Matthew_Green

Hello Everyone,

I am working on a potential argument against the resurrection. I thought that this would be the best place to test out my chief argument against the resurrection of Chirst. I would appreciate polite scrutiny from both fellow atheists and Christians alike. My thesis here is in the following essay that I have compiled. Feedback is more than welcome, encouraged, and deeply appreciated...

The Resurrection as a Necessary Explanation

There are two chief reasons I disbelieve that the resurrection of Jesus Christ occured as described by the four canonical New Testament gospels and argued for by Christian apologists. The chief reason that I disbelieve that the resurrection happened is because the resurrection is, frankly, self-refuting. To understand why I believe this to be the case, we have to consider the an important fact about the resurrection of Christ that leads it to self-destruct as an historical hypothesis. The important fact under consideration here is that the resurrection is a necessary historical explanation. What this means is that there is no possible way that the resurrection explanation could be false if the facts that it purports to explain really did happen. To understand why I consider the resurrection to be a necessary historical explanation, it's important to consider an aspect of Christian theology dealing with one of the attributes of the Christian God. The attribute under consideration is that of moral necessity.

God is a Morally Necessary Being

Christians believe that God is a necessary Being. What Christians believe by this is that God is a self-existent Being, uncreated, eternal and not dependent on other beings or entities for His existence. Unlike created things, God never began to exist, and is therefore not in need of a cause for His existence. God is self-existent and uncaused, having existed from eternity past and will always exist. God is uncreated and necessarily exist as opposed to created objects and entities such as we are supposed to be. Our existence is believed to be contigent on God. Without God, we simply could not exist. God doesn't need another cause for His existence as opposed to us. God is not dependent on any other source or being for his existence, his power, his nature, or any of his attributes. God is not reducible to more primary or elementary substances like contigent objects are. Thus matter can be broken down into ever smaller particles, depending on what kind of substance different forms of matter are comprised of. These ever smaller particles, whether molecular or ionic in nature, can be broken down into atoms. Atoms can further be divided into particles more elementary and primal than the atom which consists of them, and many scientists believe that the particles which make up atoms can further be reduced. Unless there is an infinite regression of divison of particles into still yet smaller and more elementary particles that comprise them, then there has to be a elementary particle or set of them that are physically prime and irreducible. These truly elementary particles are phyiscally necessary in the sense that they are irreducible and not contigent on ever smaller, more primary particles which might comprise them.

God is believed to be a necessary being as well. God is uncreated and eternal and is believed to be a metaphysically necessary being in the same way that elementary particles are believed to be phyiscally necessary corpuscles of matter. God is not irreducible or contigent on any substances, beings, forms of matter, or other existents more elementary and primary than Himself. If God is a metaphysically necessary Being than it would follow then that God is a morally necessary Being. Many Christians believe that God cannot err. God is a Being who is morally necessary in the sense that there is no other source of morality that God is dependent on or that God's nature is subject or accountable to. God is the primary source of morality in Christian theology. This makes perfect sense if God is a metaphysically necessary Being, for it's difficult to understand why a metaphysically necessary Being would need to create a metaphysically contigent source of morality that is morally necessary, making God a morally contigent Being, consequently. If God is a morally necessary Being, as Christian theology would have it, then it follows that God cannot possible err. It is impossible for God to do wrong and God can only, ever possibly do what is right. As a result, Christians believe that God cannot be tempted to do evil. It's not the case that God can be tempted to do evil but simply chooses not to. No, God, as a morally necessary Being, cannot do what is wrong.

At this point it can be asked what does this attribute of God have to do with the resurrection of Jesus? It's rather easy to understand. God cannot lie but only tell the truth. If God is a morally necessary Being, who cannot lie but only tell the truth, then whatever God says can only be true, and can not be false. Thus, if God says that the earth is flat and disk-shaped, then this proposition must necessarily be true and cannot be false. If God says that the earth was created in six literal solar days and that only four thousand years passed between the creation event and the birth of Jesus Christ, then it follows that the proclamation of God of a six-day creation must be necessarily true and cannot possibly be false. Thus, any other proposition, such as the earth being billions of years old is not only possibly, and therefore, likely to be false, it must necessarilybe so. What this has to do with the resurrection of Jesus Christ should be clear now. If God proclaims that He has raised Jesus from the dead, then it must necessarily be the case that this is true. So it is necessarily true as a matter of historical fact. Therefore, if the resurrection is a necessary historical fact by its virtue of having been proclaimed by a morally necessary Being as being true, then as an explanation to explain such facts, as Christians take them to be, such as the empty tomb, the postmortem appearances of Jesus, and the origin of Christian belief in the resurrection of Christ, the resurrection, by necessity, must be a necessary historical explanation.

