect on the health of the person for whom prayer is offered. Empirical research indicates that prayer and intercessory prayer have no discernible effects.

While some religious groups argue that the power of prayer is obvious, others question whether it is possible to measure its effect. Dr. Fred Rosner, an authority on Jewish medical ethics, has expressed doubt that prayer could ever be subject to empirical analysis. Basic philosophical questions bear upon the question of the efficacy of prayer – for example, whether statistical inference and falsifiability are sufficient to "prove" or to "disprove" anything, and whether the topic is even within the realm of science.

According to The Washington Post, "...prayer is the most common complement to mainstream medicine, far outpacing acupuncture, herbs, vitamins and other alternative remedies." In comparison to other fields that have been scientifically studied, carefully monitored studies of prayer are relatively few. The field remains tiny, with about $5 million spent worldwide on such research each year.^[7]

Studies of intercessory prayer

First person studies

A Bolivian aymara woman praying

Studies can verify that those who pray are affected by the experience, including certain physiological outcomes. An example of a study on meditative prayer was the Bernardi study in the British Medical Journal in 2001. It reported that by praying the rosary or reciting yoga mantras at specific rates, baroreflex sensitivity increased significantly in cardiovascular patients.

A study published in 2008 used Eysenck's dimensional model of personality based on neuroticism and psychoticism to assess the mental health of high school students based on their self-reported frequency of prayer. For students both in Catholic and Protestant schools, higher levels of prayer were associated with better mental health as measured by lower psychoticism scores. However, among pupils attending Catholic schools, higher levels of prayer were also associated with higher neuroticism scores.

Lourdes: hoping for a miracle

It has also been suggested that if a person knows that he or she is being prayed for it can be uplifting and increase morale, thus aiding recovery. (See Subject-expectancy effect.) Studies have suggested that prayer can reduce psychological stress, regardless of the god or gods a person prays to, a result that is consistent with a variety of hypotheses as to what may cause such an effect. According to a study by CentraState Healthcare System, "the psychological benefits of prayer may help reduce stress and anxiety, promote a more positive outlook, and strengthen the will to live." Other practices such as Yoga, T'ai chi, and meditation may also have a positive impact on physical and psychological health.

A 2001 study by Meisenhelder and Chandler analyzed data obtained from 1,421 Presbyterian pastors surveyed by mail and found that their self-reported frequency of prayer was well-correlated with their self-perception of health and vitality. This research methodology has inherent problems with self-selection, selection bias, and residual confounding, and the authors admitted that the direction of perceived prayer and health relationships "remains inconclusive due to the limits of the correlational research design".

Third party studies

Various controlled studies have addressed the topic of the efficacy of prayer at least since Francis Galton in 1872. Carefully monitored studies of prayer are relatively scarce with $5 million spent worldwide on such research each year. The largest study, from the 2006 STEP project, found no significant differences in patients recovering from heart surgery whether the patients were prayed for or not.

The third party studies reported either null results, correlated results, or contradictory results in which beneficiaries of prayer had worsened health outcomes. For instance, a meta-analysis of several studies related to distant intercessory healing published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2000 looked at 2774 patients in 23 studies, and found that 13 studies showed statistically significant positive results, 9 studies showed no effect, and 1 study showed a negative result.

A 2003 levels of evidence review found evidence for the hypothesis that "Being prayed for improves physical recovery from acute illness". It concluded that although "a number of studies" have tested this hypothesis, "only three have sufficient rigor for review here" (Byrd 1988, Harris et al. 1999, and Sicher et al. 1998). In all three, "the strongest findings were for the variables that were evaluated most subjectively", raising concerns about the possible inadvertent unmasking of the outcomes' assessors. Other meta-studies of the broader literature have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect. For instance, a 2006 meta analysis on 14 studies concluded that there is "no discernible effect" while a 2007 systemic review of intercessory prayer reported inconclusive results, noting that 7 of 17 studies had "small, but significant, effect sizes" but the review noted that the three most methodologically rigorous studies failed to produce significant findings.

