"One last point went back and forth all night, and that is whether Jesus would have appeared to everyone around the world if had in fact risen from the dead. Carrier claims that he would have, and since he didn't, that is further evidence that he did not, in fact, rise from the dead. Craig pointed out that the first premise to the argument is a philosophical one, but I don't see the problem with that since so is Craig's presupposition of the existence of God. Craig responded by saying that Jesus did not even rise from the dead to convince people that he was alive, but just to commission people (something I have told him in person I think is false). He also argued based on a Molinist account of divine foreknowledge that God has so ordered the world so that everyone who would accept God based on their willingness to do so will have a sufficient basis, whether that be in evidence or not, to do so."
Below are some of my comments on that subject when it came up in past discussions. The first are from the thread here:
Regarding the questions from Carrier that you've posted, yes, we have addressed those issues or ones closely related to them. There are a lot of relevant posts in the archives. Briefly, I'll make several points in response:
- The resurrection is significant evidence for Christianity, but not the only evidence.
- Some of the evidence for the resurrection, such as the empty tomb and the testimony of eyewitnesses, has been highly public. We don't have to see the risen Jesus ourselves in order to trust others who saw Him, as we trust others who saw His death or other historical events.
- Jesus appeared to hundreds of people, including opponents of Christianity (James, Paul). There may have been other opponents who saw Him as well. The guards at the tomb and Paul's travel companions experienced evidence of the resurrection, even though we don't have any record of their having spoken with the risen Jesus or their having become Christians, for example. They or some of them may have become Christians. We don't know. But we do know that at least some enemies of Christianity saw the risen Jesus and became Christians, and we know that many people in high positions of leadership became Christians after the resurrection (Acts 6:7). We don't know the names of every enemy of Christianity who became a Christian after Jesus' resurrection or the names of every person Jesus appeared to, but we do know that many former enemies became Christians. The objection that Jesus didn't appear to more enemies is questionable, since we don't know who all He appeared to and since a resurrection appearance isn't the only means of leading a person to a reliable conclusion that Jesus rose or that Christianity is true. For example, if the tomb was sealed and guarded as Matthew's gospel describes (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/guard.html), then the tomb's becoming empty would be significant evidence supporting the resurrection, even without people having seen the risen Jesus themselves.
- Why should we think that critics wouldn't dismiss Jesus' appearances to other enemies of Christianity in the same manner in which they dismiss the appearances to enemies that we know about? If Jesus appeared to Pontius Pilate or performed a miracle of some other type before the emperor, for example, how do we know that critics wouldn't dismiss those reports in much the same way that they dismiss the experiences of James, Paul, and, later on, Constantine?
- When people like Richard Carrier have come up with a sufficient naturalistic explanation of the resurrection evidence we have, then we can be concerned about why there isn't more evidence. But since they haven't even come close to a sufficient explanation of what we do have, then objecting that we don't have more evidence doesn't accomplish much.
And from another thread:
We should keep in mind that the "few" Christ appeared to were at least hundreds of people. For the large majority of them, we don't know whether they were believers prior to the appearances. It seems that James, Paul, and Paul's travel companions, at the least, weren't. And appearances aren't the only evidence for such an event. The testimony of witnesses is evidence for people who weren't witnesses themselves, as is the case in other areas of life. The empty tomb, particularly after a guard had been posted, was evidence. So were the miracles performed by some of the witnesses. Paul's ability to perform miracles after seeing the resurrected Christ would add credibility to his testimony, for example. Why should we limit our evaluation of the evidence people had to the one category of direct sightings of the risen Jesus? That's not the only evidence people had. It's not as if dismissing the testimony of hundreds (or more) of people becomes reasonable just because you weren't one of the witnesses or just because the number of witnesses could have been larger. People had sufficient evidence without Christ's appearing to more people.
