Unbelievers typically say they reject the Resurrection because it's too improbable. Now, one way of testing a position, even if you don't believe it, is to ask yourself what, if anything, would be different in case it were true.
Suppose you're an atheist. You don't believe in the Resurrection because it's too improbable. But as a thought-experiment, you grant the Resurrection.
As far as I can see, that would make absolutely no difference in how unbelievers lay odds on the Resurrection. Even if it happened, they'd still say it was too improbable to happen. Even though (ex hypothesi) it happened, they'd refuse to believe it because their probability calculus discounts it ahead of time.
But isn't there something screwy about that? The fact of the matter has no impact on their outlook. Whether or not it happened makes to no difference to their believing that it never happened. If our probability calculus treats events and nonevents exactly alike, don't we need to revise our probability calculus?
Whether or not one assumed that the resurrection happened, if one has no mechanism other than God for being resurrected, calculating the likelihood of the resurrection would be impossible. A likelihood requires a measurable mechanism for possibility.
ReplyDeleteFor that matter, God isn't measurable. We Christians can't even calculate a probability for the resurrection. I suggest that the low probability that unbelievers claim is actually an unproven presupposition that it can't happen anyway cloaked in a disingenuous assent to some speculated likelihood.
Exactly. Because their reason for rejecting it has to end up sounding like "science" or they'd be accused of *GASP* having faith.
DeleteBut evolution is a fact.
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting...But Jesus still rose from the dead, so therefore evolution is not worldview altering
Delete