Reality of the Resurrection -- Part 1

EMAIL THIS PAGE

RSS

SHARE THIS PAGE:

Reality of the Resurrection -- Part 1

April 5, 2010, 12:15 am » Brett Kunkle

Last Sunday millions of Christians celebrated Easter. But if the bones of Jesus were found tomorrow, would you walk away from Christianity? You should.

Why? Because faith in a dead Jesus is worthless. Even the Apostle Paul says so. In I Corinthians 15:14, he writes, “if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” Did you catch that? The bones of Jesus would make our faith useless.

C’mon Paul, isn’t that kind of harsh? No and here’s why. Imagine a group of people who have dedicated their lives to Peter Pan. They construct a beautiful building to gather in celebration of Pan’s life. They sing songs to him and tell stories about his wonderful deeds. What would you think about such a group? What a waste of life. Peter Pan is a fairytale. We should feel sorry for such people.

Well, if Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave, then Christianity is a fairytale. Just like Peter Pan, it’s make believe and Christians are wasting their lives. And what should people think about us? Paul concludes that if Christ hasn’t been raised, “we are to be pitied more than all men” (verse 19).

So, when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, what’s at stake for Christians? Everything.

How in the world do we show that a 2,000-year-old event actually happened? Mary Magdalene didn’t whip out her flip camera and record footage of the resurrected Jesus. The disciples didn’t snap post-resurrection photos on their iPhones and then upload them to Facebook for all their friends to see. So what’s a historian to do? Two things in particular:

#1 – Find the facts: Historians rely on historical data like archeology, ancient documents and recorded eyewitness testimony to reconstruct the past. In addition, certain principles guide them in determining which historical accounts are reliable and which are not. For example, if there are several independent sources reporting the same event, that’s pretty reliable history. If those sources are actual eyewitnesses and not secondhand reports, that’s pretty reliable history. If those eyewitness accounts are closer in time to the actual event, that’s pretty reliable history. Given this process of investigation, historians can discover historical facts.

#2 – Find the best explanation: Once the historian has gathered her facts, she looks for an explanation that fits the facts. She has to determine if the facts support an alleged historical event. Sometimes she concludes “yes” and sometimes “no.” There are plenty of times when there just aren’t enough facts so the historian simply says, “We don’t know what really happened.” Since there is no video footage for most of human history, the honest historian does her best to the follow the facts to the best possible explanation.

(Continued tomorrow...)

Comments

Mon, 04/05/2010 - 20:21 — CT

"But if the bones of Jesus were found tomorrow, would you walk away from Christianity? You should. "

Out of curiosity, what if human bones were found and we could accurately assign a 90% probability that they belonged to Jesus. Should you then walk away from Christianity? If not, how about a 99% probability?

I am curious to know how, under such circumstances, your own deliberations would proceed.

Fri, 04/09/2010 - 18:25 — Brett Kunkle

CT, a few thoughts:

First, assigning probabilities to such things is notoriously difficult because probabilities can only be assigned in light of other background beliefs. But individuals may not share those background beliefs and thus, talk of probabilities is virtually pointless.

Second, the cogency of an argument is person-relative--what convinces me might not convince you. But personally, if I found that the evidence against Jesus' resurrection was 90-10, I'd have to be intellectually honest and seriously reconsider. But it's difficult at this point to know exactly how I would proceed without some idea of the details of the evidence against the resurrection.

Mon, 04/12/2010 - 20:41 — CT

Brett,

First, there's no need to interpret the assigned probability as probability-given-what-you-believe. If I flip a coin, there is a 50% probability that it will land on heads, and this probability is independent of anyone's "background beliefs." You may interpret the assigned probability like this.

Second, if intellectual honesty would require you to "seriously reconsider," why wouldn't intellectual honesty require the same of others similarly placed? In what sense are the requirements of intellectual honesty "person-relative"?

Third, you say that it's "difficult to know exactly how to proceed without some idea of the details of the evidence against the resurrection." Suppose, then, this: everything else remains exactly as is, except that there is one new piece of evidence whose only relevance is that it conclusively establishes the hypothesized probability.

Mon, 04/12/2010 - 22:43 — Brett Kunkle

I didn't claim the "requirements of intellectual honesty" are person-relative. Cogency (it's strength of persuasion) is person-relative. For example, I may find the moral argument to very persuasive for the conclusion that God exists. Some else might not, for various reasons. It's compelling for me but not for them.

Like I said, if I was convinced that we had the bones of Jesus, I'd walk away from Christianity. Do you have some bones for me to look at? ;)

Wed, 04/21/2010 - 05:45 — CT

Psychological facts about your own peculiar level of persuadability are not so interesting. The original question I put to you asked you what you should do (that is, in the normative sense), given the hypothesized probability. Presumably the norms determining this (such as "requirements of intellectual honesty") are not "person-relative". Let's try to keep the discussion on the normative question.

Mon, 04/12/2010 - 21:08 — CT

On the first point, I should rather have said this: even if you interpret the assigned probability as probability-given-background-beliefs, you needn't suppose that this involves a very complicated sharing of background beliefs. Suppose that a the flipped coin (past tense) now lies covered under my hand, it is not "virtually pointless" to speak of the 50% probability that it landed on heads. You can think of the factor determining the hypothesized probability like this.

Mon, 04/12/2010 - 22:37 — Brett Kunkle

But the coin analogy assumes shared background beliefs (e.g. coins exist, they have 2 sides). We cannot assume the same background beliefs between a theist and an atheist. For the atheist, a supernatural resurrection is not just improbable, it's impossible. So yes, trying to determine probabilities is notoriously difficult.

Wed, 04/21/2010 - 05:59 — CT

I'd almost suspect you of dodging the question. Look, not all probabilities depend upon "background beliefs." There are truths about probabilites that remain unchanged regardless of what you or I or anyone else happens to believe. Even if you reject this about coin flips, you may consider unobserved quantum level phenomena. For the sake of the hypothetical situation, we may assume that the hypothesized probability is like this. (Surely you have encountered philosophical thought experiments before.)