Belief and skepticism

Medical views

Most scientists dismiss "faith healing" practitioners. Some opponents of the study of faith healing assert that because it is a pseudoscience, this means that by definition it makes no scientific claims and therefore should be treated as a matter of faith that is not testable by science. Critics reply that claims of medical cures should be tested scientifically because, although faith in the supernatural is not in itself usually considered to be the purview of science, claims of reproducible effects are nevertheless subject to scientific investigation.

Scientists and doctors generally find that faith healing lacks biological plausibility or epistemic warrant, which is one of the criteria used to judge whether clinical research is ethical and financially justified. A Cochrane review of intercessory prayer found "although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer, the majority do not". The authors concluded: "We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken and would prefer to see any resources available for such a trial used to investigate other questions in health care".

An article in the Medical Journal of Australia says that "One common criticism of prayer research is that prayer has become a popular therapeutic method for which there is no known plausible mechanism."

Medical professionals are skeptical of new claims by studies until they have been experimentally reproduced and corroborated. For instance, a 2001 study by researchers associated with Columbia University has been associated with controversy, following claims of success in the popular media.

Although different medical studies have been at odds with one another, physicians have not stopped studying prayer. This may be partly because prayer is increasingly used as a coping mechanism for patients.

Skepticism on scope of prayer

A family at prayer

In a debate/interview in Newsweek with Christian evangelical Rick Warren, atheist Sam Harris commented that most lay perceptions of the efficacy of prayer (personal impressions as opposed to empirical studies) were related to sampling error because "we know that humans have a terrible sense of probability." That is, humans are more inclined to recognize confirmations of their faith than they are to recognize disconfirmations.

Harris also criticized existing empirical studies for limiting themselves to prayers for relatively unmiraculous events, such as recovery from heart surgery. He suggested a simple experiment to settle the issue:

Get a billion Christians to pray for a single amputee. Get them to pray that God regrow that missing limb. This happens to salamanders every day, presumably without prayer; this is within the capacity of God. I find it interesting that people of faith only tend to pray for conditions that are self-limiting.

Religious and philosophical issues

Praying to the Madonna of the Rosary, by Caravaggio, 1606-1607

 

See also: Relationship between religion and science

Religious and philosophical objections to the very study of prayer's efficacy exist. Some interpret Deuteronomy (6:16 "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test") to mean that prayer cannot, or should not, be examined.

The religious viewpoint objects to the claim that prayer is susceptible to experimental designs or statistical analysis, and other assumptions in many experiments, e.g. that a thousand prayers are statistically different from one. The objections also include the complaint that religion generally deals with unique, uncontrollable events; statistics, and science in general, deal with recurring phenomena which are possible to sample or control and are susceptible to general laws.

Religious objections also include the complaint that as prayer starts to be measured, it is no longer real prayer once it gets involved in an experiment and that the concept of conducting prayer experiments reflects a misunderstanding of the purpose of prayer. The 2006 STEP experiment indicated that some of the intercessors who took part in it complained about the scripted nature of the prayers that were imposed to them, saying that this is not the way they usually conduct prayer:

Prior to the start of this study, intercessors reported that they usually receive information about the patient's age, gender and progress reports on their medical condition; converse with family members or the patient (not by fax from a third party); use individualized prayers of their own choosing; and pray for a variable time period based on patient or family request.

With respect to expectation of a response to prayer, the 18th-century philosopher William Paley wrote:

To pray for particular favors is to dictate to Divine Wisdom, and savors of presumption; and to intercede for other individuals or for nations, is to presume that their happiness depends upon our choice, and that the prosperity of communities hangs upon our interest.

During the 20th century, philosopher Bertrand Russell believed that religion and science "have long been at war, claiming for themselves the same territory, ideas and allegiances". And Russell believed that the war had been decisively won by science. Almost 40 years earlier, a 22-year-old Russell also wrote: "For although I had long ceased to believe in the efficacy of prayer, I was so lonely and so in need of some supporter such as the Christian God, that I took to saying prayers again when I ceased to believe in their efficacy."

