On Jesus' Resurrection

[Perplexity]

I want to outline some reasons for thinking that Jesus probably did not rise from the dead.

So, when someone proposes a piece of information as evidence for some position, what are they doing? Or, rather, what are they intending to do? Well, simply put, they’re trying to raise the amount of confidence that the position is true than was there prior to considering the information. This is how evidence is able to be good or bad. Good evidence (whether a single piece of information, or a collection) raises our confidence in a position (or its negation) to at least belief. If it manages to do this, we call it ‘persuasive’ or ‘convincing’. That’s what I’m interested in. Should the information that apologists present as evidence for the resurrection do this? Should it move us to belief? If not, we may rest content to say Jesus probably did not resurrect.

Before assessing the evidential force of this information, we need to get clear on what the information is.

More often than not, apologists present something like the following two pieces of information as evidence that Jesus resurrected:

1. Jesus’ apostles, individually and collectively, had experiences which they took to be perceptions of the resurrected Jesus.
2. Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty by his (women) followers shortly after his burial therein.

Of course there are others, for instance, Wright seems to favor the rise of Christianity, but these are the most commonly cited examples, and for the sake of space I’ll try and stick to these two. I want to argue that if these were the only two pieces of evidence being proffered, we should conclude that Jesus probably did not resurrect. This in turn would mean that if there are other pieces of evidence, they must bare an enormously more amount of pressure than before.

I’ll examine each in turn.

1:

What if we conceded 1? How would doing such raise our confidence in the position that Jesus resurrected?

Well, the idea here is basically that the rational thing to do is to take their experiences as veridical. That is, we shouldn’t understand their experiences as hallucinations, delusions, or anything else that would mean the object of their experiences wasn’t really the resurrected Jesus.

To motivate this, apologists like to go over how astronomically improbable it is that a group of people, over a succession of time and in different places should have the same hallucination. Think about it, it’d be like 10 people all falling asleep and having the exact same dream, successively! We’d probably consider that a miracle since dreams (and hallucination) are entirely private things, not shared by others like this. They have similar arguments against delusions as well. Let’s just concede these points.

Having discounted the other available options, the apologist at this point would be happy to conclude that their experiences were veridical. But, the reality is, the claim that their experiences were veridical is no less improbable than that they weren’t.

Typically, when someone says they see dead people, what they’re saying is false. This is entirely apart from how sincerely they believe this. There is no good a priori reason to treat the apostle’s claims differently. They’re claiming they saw a dead person (albeit resurrected, not that this makes their claim any more plausible) talking to them, walking around and eating food etc.

The apologists are asking us to think this is significantly more likely than that they hallucinated or were deluded etc.

If someone told you they saw, talked with, and ate with a relative of theirs whom you both knew had recently died, you’d sooner think they weren’t coping with their grief healthily or some such than that they really did this. You’d need a lot more evidence than their testimony to believe them. And this brief example would provide you with much stronger testimony than we have for the 1. Other than Paul, there were no contemporary eyewitnesses to the “post-resurrection” appearances of Jesus, in all the other cases of post-resurrection appearances we have at best second- or perhaps third-hand reports of what eyewitnesses claimed to see, recorded decades after the crucifixion.

So, my conclusion is that if we grant 1, we’re committed to some highly implausible thesis, be that hallucination, delusion, or veridicality. Therefore, we shouldn’t grant that they had these experiences until we have good reason to independent of their testimony.

How about 2?

2:

I think the same kind of reasoning applies. What are we committed to if we grant 2? Well, we’d have to say either Jesus’ body was stolen, relocated by pious Jews, that Jesus didn’t actually die, that the apostles staged a hoax, that his followers went to the wrong tomb, or that he really resurrected (there are other options).

As the apologists have amply demonstrated, the other options to resurrection will not do here. They’re not good explanations for why the tomb was discovered empty at all. But, is resurrection really all that better? No. Typically, when someone claims God has intervened in some law-suspending manner, their claims are false, quite apart from their sincerity. So, there is an immense initial improbability attached to the claim that God intervened in a law-suspending manner here in resurrecting Jesus. (Note, if miracles weren’t so rare, they wouldn’t be miracles)

So, look at what you have to commit to if you concede 2. It’s crazy to me, I can’t accept any of these options, yet at least. So, I shouldn’t concede 2.

