L
- Status
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
There is a difference bewtween comparing a hypothesis against the evidence and comparing one hypothesis against another.
And how exactly do you propose to pursue that question? Hop into your time machine? All we have with us today are their reports.
And it goes without saying that millions of people do believe their reports. If you choose not to that’s your business but don’t pretend that you are engaging in any sort of rational analysis in that choice.
If the hypothesis is consistent with the evidence then it is rational to hold it, at least until something better comes along. But since you are unwilling to offer anything better while asserting the irrationality of a hypothesis consistent with the evidence it is your own rationality that falls into question.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
At least you are willing to put forward an alternative hypothesis. That seems to perplex Perplexity.
D
danserr
Guest
I just want to mention briefly that I do disagree with your decision to leave out the third major fact, the rise of Christianity (including that Jesus’ disciples came to believe that he rose from the dead. This is also a useful point, especially so since as N.T. Wright points out, it provides independent confirmation of both of the first and second facts that you propose.
I’ll do my best do jump into the rest of your post tomorrow.
I’ll do my best do jump into the rest of your post tomorrow.
I
itullian
Guest
i was hoping someone would rip it apart.
P
Perplexity
Guest
Hm, I’m lost. But, like I said, we can perhaps pursue this in another thread.
Cf. my OP.
No one should agree with this. A plethora of competing hypotheses can be consistent with a piece of evidence. This is a problem in confirmation theory that different positions try to solve. You don’t seem to be aware of any of this. Consistency with evidence really isn’t interesting.
And, as I’ve said a few times now, I’m not interested in proposing an alternative hypothesis to the resurrection here because I’m trying to get clear on what the evidence is in the first place. This thread is about something else, you can always start your own
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I suppose if Perplexity is not up to debating various hypotheses we could do so among ourselves.
The obvious problem in the case of this hypothesis is that the empty tomb is not the only piece of evidence of the ressurection. The other problem is that, again, it requires that the apostles die for something they know to be a lie.
Then too there is the obvious question: why would Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus hide the body elsewhere? Would it in fact be possible to perform a fake burial even if they were so motivated. (Seems like it would be easier to take the body afterwards but then we have the problem of the guard which those performing a fake burial would have had little reason to expect.)
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I’ll try once more, then.
That is, of course, why we examine alterantive hypotheses and seek out disconfirming evidence for each.
Please give us one, just one, among these “plethora of competing hypotheses are consistent with evidence.”
Let’s *test *your claim.
The alternative, to which you continue to cling, is to simply whine about the quality of evidence and how it doesn’t merit belief in the hypothesis (in this case, of a literal ressurection). Boo hoo, we don’t have any photographs of the risen Jesus. Boo hoo, where is Jesus’ birth certificate? Boo hoo, where the Roman police report on the crucifixion?And, as I’ve said a few times now, I’m not interested in proposing an alternative hypothesis to the resurrection here because I’m trying to get clear on what the evidence is in the first place. This thread is about something else, you can always start your own
P
Perplexity
Guest
You’re just not getting it. In any case, this whole exchange is entirely irrelevant to the success of my OP, and so I’ll bow out from this and let others have at it if they wish.
Finally, this is quasi-relevant, but a gross misrepresentation of my position. My argument, as clearly outlined in the OP, is a reductio ad absurdum of 1 and 2.
That is, I argue that we’d be committed to absurdities if we concede 1 and 2, and therefore, shouldn’t affirm 1 or 2.
Can that in any sensible way be construed as asking for photographic evidence of Jesus’ resurrection? Of course not
So, is it any kind of rebuttal to my argument that we don’t have Jesus’ birth-certificate, or Roman police reports of the crucifixion? Of course not So…where does this leave you…
Well, either we take this weird straw-man to be your honest reply to my argument, or we give you the chance to concede and reformulate. Either will be a bullet to bite.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
As noted, your OP cannot succeed because it merely is a complaint about the evidence on the basis of various unsupported inventions without even understanding what the evidence relates to. As far as you seem to comprehend, the evidence is simply tossed out in support of the hypothesis of a literal ressurection.