The 21st-century evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, describing how Richard Swinburne explained away the STEP experiment's negative results "on the grounds that God answers prayers only if they are offered up for good reasons", finds one predictable result of prayer:

Other theologians joined NOMA-inspired sceptics in contending that studying prayer in this way is a waste of money because supernatural influences are by definition beyond the reach of science. But as the Templeton Foundation correctly recognized when it financed the study, the alleged power of intercessory prayer is at least in principle within the reach of science. A double-blind experiment can be done and was done. It could have yielded a positive result. And if it had, can you imagine that a single religious apologist would have dismissed it on the grounds that scientific research has no bearing on religious matters? Of course not.

 

Christian apologetics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics 

Christian apologetics (Ancient Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence") is a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections.

Christian apologetics has taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul the Apostle in the early church and Patristic writers such as Origen, Augustine of Hippo, Justin Martyr and Tertullian, then continuing with writers such as Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham and Anselm of Canterbury during Scholasticism.

Blaise Pascal was an active Christian apologist before the Age of Enlightenment. In the modern period, Christianity was defended through the efforts of many authors such as G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis, as well as G. E. M. Anscombe.

In contemporary times, Christianity is defended through the work of figures such as Peter Kreeft, Norman Geisler, Robert Barron, Scott Hahn, John Lennox, Lee Strobel, Francis Collins, Alvin Plantinga, Hugh Ross, James White, Gary Habermas, Frank Turek, Michael Licona, and William Lane Craig.

History

Jewish precursors

According to Edgar J. Goodspeed in the first century CE Jewish apologetic elements could be seen in works such as The Wisdom of Solomon, Philo's On the Contemplative Life and more explicitly in Josephus' Against Apion.

Apostolic and post-apostolic period

Christian apologetics first appear in the New Testament (e. g. Paul's preaching on Mars Hill in Acts 17:22-31). During the subapostolic age Christianity was already competing with Judaism as well as with various other religions and sects in the Greco-Roman world. Christian apologetics can be first seen in the ''Preaching of Peter'' (Gospel of Peter), but the first explicitly apologetic work comes from Quadratus of Athens (c. 125 CE) in which he writes a defense of the faith to emperor Hadrian. Only a fragment, quoted by Eusebius, has survived to our day:

"But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:—those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day." (Church History iv. 3. 2)

One of the first comprehensive attacks on Christianity came from the Greek philosopher Celsus, who wrote The True Word (c.175 CE), a polemic criticizing Christians as being unprofitable members of society. In response, the church father Origen published his apologetic treatise Contra Celsum, or Against Celsus, which systematically addressed Celsus's criticisms and helped bring Christianity a level of academic respectability. In the treatise, Origen writes from the perspective of a Platonic philosopher, drawing extensively on the teachings of Plato. Contra Celsum is widely regarded by modern scholars as one of the most important works of early Christian apologetics.

Other apologists from this period are Aristides of Athens, the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, Aristo of Pella, Tatian, Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Athenagoras of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Origen, Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Cyprian, and Victorinus of Pettau,

Middle Ages and Early Modern Period

Anselm of Canterbury propounded the ontological argument in his Proslogion. Thomas Aquinas presented five ways, or arguments for God's existence, in the Summa Theologica, while his Summa contra Gentiles was a major apologetic work. Aquinas also made significant criticisms of the ontological argument which resulted in its losing popularity until it was revived by Rene Descartes in his Meditations. Blaise Pascal outlined an approach to apologetics in his Pensées: "Men despise religion; they hate it and fear it is true. To remedy this, we must begin by showing that religion is not contrary to reason; that it is venerable, to inspire respect for it; then we must make it lovable, to make good men hope it is true; finally, we must prove it is true."