You should agree with me on my conclusions about 1 and 2 unless you have independent reason to think otherwise. But, that just bolsters my point. 1 and 2 do not constitute good evidence for the resurrection.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I want to outline some reasons for thinking that Jesus probably did not rise from the dead.

I think you have needlessly complicated the matter.

The more direct way to examine the issue is to look at the evidence and proposed hypotheses. Exclude hypotheses that are contradicted by the evidence.

It is a common mistake to pursue evidence that is consistent with hypotheses.

Now if you want to dispute the ressurection of Jesus it would help to propose an alternative hypothesis that can be tested againt the evidence (and not just the two pieces that you selected, important as they are).

 

[Perplexity]

I think you have needlessly complicated the matter.

The more direct way to examine the issue is to look at the evidence and proposed hypotheses. Exclude hypotheses that are contradicted by the evidence.

It is a common mistake to pursue evidence that is consistent with hypotheses.

Now if you want to dispute the ressurection of Jesus it would help to propose an alternative hypothesis that can be tested againt the evidence (and not just the two pieces that you selected, important as they are).

Once we have a handle on what should be counted as evidence, I’d agree with you. My argument attempts to show that the most frequently cited pieces of evidence for the resurrection shouldn’t be accepted as such. Hypotheses shouldn’t have to account for them, because we shouldn’t accept them.

It follows, if I succeed, that the remaining evidence for the resurrection (if there is any) has to pick up an incredible amount of slack, and as I hope most will gather, will merely collapse beneath the newly distributed weight.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Once we have a handle on what should be counted as evidence, I’d agree with you. My argument attempts to show that the most frequently cited pieces of evidence for the resurrection shouldn’t be accepted as such. Hypotheses shouldn’t have to account for them, because we shouldn’t accept them.

It follows, if I succeed, that the remaining evidence for the resurrection (if there is any) has to pick up an incredible amount of slack, and as I hope most will gather, will merely collapse beneath the newly distributed weight.

“Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Done.

Your argument, as described here, is fundamentally flawed. Whether or not it is “accepted as such” has no bearing on its nature as evidence. And hypotheses don’t account for evidence. As I explained, evidence is used to rule out hypotheses.

So you have failed even to frame the issue correctly because you are overeager to dismiss the evidence.

 

[johnnyjones]

If the people that where there saw what they thought MAY BE evidence of the Jesus’ resurrection, one could make an argument that they were so zealous that perpetuating it verbally could happen.

BUT, if the apostles weren’t sure or knew the resurrection wasn’t true, why die for a cause you are speculative about or know isn’t true, as in the myth that the apostles stole the body.

As well, scripture makes a point of saying the Romans wanted no possibility of some fake resurrection being spread by rumour, so the tomb was guarded by soldiers, and that failed.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If the people that where there saw what they thought MAY BE evidence of the Jesus’ resurrection, one could make an argument that they were so zealous that perpetuating it verbally could happen.

BUT, if the apostles weren’t sure or knew the resurrection wasn’t true, why die for a cause you are speculative about or know isn’t true, as in the myth that the apostles stole the body.

As well, scripture makes a point of saying the Romans wanted no possibility of some fake resurrection being spread by rumour, so the tomb was guarded by soldiers, and that failed.

This is, of course, the classic argument against the hypothesis of fraud.

 

[Perplexity]

“Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Done.

Your argument, as described here, is fundamentally flawed. Whether or not it is “accepted as such” has no bearing on its nature as evidence. And hypotheses don’t account for evidence. As I explained, evidence is used to rule out hypotheses.

So you have failed even to frame the issue correctly because you are overeager to dismiss the evidence.

First, this is semantics. I drew the distinction between good and bad evidence in the OP, so, on your notion of evidence, I’ll just say 1 and 2 constitute bad evidence.

Second, I’m afraid your unfamiliarity with confirmation theory (i.e., what evidence is and when it confirms positions) has substantially undermined your objection.