Still waiting…
P
Perplexity
Guest
Well, this is unfortunate. I guess you want us to take your reply seriously, despite the fact that I’ve shown it’s a straw-man. I’m not interested in this
I’ll wait for danserr or some of the other serious posters to have a go at my argument.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Well, I can certainly appreciate why you would prefer to whine about the quality of evidence from something that occured 2000 years ago rather than grapple in a serious way with the evalution of alternative hypotheses against the available evidence.
I
itullian
Guest
the disciples believed cause the tomb was empty.
maybe they changed their mind about where to bury Him.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
If the guard story is “false” than all of scripture is false. 2 Tim 3:16 informs the Church that ALL scripture is God breathed, nothing is “false” in scripture. Otherwise the church would teach that we trust one part of the bible but not another. “Inconsistencies” do not equal false. You must trust the bible as the church compares scripture with tradition for it’s teachings.
Because one gospel omits an individual at the tomb or adds another is simply the providing of a different account of what happened. Similar to those who witness a car accident and give different accounts of the same event.
Yes, it is dangerous, especially as a Catholic to apply such notions to the bible.You may want to study this further before delving into a debate on the topic.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
This is a very catchy answer but I don’t see how it addresses the question I asked.
I
itullian
Guest
well, if one gospel is correct, isn’t one gospel wrong. they can’t both be the truth of who was or wasn’t there.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
No. I will help you my friend. There are no wrong Gospels. Keep in mind that the Gospels are recorded from witnesses. When a policemen interviews people who have seen a crime or accident they will often give information in the following way. Lets say 10 people saw an accident. Some will give an identical account, just like some events are exactly the same in the gospels.
Some will add or detract particular events. One might have seen a person who was there, but another person does not include that individual. They both however report the actual event as happening with varying details. No where in the gospels does it say that one person is there and that another person could not have been there. This is typical of eyewitness events even today.
All of this actually adds credence to the Gospels because if they were 100% exact, especially considering the various years in the recording of the information, there would be reason for true skepticism. All scripture must be accurate and true, it is the word of God. The only time the Catholic church eludes to allegory or non literal accounts in scripture is with books such as revelation (very symbolic) and the early books of dealing with the origins of man and the flood.
D
danserr
Guest
The procedure to verify the resurrection by scholars like NT Wright and William Lane Craig is: 1). to establish 3 historical facts on the basic of the evidence and then, 2). to argue that the best explanation of those facts is the Resurrection.
Now, Perplexity is not actually denying these three facts (actually I introduce one additional one, but I think he would grant that too), He actually admits that there was an empty tomb known to have been the correct tomb, that there were appearances of the risen Christ, and the Origin of Christian belief. What he doubts if the best explanation of these facts.
I will address the best explanation of these facts in my next posts. That is, how we move from these three facts to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead. For now, I want to summarize (albeit very briefly) the facts themselves and some reasons they are widely accepted.
I. The Three historical facts.
A). **Jesus’ Burial and discovery of his empty tomb three days later. **
The most probable explanation of these three facts is that Jesus of Nazareth really did rise from the dead leaving behind an empty tomb.
Please Note- none of these arguments assume the Bible was written early or that it was written by the first generation. I only claim that it is sufficient, when treated as a historical source, to establish the facts listed above.
Suggested reading and links.
NT Wright- Surprised by Hope (chap. 3-4), The Resurrection of the Son of God, ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm
William Lane Craig- The Son Rises (book), Reasonable faith chap. 8, reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5351
Now, Perplexity is not actually denying these three facts (actually I introduce one additional one, but I think he would grant that too), He actually admits that there was an empty tomb known to have been the correct tomb, that there were appearances of the risen Christ, and the Origin of Christian belief. What he doubts if the best explanation of these facts.
I will address the best explanation of these facts in my next posts. That is, how we move from these three facts to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead. For now, I want to summarize (albeit very briefly) the facts themselves and some reasons they are widely accepted.
I. The Three historical facts.
A). **Jesus’ Burial and discovery of his empty tomb three days later. **
- The discovery of the empty tomb in multiply attested in early, independent sources. The pre-marken passion source, Paul’s letter to Corinthians mentions it, Matthew is an independent source since he includes the guard at the tomb, which is not in Mark.
- Mark’s burial story is simple and lacks significant legendary development. (esp. compared to later Gnostic gospels which are real legends.
- The empty tomb was discovered by women. Women were not regarded as reliable witnesses, so their presence indicates the account is probably legit, since no one would invent women as discovers of the empty tomb.