When more people did have direct access to an event, as with some of Jesus' pre-resurrection miracles and the darkness at the crucifixion, for example, the early opponents of Christianity tried to dismiss those miracles as works of Satan or, in the case of the darkness, an unusual natural occurrence. We don't have to wonder whether some people would have been willing to dismiss miracles even after having high quality evidence for them. The early enemies of Christianity who dismissed Jesus as a sorcerer or magician, for example, weren't denying that apparent miracles had occurred. Rather, they were looking for a way to dismiss the implications Christians associated with those miracles. Jesus' pre-resurrection miracles, His prophecy fulfillments, the miracles of His apostles, etc. were often of a highly public nature, yet both ancient and modern critics look for ways to dismiss those more public events as well. It's not as though these critics are more receptive of the more public miracles.
When critics can offer an explanation of Christ's appearances to "few" that's comparable to or better than the Christian explanation, then they can demand more evidence. But since they can't offer a comparable or better explanation for the few, but instead offer explanations that are far weaker, why ask for more than a few? In light of the principles Paul lays out in Acts 17:26-27, our focus should be on the evidence we have, not speculations about what might have happened with more evidence. We can speculate that Pontius Pilate would have become a Christian if Jesus had appeared to Him after the resurrection, but we can also speculate that he would have responded along the lines of Mark 3:22.
T-bloggers, you may enjoy this web site,
ReplyDeletewww.atheistmissionary.com
Apparently Peter Singer is a great thinker with deep moral convictions. Check it out!
i) I agree with Jason. If the NT said that Jesus appeared to thousands of people on Easter, they’d dismiss that claim–since they’d dismiss the source of the claim. They’d assure is that the NT is unreliable historical witness.
ReplyDeleteii) Or they’d invoke mass hallucination.
iii) If Roman historians reported the Resurrection, they’d dismiss that claim as a surefire mark of ancient superstition–they way the automatically discount the miracles reported in Josephus.
iv) As a last resort, they’d fall back Hume’s dictum that any alternative explanation, however improbable, is more probable than a miraculous explanation.
To say that Jesus didn’t appear to enough people, or to the right kind of people, is just a diversionary tactic.
In the circular logic of the unbeliever, a miraculous report automatically discredits the reporter. If anyone reports a miracle, then he must be unreliable!
When people like Richard Carrier have come up with a sufficient naturalistic explanation of the resurrection evidence we have, then we can be concerned
ReplyDeleteBe concerned.
Here is a sufficient naturalistic explanation for your "evidence": people make up stories.
See Matt 27:52, for an easy example.
unBeguiled wrote:
ReplyDelete"Here is a sufficient naturalistic explanation for your ‘evidence’: people make up stories. See Matt 27:52, for an easy example."
In addition to the fact that people make up stories, we have the fact that people tell the truth. Neither fact settles the dispute over the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection.
But your response does tell us something about your mindset. It suggests that you’re highly irrational and careless, for example.
I’ve addressed the passage in Matthew 27 elsewhere.
In addition to the fact that people make up stories, we have the fact that people tell the truth. Neither fact settles the dispute over the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection.
ReplyDeleteCorrect, but that is not the issue I am discussing. Rather, I am pointing out an obvious natural explanation for the so-called evidence.
So according to your own words Jason, you should be concerned.
The Craig/Carrier debate is now up on youtube.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqoRVplbW5Q
unBeguiled wrote:
ReplyDelete“Rather, I am pointing out an obvious natural explanation for the so-called evidence.”
Earlier, you said that the explanation is “sufficient”. Now you’re saying it’s “obvious”. I deny that it’s a sufficient explanation, and I deny that it’s obvious in the sense of obviously sufficient. It’s an obvious possibility, but the same can be said of other explanations (the traditional Christian view, the hallucination view, etc.). But being obviously possible isn’t the same as being obviously sufficient. I was addressing the latter. When discussing history, a possible explanation isn't enough. What we want is the best explanation. Surely you’re aware of at least some of the Christian arguments against the view that the resurrection is a “made up story”. You would need to interact with such arguments rather than just asserting that the view you’re advocating is sufficient.