“Evidence: That which raises or lowers the probability of a proposition.” - Blackburn, Simon. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd Revised ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. p. 123.

This is the definition of evidence that scientists and philosophers work with.

As Robin Collins (world’s foremost proponent of fine-tuning) says in his landmark piece in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (whilst explaining what evidence is etc.),

“According to the Expectation Principle, if an event or state of affairs is more to be expected under one hypothesis, h1, than another, h2, it counts as evidence in favor of h1 over h2 – that is, in favor of the hypothesis under which it has the highest expectation. The strength of the evidence is proportional to the relative degree to which it is more to be expected under h1 than h2.” - Craig, William Lane., and James Porter Moreland. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. p. 206.

So, I think we’re in very good company in disagreeing with your notion of evidence and how it confirms hypotheses.

 

[itullian]

scholars say the guard story was added later to combat the story that someone stole the body.
even W.L.Craig says that the guard story is probably false.

 

[Perplexity]

If the people that where there saw what they thought MAY BE evidence of the Jesus’ resurrection, one could make an argument that they were so zealous that perpetuating it verbally could happen.

BUT, if the apostles weren’t sure or knew the resurrection wasn’t true, why die for a cause you are speculative about or know isn’t true, as in the myth that the apostles stole the body.

As well, scripture makes a point of saying the Romans wanted no possibility of some fake resurrection being spread by rumour, so the tomb was guarded by soldiers, and that failed.

It’s not established at all that the Apostles were tortured till death because of their belief that Jesus resurrected. (It’s not even established that they were tortured till death, we know very little about any of them).

Even granting that they were, it would no more follow from their sincerity that their beliefs were true than it would follow from the sincerity of Muslim suicide bombers that their beliefs are true.

 

[johnnyjones]

This is, of course, the classic argument against the hypothesis of fraud.

Yes and it remains effective because in those days death was not a needle in the arm or even a flip of the switch. It was long, terrifying and gruesome beyond what most of us can comprehend. The masses were controled by crucifixion and other gut wrenching deaths. Nobody would take those horrors on unless they were seriously convinced Christ rose from the dead.

 

[johnnyjones]

It’s not established at all that the Apostles were tortured till death because of their belief that Jesus resurrected. (It’s not even established that they were tortured till death, we know very little about any of them).

Even granting that they were, it would no more follow from their sincerity that their beliefs were true than it would follow from the sincerity of Muslim suicide bombers that their beliefs are true.

What poor sources are you using?

Also, the Muslim analogy is dealing with the unseen.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

First, this is semantics. I drew the distinction between good and bad evidence in the OP, so, on your notion of evidence, I’ll just say 1 and 2 constitute bad evidence.

You can say whatever you like but the fact remains that you are confusing evidence and argument.

Second, I’m afraid your unfamiliarity with confirmation theory (i.e., what evidence is and when it confirms positions) has substantially undermined your objection.

“Evidence: That which raises or lowers the probability of a proposition.” - Blackburn, Simon. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd Revised ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. p. 123.

This is the definition of evidence that scientists and philosophers work with.

As Robin Collins (world’s foremost proponent of fine-tuning) says in his landmark piece in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (whilst explaining what evidence is etc.),

“According to the Expectation Principle, if an event or state of affairs is more to be expected under one hypothesis, h1, than another, h2, it counts as evidence in favor of h1 over h2 – that is, in favor of the hypothesis under which it has the highest expectation. The strength of the evidence is proportional to the relative degree to which it is more to be expected under h1 than h2.” - Craig, William Lane., and James Porter Moreland. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. p. 206.

So, I think we’re in very good company in disagreeing with your notion of evidence and how it confirms hypotheses.

You are confusing “evidence” and “evidence in favor of”; the availability of evidence and the application of evidence to an argument.

So once again we turn to the question that you are trying to hard to avoid: what is the alternative hypothesis and does it survive the evidence?

Because it’s pretty obvious that the hypothesis that Jesus literally ressurected from the dead is consistent with all the evidence.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It’s not established at all that the Apostles were tortured till death because of their belief that Jesus resurrected. (It’s not even established that they were tortured till death, we know very little about any of them).