The Resurrection as a Necessary Historical Explanation

If the resurrection is a necessary historical explanation, as having been established in the last section, then as a logically deductive collary, it must follow that any alternative explanation of any facts that the resurrection is purported to explain (these facts being argued for by Christians in particular; skeptics may doubt some of these "facts" and the underlying arguments purporting to demonstrate their factuality), cannot be true. Thus, any other explanation, for instance, of how the tomb of Jesus got empty should be impossible. It cannot be possible and yet simply unlikely as far as historical probabilities go. No, any other explanation for an empty tomb, for the disciples of Jesus to believe that they have seen him alive after his death, for them to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead, must be impossible. Thus the resurrection has to be true if God is a morally necessary Being and He, indeed, proclaimed that the resurrection happened as a matter of historical fact. The problem is that many Christians, particularly apologists, will argue that the resurrection is the best explanatory inference from what facts they believe the resurrection explains. This is the approach taken by Christian apologists such as William Lane Craig, Gay Habermas, Mike Licona, and others. The problem is that this is a faulty position to take for them! To argue that it's possible that the resurrection did <B>not</B> happen, but in all probability did happen, is logically equivalent to saying that its possible that God lied about the resurrection having happened, but in all probability told the truth when saying it did happen.

The Resurrection is Self-Defeating as an Historical Explanation

The problem is that alternative explanations of any "facts" that the resurrection is supposed to be explain, are indeed explainable by other hypotheses. Consider the empty tomb. This is believed to be an historical fact by many New Testament scholars, ranging from classical fundamentalist and Evangelical Christian scholars to moderately Christian neo-Evangelicals and perhaps even some liberal New Testament scholars and theologians. If the resurrection, did, indeed happen, then any other explanation of the empty tomb, should be historically impossible. But the fact of the matter is, that alternative explanations of the empty tomb are indeed possible. One such alternative hypothesis is the "reburial" hypothesis proposed by naturalistic skeptics of the Christian faith such as Jeffrey Jay Lowder and Richard Carrier. This hypothesis holds that Jesus was given a dishonorable, yet temporary burial in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimethea, and that after the Sabbath was over, the body of Jesus was buried elsewhere, dishonorably, in a place such as a criminal's graveyeard. This would explain how the tomb became empty without any supernatural means of removing the body as required by the resurrection hypothesis or any rival supernaturalist hypothesis of another religion such as Zoroastrianism or Islam.

Not only do other alternative hypotheses exist to explain the empty tomb but an alternative hypothesis to explain, any "postmortem appearances" of Jesus exists as well. It's well known that the Bible originated in what cultural anthropologists call an "honor-shame" culture. In these kind of cultures, which are highly collectivistic, typically agrarian social sytems, visionary experiences are known to occur, involving alternate-states-of-consciousness. These visionary experiences are known to happen not only to individuals but also, simultaneously to groups of people at a time. New Testament scholars Richard Rohrbaugh and Bruce Malina explain the basis of this in their books, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels and Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. These visions are actually considered normal in these societies and occur rather frequently. The fact that they occur frequently and are considered normal in these cultures indicates the strong possibility that they are naturalistic in origin and are not in need of a supernatural cause. If that is true of most of these visions, then why is it also not true of any postmortem "sightings" or "appearances" of Jesus after his death? It would seem that if Jesus was, indeed, an Israelite holy man, who was wrongly crucified, whose death was an insult to his acquired honor as a holy man, by the corrupt powers that governed the social system in which Jesus lived, it would seem natural, then, that his followers would have collectivistic, group visions of Jesus being alive after his death, these visionary experiences involving altered-states-of-consciousness.

A Christian apologist might wish to quibble at this point that, okay, these are, in fact, visionary experiences, but these visions of the risen Christ are supernaturally or even divinely-caused, thus separating them from all other visionary experiences involving altered-states-of-consciousness, if the rest of these visions are indeed, caused naturalistically. The chief problem with this quibble, besides engaging in gross special pleading regarding the cause of these visions, is that any objection like this misses the point that is being made here in this argument. The mere fact that is it even possible that any postmortem "sightings" or "appearances" of Jesus are visionary experiences involving altered-states-of-consciousness, having a cause (or causes) as naturalistic as any other visionary experience involving such altered-states-of-consciousness, should not be possible if God, a morally necessary Being, really does exist. If the resurrection, is, indeed, a necessary historical explanation, no such alternative explanations for any facts such as the empty tomb or any postmortem sightings/appearances, should even be possible.