To expand on what I said in my last post, it should be noted that the “made up story” explanation can be applied to purported natural events as well. But we don’t consider it sufficient to dismiss any natural event we don’t want to accept as a made up story just because such an explanation is possible. We would want the best explanation.
ReplyDeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
When people like Richard Carrier have come up with a sufficient naturalistic explanation of the resurrection evidence we have, then we can be concerned
I responded by saying that a natural explanation would be that the evidence is just fabricated.
That is, people wrote that some people found the empty tomb, but in fact that could be just a made up story. Other people wrote that some people saw Jesus alive after he died, but the writers could have just made that story up too.
Hearsay evidence is extremely weak.
So, there you have a natural explanation that sufficiently accounts for the evidence.
Be concerned, as you said.
unBeguiled wrote:
ReplyDelete"That is, people wrote that some people found the empty tomb, but in fact that could be just a made up story. Other people wrote that some people saw Jesus alive after he died, but the writers could have just made that story up too. Hearsay evidence is extremely weak."
Again, the issue isn't what "could" have happened. The issue is the best explanation of the evidence.
I don't know how you're using the term "hearsay", but calling the evidence "extremely weak" doesn't address how we can best understand that evidence. If the data we have is extremely weak, that weakness doesn't select your explanation as the best explanation of the data.
Some of the New Testament documents claim in the main body of their text to be written by eyewitnesses of the resurrection. Other New Testament documents make that claim by means of the title of the document, and the claim is made for these documents by means of early authorship attribution. If you want us to believe that such documents represent "people writing what some people" experienced, instead of eyewitness testimony, then you'll need to argue for that position rather than just asserting it. We've argued for the eyewitness status of such documents at length on this blog. And we've argued for the sincerity of those eyewitnesses. We've made our case. Where's yours?
The large majority of scholars, including many non-conservatives and non-Christians, affirm the historicity of the empty tomb and the early Christians' belief that they saw the risen Christ. Even atheist and other non-Christian scholars, such as Gerd Ludemann and John Dominic Crossan, acknowledge that we at least have eyewitness testimony of a resurrection appearance in the writings of Paul. If you're going to deny the historicity of the empty tomb, you're in the minority. And if you're going to deny the historicity of the early Christians' belief that they saw the risen Christ and the fact that we have testimony from at least one eyewitness, then you're in a tiny minority that's opposed by even the large majority of non-Christian scholars. For a discussion of the status of scholarship on these issues and an explanation of some of the evidence that's led scholars to their conclusions, see here.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteYou have missed my point.
I am not claiming that my "made up story" hypothesis is the best explanation of the evidence.
Rather, my hypothesis is simply an example of a naturalistic account of the evidence. That's all.
It seems you want me to defend a position I don't hold.
----------------------
Let's try this:
Give me one piece of evidence for the resurrection that could not be accounted for by a fabricated story.
Beguiled (hey, I call 'em as I see 'em) said:
ReplyDelete---
Give me one piece of evidence for the resurrection that could not be accounted for by a fabricated story.
---
Just as soon as you give me one piece of evidence for the existence of Nero that could not be accounted for by a fabricated story.
Hmmm. You should listen to Jason's responses to you before you continue to bash your head against the rocks.
Just as soon as you give me one piece of evidence for the existence of Nero that could not be accounted for by a fabricated story.
ReplyDeleteI can't.
Thank you for helping me make my point, Peter.
unBeguiled wrote:
ReplyDelete"You have missed my point. I am not claiming that my 'made up story' hypothesis is the best explanation of the evidence. Rather, my hypothesis is simply an example of a naturalistic account of the evidence. That's all."
This discussion between us began with your response to something I wrote. I asked for a sufficient naturalistic explanation. You said that your naturalistic explanation is sufficient. I then explained to you what I meant when I referred to a sufficient explanation. What you're giving us doesn't meet that definition. You're the one who's missing the point.