Late Modern Period

Christian apologetics continues in modern times in a wide variety of forms. Among the Roman Catholics there are Bishop Robert Barron, G. K. Chesterton, Ronald Knox, Taylor Marshall, Arnold Lunn, Karl Keating, Michael Voris, Peter Kreeft, Frank Sheed, Dr. Scott Hahn, and Patrick Madrid. The Russian Orthodox Seraphim Rose is perhaps the best known modern, English speaking Eastern Orthodox apologist. Among the Evangelicals there is the Anglican C. S. Lewis (who popularized the argument now known as Lewis's trilemma). Among Protestant apologists of the 19th century there was William Paley who popularized the Watchmaker analogy. In the first half of the 20th century, many Christian fundamentalists became well known apologists. Some of the best known are R. A. Torrey and John Gresham Machen. Evangelical Norman Geisler, Lutheran John Warwick Montgomery and Presbyterian Francis Schaeffer were among the most prolific Christian apologists in the latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st, while Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til started a new school of philosophical apologetics called presuppositionalism, which is popular in Calvinist circles.

Others include William Lane Craig, Douglas Groothuis, Josh McDowell, Hugo Anthony Meynell, Timothy J. Keller, Francis Collins, Vishal Mangalwadi, Richard Bauckham, Craig Evans, Darrell Bock, John F. MacArthur, Michael R. Licona, Ravi Zacharias and John Lennox.

Terminology and origin

The original Greek apologia (ἀπολογία, from ἀπολογέομαι, apologeomai, "speak in return, defend oneself") was a formal verbal defense, either in response to accusation or prosecution in a court of law. The defense of Socrates as presented by Plato and Xenophon was an apologia against charges of "corrupting the young, and … not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other daimonia that are novel".

In later use 'apologia' sometimes took a literary form in early Christian discourse as an example of the integration of educated Christians into the cultural life of the Roman Empire, particularly during the "little peace" of the 3rd century, and of their participation in the Greek intellectual movement broadly known as the Second Sophistic. The Christian apologists of the early Church did not reject Greek philosophy, but attempted to show the positive value of Christianity in dynamic relation to the Greek rationalist tradition.

In the 2nd century, apologetics was a defense or explanation of Christianity, addressed to those standing in opposition and those yet to form an opinion, such as emperors and other authority figures, or potential converts. The earliest martyr narrative has the spokesman for the persecuted present a defense in the apologetic mode: Christianity was a rational religion that worshiped only God, and although Christians were law-abiding citizens willing to honor the emperor, their belief in a single divinity prevented them from taking the loyalty oaths that acknowledged the emperor's divinity.

The apologetic historiography in the Acts of the Apostles presented Christianity as a religious movement at home within the Roman Empire and no threat to it and was a model for the first major historian of the Church, Eusebius. Apologetics might also be directed to Christians already within the community explain their beliefs and justify positions. Origen's apologetic Contra Celsum, for instance, provided a defense against the arguments of a critic dead for decades to provide answers to doubting Christians lacking immediate answers to the questions raised. Apologetic literature was an important medium for the formation of early Christian identity.

In addition to Origen and Tertullian, early Christian apologists include Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and the author of the Epistle to Diognetus. Augustine of Hippo was a significant apologist of the Patristic era. Some scholars regard apologetics as a distinct literary genre exhibiting commonalities of style and form, content, and strategies of argumentation. Others viewed it as a form of discourse characterized by its tone and purpose.

Biblical basis

R. C. Sproul, quoting the First Epistle of Peter, writes that "The defense of the faith is not a luxury or intellectual vanity. It is a task appointed by God that you should be able to give a reason for the hope that is in you as you bear witness before the world." The verse quoted here reads in full: "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."

Another passage sometimes used as a biblical basis for Christian apologetics is God's entreaty in the Book of Isaiah: "Come now, let us reason together." Other scriptural passages which have been taken as a basis for Christian apologetics include Psalm 19, which begins "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands," and Romans 1, which reads "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Varieties

There are a variety of Christian apologetic styles and schools of thought. The major types of Christian apologetics include historical and legal evidentialist apologetics, presuppositional apologetics, philosophical apologetics, prophetic apologetics, doctrinal apologetics, biblical apologetics, moral apologetics, and scientific apologetics.