This is the chief reason that I do not believe that the resurrection of Jesus Christ happened. The fact of the matter is that these alternative explanations are completely possible, very plausible, and might even carry some historical probability. I see no logical, historical, or factual impossibility with the "reburial" hypothesis of Jeffrey Jay Lowder or Richard Carrier. Likewise, I see nothing logically, historically, or factually impossible with any "visionary" hypothesis of the postmortem sightings/appearances of Jesus. Both such hypotheses seem completely possible, logically, historically, and factually. Yet even the fact that one of these hypotheses is logically, historically, and factually possible is sufficient enough in itself to show that the resurrection explanation refutes itself, for nothing else, other than a risen Jesus should be possible when it comes to explaining any empty tomb, sightings of Jesus after his death, or the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. As I have said before, the mere fact that other explanations are, indeed, even possible shows that the resurrection as an historical explanation of any facts, is self-defeating because it refutes itself. This is one of the chief reasons I do not believe that the resurrection of Jesus Christ happened.

Matthew

Beave

Hi Matthew,

I have one criticism that may be a problem for your argument.

While this premise is sound, I think you're missing the fact that just because God can only do what is right all of the time, it does not means there aren't necessarily other possible options which are wrong. If God says that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and that is, necessarily, a historical fact, this does not mean you can leap to the conclusion that we, as thinking, rational beings, cannot create other possible (and logical) explanations for such an occurrence. Therefore, the existence of possible alternative scenarios (such as the reburial hypothesis) does not mean that the resurrection is self-refuting.

Here is the problem right here. You're going from saying that some event is not true, to saying that it, therefore, has to be impossible. I don't think this can be said, even taking your premises into consideration. I think it simply means that other explanations are necessarily false. You can think of many hypotheses for creation; the Big bang, biblical creation, and scores of other religious creation myths. Only one (God's version) must be necessarily true, but they are all "possible" explanations.

As you can see from my posts number, I'm new at criticzing stuff like this, so I could be wrong. Maybe you could explain this further for me.

Karen M

Matthew: Even taking all your premises as true, it is still possible for people to suggest alternate explanations for resurrection. These explanations would just happen to all be false.

One thing I do find noteworthy, though, is that you have a fairly solid argument for why God cannot lie. I believe God is said to "deceive"/"harden" people in the Bible on several occasions. That alone is a nice argument to flesh out when you get the chance.



And, of course, the most compelling reason to disbelieve the resurrection:

It's a story about a guy coming back from the dead.

Solo

I do not agree with the logical structure of the argument. First of all, it is possible to take a theological position that God, even if he truly reveals himself through the Scripture, does so in a paradoxical manner. Indeed, the resurrection, as a proposition of the Christian canon, appears to be just that. It must be true spiritually, because it cannot be true naturalistically. Jesus rising in an alien biological form within a definite time-frame after his decease is not a historical proposition to begin with.

It is not resurrection that is self-defeating but the argument, IMHO, is improperly constructed.

"visionary experiences" occur in every kind of society.


Though it is true that "group" ecstasies exist, there has not be a convincing proof of serial and synchronous group visionary states. For example, intelligent theologians like Haenchen realize that what is claimed for Peter's "event" of Pentecost in the Acts is of a different order to regular church happenings of today's Pentecostalists. He therefore considers the inaugural descent of the Holy Spirit on the congregation to be of symbolic nature.


It is possible, but again since we have no known historically reliable analogy that visionary states of the kind reported in the NT occur en masse, it is prudent to look for alternative explanations.

There are theologians, e.g. the late Paul Tillich, quite welcoming to the idea that the "naturalistic" altered states of consciousness even if observed as pathogenic, may in fact be the external view of God-induced visions. Jesus was perceived as being out of his mind by his own family.

While we are on the subject of "quibbling", what is "should" doing in a logical proposition ?


ditto

There are indeed many possibilities open for alternative historical scenarios around the origins of the early Christian community and beliefs. But they do not flow as logical necessity from the argument that you are presenting.

Jiri

Matthew_Green

Cool! Even if my argument is completely flawed, I am grateful that you took the time to look at it and put your two cents in...

I think you're misunderstanding my argument here. It's not that because God is a morally necessary Being that there aren't other options that aren't wrong. Rather, my point was that because God is a morally necessary Being, when God says something, then what God says is necessarily true. If God says that he raised Jesus from the dead, then if God exists, then no other explanations can be possible. The mere possibility that there are other explanations refutes the resurrection. What I have in mind is something like this: If we are to believe that the Christian God exists, then we must believe that he is a morally necessary Being. If we are to believe that God is a morally necessary Being, then we must believe that whatever God says must necessarily be true. Therefore, logically by means of a hypothetical syllogism, if we are to believe that God exists, then we are to believe that whatever God says must be necessarily true.