And why would you want to accept an explanation that isn't the best one? Why post a series of responses to me in order to argue that it's possible that a historical account is a story that's been made up? Who isn't aware of that fact? Other views are possible as well, such as the view that the witnesses to the resurrection were hallucinating, which I referred to above. Since I acknowledged early on that there are multiple possible explanations, why did you keep responding to me and keep acting as if you disagreed with me? You're not making sense.
Given the irrationality of your behavior so far, your errant appeal to Matthew 27, your failure to even attempt a defense of that errant view once it was challenged, and your failure to even attempt an interaction with the evidence I cited for the resurrection (much of which you misrepresented), it looks like you're an ignorant skeptic who doesn't know how to defend what he believes, but wants to keep up appearances. How much time do you think a historian of ancient Rome would give you if you told him that it's possible that all of the accounts of Nero's life are made up stories, especially if you acknowledged to him that you don't think such a view is the best explanation of the evidence?
In a recent thread on another blog, unBeguiled wrote:
ReplyDelete"Dr. Craig is an apologist. His goal is to defend a certain position. That is quite different from someone who is primarily interested in what is most likely true."
What interest in "what is most likely true" has unBeguiled shown in this thread?
Jason,
ReplyDeleteIt seems we are talking past each other. I'll make a final point and leave you alone. I was simply responding to a single statement you made. A statement I think is clearly a mistake.
My point is this:
For any claim of a historical event, if the evidence we have for that event comes from writings, then that evidence could be fabricated.
It seems clear to me, that my "made up story" hypothesis is a sufficient naturalistic explanation of the resurrection evidence
Thanks for your time.
unBeguiled wrote:
ReplyDelete"For any claim of a historical event, if the evidence we have for that event comes from writings, then that evidence could be fabricated. It seems clear to me, that my 'made up story' hypothesis is a sufficient naturalistic explanation of the resurrection evidence"
Again, when discussing history, the issue is probability, not possibility. Your assertion that evidence could be fabricated, followed by a statement about what "seems clear" to you, doesn't establish the best explanation for the data.
I was the one who initially used the "sufficient naturalistic explanation" phrase that you responded to. I've explained what I meant by it. You keep disregarding that explanation. And you disregard it in order to make an insignificant point that isn't in dispute, namely that naturalistic explanations are possible.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI think maybe you did not read this that I wrote above:
Let's try this:
Give me one piece of evidence for the resurrection that could not be accounted for by a fabricated story.
Since you cannot do that, then you should retract the mistake you made in the original post.
Here endeth the lesson.
Beguiled obviously does not exist. The only proof we have for his existence is words on a computer screen, and anyone with a computer could have written that. In fact, for all I know, I wrote it when I was in a trance state (Nevada) or something.
ReplyDeleteNot only is there nothing that Beguiled has said that could not be fabricated, but all of it obviously has been fabricated.
In other words, Beguiled has marginalized himself better than any one of us could have done. He is the only one who doesn't realize he's an idiot (but that's only because he doesn't exist, and how can a non-existent entity realize it's an idiot? I mean, srsly, ain't there like logic 'n stuff somewhar?)
Here endeth the lesson.
Since we never met Unbeguiled face-to-face, all our info on this alleged individual amounts to hearsay evidence, which–as someone recently assured us–is "extremely weak" evidence.
ReplyDeleteThere's an obvious natural explanation that sufficiently accounts for the evidence: Unbeguiled is a computer malfunction.
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2009/03/craig-debate-wrap.html?showComment=1237759020000#c1465597901818253044
ReplyDeleteHow do we know that unBeguiled met some guys who said that? We just have his say-so, which would be hearsay evidence, which he assures us is extremely weak evidence. Surely he doesn't think we should just take his word for it that he met some guys who said that.
We need firsthand evidence that they said what he says they said, don't we? Maybe he just made up that story. Wouldn't that be a sufficient explanation?