Biblical apologetics

Biblical apologetics include issues concerned with the authorship and date of biblical books, biblical canon, and biblical inerrancy. Christian apologists defend and comment on various books of the Bible. Some scholars who have engaged in the defense of biblical inerrancy include Robert Dick Wilson, Gleason Archer, Norman Geisler and R. C. Sproul. There are several resources that Christians offer defending inerrancy in regard to specific verses. Authors defending the reliability of the Gospels include Craig Blomberg in The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Mark D. Roberts in Can We Trust the Gospels? Richard Bauckham, Craig Evans and Darrell Bock.

Experiential apologetics

Experiential apologetics is a reference to an appeal "primarily, if not exclusively, to experience as evidence for Christian faith." Also, "they spurn rational arguments or factual evidence in favor of what they believe to be a self-verifying experience." This view stresses experience that other apologists have not made as explicit, and in the end, the concept that the Holy Spirit convinces the heart of truth becomes the central theme of the apologetic argument.

Historical and legal evidentialism

A variety of arguments has been forwarded by legal scholars such as Simon Greenleaf and John Warwick Montgomery, by expert forensic investigators such as cold case homicide detective J. Warner Wallace, and academic historical scholars, such as Edwin M. Yamauchi. These arguments present a case for the historicity of the resurrection of Christ per current legal standards of evidence or undermining the pagan myth hypothesis for the origin of Christianity.

Regarding evidence for the historicity of the resurrection, A. N. Sherwin-White states:

For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.... The agnostic type of form-criticism would be much more credible if the compilation of the Gospels were much later in time.... Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth-making, [showing that] even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core.

Moral apologetics

See also: Divine command and Biblical law in Christianity

Moral apologetics states that real moral obligation is a fact. Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft said, "We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil." In moral apologetics, the arguments for man's sinfulness and man's need for redemption are stressed. Examples of this type of apologetic would be Jonathan Edwards's sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." The Four Spiritual Laws religious tract (Campus Crusade for Christ) would be another example.

Defense of miracles

See also: Miracles of Jesus

C. S. Lewis, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig and Christians who engage in jurisprudence Christian apologetics have argued that miracles are reasonable and plausible wherever an all-powerful Creator is postulated. In other words, it is postulated that if God exists, miracles cannot be postulated as impossible or inherently improbable.

Philosophical apologetics

Philosophical apologetics concerns itself primarily with arguments for the existence of God, although they do not exclusively focus on this area. They do not argue for the veracity of Christianity over other religions but merely for the existence of a Creator deity. Omnipotence and omniscience are implied in these arguments to greater or lesser degrees: some argue for an interventionist god, some are equally relevant to a Deist conception of God.

They do not support hard polytheism, but could be used to describe the first god who created many other gods; however, the arguments are only relevant when applied to the first god (the first cause, pure act and unmoved mover; it is a contradiction a priori to suppose a plurality of "pure acts" or "first causes" or "unmoved movers").

These arguments can be grouped into several categories:

1. Cosmological argument – Argues that the existence of the universe demonstrates that God exists. Various primary arguments from cosmology and the nature of causation are often offered to support the cosmological argument.
2. Teleological argument – Argues that there is a purposeful design in the world around us, and a design requires a designer. Cicero, William Paley, and Michael Behe use this argument as well as others.
3. Ontological argument – Argues that the very concept of God demands that there is an actual existent God.
4. Moral Argument – Argues that there are objectively valid moral values, and therefore, there must be an absolute from which they are derived.
5. Transcendental Argument – Argues that all our abilities to think and reason require the existence of God.
6. Presuppositional arguments – Argues that the basic beliefs of theists and nontheists require God as a necessary pre-condition.

Other philosophical arguments include:

• Alvin Plantinga's argument that belief in God is properly basic, reformed epistemology.
• Pascal's wager, is an argument that posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists.