- The earliest Jewish allegation that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body (Matt. 28.15) shows that the body was in fact missing from the tomb. The only reason to put that story there was if the Jews were really claiming that Jesus’s followers stole his body, by which they admitted the tomb was empty.
- The disciples could never have preached the resurrection unless the tomb were really empty.
- For these and at least 3 other reasons, Gary Habermas found in a survey that 75% of scholars admit the empty tomb. “Experience of the Risen Jesus” Dialog 45 (2006):292.
- “The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances which is quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15. 5-7 guarantees that such appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter (Cephas), the Twelve, the 500 brethren, and James.” (cited from WLC)
- The gospels account for multiples appearances, including to the women. The latter are probably reliable for the reason given above. They would not have been made up.
- The appearances were physical. Paul in Corinthians implies this, Jesus invites Thomas to touch his side, Jesus eats a fish. If the appearances were not physical, the disciples would not have said Jesus was raised, they’d say they saw his ghost.
- Even the radical skeptic Ludemann agrees that these appearances happened. He simply disagrees on the best explanation of them, by arguing that they are simply hallucinations.
- The ancient world always used the work “Resurrection” to mean a physical bodily resurrection. And they universally, from Plato, to Homer, through ancient Greece and Rome, agreed that Resurrection in this sense did not happen.
- The sole exception was the Jews, who came to believe there would be a Resurrection of all the just, at the end of time.
- Yet Christians claimed that 1). God raised Jesus, ahead of time, 2). that this man was the messiah, and the 3). resurrection was something to which they could contribute in the present life. 4).Early Christians had no spectrum of belief about the Ress. Rather there was virtually unanimous agreement on what it meant.
- Beliefs in life after death tend to be very conservative (they are very precious to people). For Christians to 1). show such changes and 2). agree almost completely, this demands explanation.
The most probable explanation of these three facts is that Jesus of Nazareth really did rise from the dead leaving behind an empty tomb.
Please Note- none of these arguments assume the Bible was written early or that it was written by the first generation. I only claim that it is sufficient, when treated as a historical source, to establish the facts listed above.
Suggested reading and links.
NT Wright- Surprised by Hope (chap. 3-4), The Resurrection of the Son of God, ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm
William Lane Craig- The Son Rises (book), Reasonable faith chap. 8, reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5351
D
danserr
Guest
In the previous post, I summarized reasons for accepting the facts that will be the basis our our case for the Resurrection. The question will be, how to historians assess competing hypotheses and move from the data to a conclusion.
Perplexity’s lays out a couple objections, but it boils down to the following. He claims that: All possible explanations of the data are highly improbable including the Resurrection, wrong tomb hypothesis, hallucination hypothesis etc. Hence we can have no confidence in any of them.
Despite his claim in his OP, this then is not an argument that the Resurrection did not occur, only that we cannot reasonably conclude it did on the basis of the evidence. He holds than any explanation of the evidence will be highly improbable, but obviously some explanation must be true. He just doubts that we can conclude that it is the Resurrection. Hence, this is not an argument that the Resurrection did not occur, only that we cannot conclude that it did on the basis of the evidence.
The central part of my response will be in challenging Perplexity’s claim that we have no way to adjudicate between the competing hypotheses. On the contrary, methods of historical investigation allow us to conclude that the Resurrection hypothesis (the claim that Jesus really did rise from the dead), better explains the evidence far better than any competing hypothesis. Hence, the evidence we have allows us to conclude that Jesus really did rise from the dead leaving behind an empty tomb.
**
Historical Methodology: Inference to Best Explanation**
The way historians typically test competing hypotheses is consider according to different criteria which is the best explanation of the data. Some of the factors they consider are:
Testing the Hypotheses: The Resurrection of Jesus
*1). The hypothesis must have greater explanatory scope . *
5). *The hypothesis must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than rival hypotheses. * There are none, unless the claim “dead men don’t rise.” But this inductive generalization that men don’t rise naturally is irrelevant to the claim that God raised Jesus. Other hypotheses (wrong tomb) are disconfirmed by what we know of Jewish procedure for burial of criminals and other accepted data.