Now, my argument is that if we are to believe that God said that the resurrection happened, then it must be the case that no alternative explanations are possible. But it is not the case that no alternative explanations are possible. Therefore, logically by modus tollens, it follows that we are not to believe that God said that the resurrection happened. I could be wrong but this is the core of my argument, put in terms of formal, deductive logic.
Actually, I disagree. If only one possibility (that of which the Christian God is believed to have done) is necessarily true, then it follows that all other explanations are necessarily false if they are inconsistent with the one that the Christian God is believed to have done. For instance, if the Christian God caused the world as we know it to come into existence through biblical recent-creationism, and the Christian God says so, according to the Bible, then any other explanation should be false which is inconsistent with biblical recent-creationism such as Big Bang cosmology with the implication of an old age.

Well, I have tried here. I am open to any new suggestions as to further elaborate my points.

Matthew

Matthew_Green

Karen, thanks for responding!

I agree that it is still possible for people to suggest alternative explanations for the facts people believe that the resurrection is to explain, but that's the point of my argument right there- if God really did raise Jesus from the dead and said that he did so in the Bible itself, then it logically follows that any other explanation should be historically impossible. It's logical, I grant, to concieve of other explanations, but these other explanations should be historically impossible

Oh? Are you suggesting that I have a good argument for a biblical discrepancy as far as the character or acts of God go in the Bible?

I usually tell Christians that a guy coming back from the dead by a divine being is a supernatural claim and is in need of supernatural evidence to vindicate it. So, it's God who should be arguing with me, not Christians!

Matthew

Matthew_Green

Jiri, thanks for responding.

Okay, I can understand that you do not agree with the logical structure of my argument here. As for the theological position that God reveals himself paradoxically is something I do not quite understand. That it must be true spiritually because it cannot be true naturalistically- it's this statement that is confusing me. What do you mean that it cannot be true naturalistically? How, then, must it be true, spiritually?

Can I ask you how the argument is improperly constructed? Is there a better way to construct my argument? I'd appreciate if you wouldn't mind elaborating.

Agreed. But I was appealing to a particular kind of visionary experience as described by Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh.

Pardon? There has not be what?

I"m not sure I agree with you here. According to Malina and Rohrbaugh, such visionary experiences still occur in honor-shame societies and since we have many of them today, it follows that they occur in honor-shame societies these days.

Good point. But then, how does one distinguish between "objective visions" caused naturalistically by God and those that are just naturalistically caused? Furthermore, what is the point of arguing that God caused any visions, naturalistically? If the visions have a naturalistic cause, then God becomes historically unnecessary, no?

I am just a beginning philosophy student. In fact, I have just completed my first logic course, called "Introduction to Logic" and so, I am not sure if the word "should" belongs in a logical proposition or not. I do not claim expertise and I am very much open to correction by the more experienced. I am just a beginning student when it comes to logic and so I ask that you be patient with any errors in logic that I might make.

Would it helpd if I replaced the word "should" with cannot?

My argument is that the resurrection is refuted. I completed a post above in responding to another person where I thought that perhaps I could verify my point by means of modus tollens. Do you think that my argument can be salvaged if it's flawed as I have currently formulated it? If so, would you be willing to explain how you think it could be made stronger?

Matthew

Beave

I think my disagreement with you is on the bold premise above.

The logic is correct, but again, it's the premise I disagree with.

I agree with everything you have said here. But something being false is not the same as something being impossible. As such, I disagree with the premise in the previous quotation.



Matthew[/QUOTE]

Osbert

There is a Resurrection that does not require the background of hystoricity and although a little mystical, I am sure it would have been in the mind of the Gospel writers: Jesus as Green Man
Jesus is Thirteenth (sacred 13) with the 12 Apostles, The Twelve Labours of Hercules, the Twelve Sons of Jacob, the Twelve Tribes of Israel and the Twelve Knights of King Arthur's table all have the same zodiacal and theological derivation. And then there are the twelve months of the year. The number 13 represents the sacrifice: the death of the Old to facilitate the transition to the New Year.
Death and Resurrection: the seasons, the years, the aeons, the passing of time.

John Kesler

For an argument to be modus tollens, you must establish that a specific naturalistic explanation is what actually occurred, thereby excluding the possibilty of a supernatural event. Simply positing various naturalistic explanations does not logically exclude a supernatural event.