In addition to arguments for the existence of God, Christian apologists have also attempted to respond successfully to arguments against the existence of God. Two very popular arguments against the existence of God are the hiddenness argument and the argument from evil. The hiddenness argument tries to show that a perfectly loving God's existence is incompatible with the existence of nonresistant nonbelievers. The argument from evil tries to show that the existence of evil renders God's existence unlikely or impossible.

Presuppositional apologetics

Main article: Presuppositional apologetics

Presuppositional apologetics is a Reformed Protestant methodology which claims that presuppositions are essential to any philosophical position and that there are no "neutral" assumptions from which a Christian can reason in common with a non-Christian. There are two main schools of presuppositional apologetics, that of Cornelius Van Til (and his students Greg Bahnsen and John Frame) and that of Gordon Haddon Clark.

Van Til drew upon but did not always agree with, the work of Dutch Calvinist philosophers and theologians such as D. H. Th. Vollenhoven, Herman Dooyeweerd, Hendrik G. Stoker, Herman Bavinck, and Abraham Kuyper. Bahnsen describes Van Til's approach to Christian apologetics as pointing out the difference in ultimate principles between Christians and non-Christians and then showing that the non-Christian principles reduce to absurdity. In practice, this school utilizes what has come to be known as the transcendental argument for the existence of God.

Clark held that the Scriptures constituted the axioms of Christian thought, which could not be questioned, though their consistency could be discussed. A consequence of this position is that God's existence can never be demonstrated, either by empirical means or by philosophical argument. In The Justification of Knowledge, the Calvinist theologian Robert L. Reymond argues that believers should not even attempt such proofs.

Prophetic fulfillment

See also: Postdiction

In his book Science Speaks, Peter Stoner argues that only God knows the future and that Biblical prophecies of a compelling nature have been fulfilled. Apologist Josh McDowell documents the Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by Christ, relating to his ancestral line, birthplace, virgin birth, miracles, death, and resurrection. Apologist Blaise Pascal believed that the prophecies are the strongest evidence for Christianity. He notes that Jesus not only foretold, but was foretold, unlike in other religions, and that these prophecies came from a succession of people over a span of four thousand years.

Origins apologetics

Many Christians contend that science and the Bible do not contradict each other and that scientific fact supports Christian apologetics. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge... These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator." The theologian and mathematician Marin Mersenne used celestial mechanics as evidence in his apologetic work, while Matteo Ricci engaged in scientific apologetics in China. In modern times, the theory of the Big Bang has been used in support of Christian apologetics.

Several Christian apologists have sought to reconcile Christianity and science concerning the question of origins. Theistic Evolution claims that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution and that the Creator God uses the process of evolution. Denis Lamoureux, in Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution states that "This view of origins fully embraces both the religious beliefs of biblical Christianity and the scientific theories of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution. It contends that the Creator established and maintains the laws of nature, including the mechanisms of a teleological evolution."

The most radical example of a Christian-evolutionary synthesis is the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, which was intended as apologetics to the world of science, but which was later condemned by the Catholic Church.

Creationist apologetics

The Creation Museum is a young Earth creationism museum run by the creation apologetics organization Answers in Genesis (AiG) in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Creationist apologetics aims to defend views of origins such as Young Earth creationism and Old Earth creationism that run counter to mainstream science.

Young Earth creationists believe the Bible teaches that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old, and reject the scientific consensus for the age of the Earth. They apply a literal interpretation to the primordial history in Genesis 1–11 – such as the long life spans of people such as Methuselah, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel. Among the biggest young Earth creation apologetic organizations are Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Ministries International.

Old Earth creationists believe it is possible to harmonize the Bible's six-day account of creation with the scientific consensus that the universe is 13.8 billion-years-old and Earth is 4.54 billion-years-old. Old Earth creationists, such as astrophysicist Hugh Ross, see each of the six days of creation as being a long, but finite period of time, based on the multiple meanings of the Hebrew word yom (day light hours/24 hours/age of time) and other Biblical creation passages.