6). The hypothesis must so exceed its rivals in fulfilling the previous conditions…
Hence, there is no reason to hold, as the OP does, that since all hypotheses are highly improbable, we have no way of judging between them. On the contrary, according to inference to best explanation methodology, it is clear the Resurrection clearly exceeds rival hypotheses and on its own terms is a good explanation of the data.
Perplexity’s lays out a couple objections, but it boils down to the following. He claims that: All possible explanations of the data are highly improbable including the Resurrection, wrong tomb hypothesis, hallucination hypothesis etc. Hence we can have no confidence in any of them.
Despite his claim in his OP, this then is not an argument that the Resurrection did not occur, only that we cannot reasonably conclude it did on the basis of the evidence. He holds than any explanation of the evidence will be highly improbable, but obviously some explanation must be true. He just doubts that we can conclude that it is the Resurrection. Hence, this is not an argument that the Resurrection did not occur, only that we cannot conclude that it did on the basis of the evidence.
The central part of my response will be in challenging Perplexity’s claim that we have no way to adjudicate between the competing hypotheses. On the contrary, methods of historical investigation allow us to conclude that the Resurrection hypothesis (the claim that Jesus really did rise from the dead), better explains the evidence far better than any competing hypothesis. Hence, the evidence we have allows us to conclude that Jesus really did rise from the dead leaving behind an empty tomb.
**
Historical Methodology: Inference to Best Explanation**
The way historians typically test competing hypotheses is consider according to different criteria which is the best explanation of the data. Some of the factors they consider are:
- The hypothesis must have greater explanatory scope (imply a greater variety of observable data) than rival hypotheses.
- The hypothesis must have greater explanatory power (make the observable data more probable) than rival hypotheses.
- The hypothesis must be more plausible (implied by a greater variety of accepted truths, and it negation implied by few accepted truths) than rival hypotheses.
- The hypothesis must be less ad hoc (include few new suppositions not implied by existing knowledge) than rival hypotheses.
- The hypothesis must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than rival hypotheses.
- The hypothesis must so exceed its rivals in fulfilling the previous conditions, that there is little chance that further investigation will actually prove another hypothesis superior.
Testing the Hypotheses: The Resurrection of Jesus
*1). The hypothesis must have greater explanatory scope . *
- The Resurrection far exceeds its rivals (hallucination, wrong tomb etc.) in explanatory scope by explaining all three facts at issue. Rival hypotheses explain only one or two.
- The greatest strength the Resurrection Hypothesis. On this theory, it becomes highly probable that the observable data (empty tomb, appearance, origin of belief) should be exactly what it is.
- Considered in the context of Jesus’ unparalleled life and personal claims and when we abandon philosophical prejudice against miracles (miracles can’t happen because they violate laws of nature etc.), we cannot conclude the Resurrection hypothesis is implausible.
- other hypotheses are highly implausible. For instance, the conspiracy hypothesis fails this on many counts but especially because of the anachronism of first century Jews intending to hoax Jesus’ Resurrection.
5). *The hypothesis must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than rival hypotheses. * There are none, unless the claim “dead men don’t rise.” But this inductive generalization that men don’t rise naturally is irrelevant to the claim that God raised Jesus. Other hypotheses (wrong tomb) are disconfirmed by what we know of Jewish procedure for burial of criminals and other accepted data.
6). The hypothesis must so exceed its rivals in fulfilling the previous conditions…
- Competing hypotheses are so weak and so fail in meeting above criteria for best explanation that there is little chance they will ever emerge as superior explanations of the three facts than the Resurrection hypothesis.
Hence, there is no reason to hold, as the OP does, that since all hypotheses are highly improbable, we have no way of judging between them. On the contrary, according to inference to best explanation methodology, it is clear the Resurrection clearly exceeds rival hypotheses and on its own terms is a good explanation of the data.
D
danserr
Guest
I am a historian not a philosopher so, some of this could be over my head, but I think I have it right. If a more mathematically minded theist could go over it, that would be helpful.
Another way of explaining the data is to take a Bayesian approach and argue that the facts in question (empty tomb, appearance, origin of Christian belief) are more probable on the hypothesis that Jesus rose from the dead. This can appear complicated and has some drawbacks. But it also has certain value that can make it useful in certain circumstances.
Explaining the 3 facts II: A Bayesian Approach
Take the following equation:
Pr(H on E) = Pr (H) x Pr (E on H)
--------------------------------
Pr (H) x Pr (E on H) + Pr(not H) x Pr(E on not H)
H- hypothesis
E- evidence
What we want to determine is the probability of the hypothesis on the given evidence. OP says that the evidence does not suffice to render the hypothesis probable. I showed one way of disagreeing with this above. Here is another.
We begin with the probability of the hypothesis on our background information. Then multiply that by the Probability of the evidence given the hypothesis (the explanatory power of the hypothesis- for more on that see above).
The in the denominator, we take the product and add it to the probability of the denial of H by the probability that the evidence should be what it is if the event did not occur.
In short- The OP asks us to believe that the Resurrection hypothesis is so improbable that we could never justly infer that it has occurred. But, we have to consider not only the intrinsic probability of the event, but also the probability that the evidence would be what it is if the event did not occur.
Then we plug in numbers (here is the real problem with a Bayesian explanation, deciding what numbers to plug in, but let’s assume some for the sake of argument).
Pr H- for the sake of argument, let us grant the probability of the Resurrection on our background information to be low. Let us assume a probability of 0.125. We get this from assuming a 25% chance of God’s existence (let’s pretend we are good atheists) and assuming that if he exists, a 50% likelihood he would raise Jesus from the dead.
Pr (E on H)- As we have seen above, the Resurrection has very strong explanatory power. Assume 0.95.
Finally, Pr (E on not H)- It is highly improbable that we should have the following three facts if the Resurrection did not occur. Assume 0.01. (into this go our considerations of the weakness of competing hypotheses considered above).
This gives us 0.119 in the nominator, and 0.12775 in the denominator. This yields a 93% probability of the Resurrection.
Hence, even if we grant that the Resurrection hypothesis is very improbable (assume only a 25% chance that God exists), this is easily outweighed by the fact that it is highly improbable that we should have the empty tomb, appearances, of the Risen Christ, and the origin of Christian belief, if the Resurrection did not occur.
Another way of explaining the data is to take a Bayesian approach and argue that the facts in question (empty tomb, appearance, origin of Christian belief) are more probable on the hypothesis that Jesus rose from the dead. This can appear complicated and has some drawbacks. But it also has certain value that can make it useful in certain circumstances.
Explaining the 3 facts II: A Bayesian Approach
Take the following equation:
Pr(H on E) = Pr (H) x Pr (E on H)
--------------------------------
Pr (H) x Pr (E on H) + Pr(not H) x Pr(E on not H)
H- hypothesis
E- evidence
What we want to determine is the probability of the hypothesis on the given evidence. OP says that the evidence does not suffice to render the hypothesis probable. I showed one way of disagreeing with this above. Here is another.
We begin with the probability of the hypothesis on our background information. Then multiply that by the Probability of the evidence given the hypothesis (the explanatory power of the hypothesis- for more on that see above).
The in the denominator, we take the product and add it to the probability of the denial of H by the probability that the evidence should be what it is if the event did not occur.
In short- The OP asks us to believe that the Resurrection hypothesis is so improbable that we could never justly infer that it has occurred. But, we have to consider not only the intrinsic probability of the event, but also the probability that the evidence would be what it is if the event did not occur.
Then we plug in numbers (here is the real problem with a Bayesian explanation, deciding what numbers to plug in, but let’s assume some for the sake of argument).
Pr H- for the sake of argument, let us grant the probability of the Resurrection on our background information to be low. Let us assume a probability of 0.125. We get this from assuming a 25% chance of God’s existence (let’s pretend we are good atheists) and assuming that if he exists, a 50% likelihood he would raise Jesus from the dead.
Pr (E on H)- As we have seen above, the Resurrection has very strong explanatory power. Assume 0.95.
Finally, Pr (E on not H)- It is highly improbable that we should have the following three facts if the Resurrection did not occur. Assume 0.01. (into this go our considerations of the weakness of competing hypotheses considered above).
This gives us 0.119 in the nominator, and 0.12775 in the denominator. This yields a 93% probability of the Resurrection.
Hence, even if we grant that the Resurrection hypothesis is very improbable (assume only a 25% chance that God exists), this is easily outweighed by the fact that it is highly improbable that we should have the empty tomb, appearances, of the Risen Christ, and the origin of Christian belief, if the Resurrection did not occur.
- Status