Although the quality of the evidence varies on this point, enough were with enough certainty to make this a valid point.

Even granting that they were, it would no more follow from their sincerity that their beliefs were true than it would follow from the sincerity of Muslim suicide bombers that their beliefs are true.

This is a common error. Muslim suicide bombers don’t know the truth of Islam. The apostles did. The fraud claim is that the same people who claim to have witnessed the ressurection died for that false claim.

That’s why it helps to state alternative hypotheses clearly.

 

[johnnyjones]

scholars say the guard story was added later to combat the story that someone stole the body.
even W.L.Craig says that the guard story is probably false.

So the bible is in error? ALL scripture is GOD BREATHED. This is a very dangerous statement.

 

[itullian]

So the bible is in error? ALL scripture is GOD BREATHED. This is a very dangerous statement.

so “dangerous” statements are censored?

Bible has many strange inconsistancies. like who was at the tomb, etc.

 

[Perplexity]

What poor sources are you using?

Also, the Muslim analogy is dealing with the unseen.

The fact that you think I’m using poor sources because of what I said says far more about you than me.

 

[Perplexity]

You can say whatever you like but the fact remains that you are confusing evidence and argument.

I don’t see how this addresses what I’ve said. I told you what evidence is, citing an authoritative source, and explained how evidence confirms an hypothesis, again citing an authoritative source. If you disagree with this, you’ll need to explain why most scientists and philosophers are wrong, rather than merely repeating yourself.

So once again we turn to the question that you are trying to hard to avoid: what is the alternative hypothesis and does it survive the evidence?

As I said earlier, your unfamiliarity with confirmation theory here is undermining your objection. We’re not comparing hypotheses. That’s an entirely different issue. And if we were, it’d be the Resurrection v. ~Resurrection. The latter contains all of the hypotheses that affirm ~resurrection including Hoax, Swoon, Twin, Spirit-Body, Theft, Relocation, and whatever else is in the handbag. So, while the resurrection may be more probable than any of these individually (something I’d never concede) it could still be less probable than their conjunction. But, again, this is an entirely separate issue. We’re determining what the evidence is at this point.

Because it’s pretty obvious that the hypothesis that Jesus literally ressurected from the dead is consistent with all the evidence.

I don’t see what its consistency has to do with whether the evidence confirms it. And, obviously, I don’t think it is consistent, so I can only take this remark to be baiting.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t see how this addresses what I’ve said. I told you what evidence is, citing an authoritative source, and explained how evidence confirms an hypothesis, again citing an authoritative source. If you disagree with this, you’ll need to explain why most scientists and philosophers are wrong, rather than merely repeating yourself.

As I said earlier, your unfamiliarity with confirmation theory here is undermining your objection. We’re not comparing hypotheses. That’s an entirely different issue. And if we were, it’d be the Resurrection v. ~Resurrection. The latter contains all of the hypotheses that affirm ~resurrection including Hoax, Swoon, Twin, Spirit-Body, Theft, Relocation, and whatever else is in the handbag. So, while the resurrection may be more probable than any of these individually (something I’d never concede) it could still be less probable than their conjunction. But, again, this is an entirely separate issue. We’re determining what the evidence is at this point.

I didn’t suggest comparing hypotheses. I suggested examining hypotheses against the evidence. I look forward to hearing your hypotheses.

I don’t see what its consistency has to do with whether the evidence confirms it. And, obviously, I don’t think it is consistent, so I can only take this remark to be baiting.

I ddin’t say anything about evidence confirming a hypothesis. I merely noted that the explanation that Jesus literally rose from the dead is supported by the evidence. Christianity is a reasonable belief given the available evidence.

 

[Perplexity]

I didn’t suggest comparing hypotheses. I suggested examining hypotheses against the evidence. I look forward to hearing your hypotheses.

If examining hypotheses against the evidence isn’t comparative I don’t know what you’re suggesting, I guess. But, we might pursue this suggestion in another thread. For now, I’d like to pursue whether we should believe that the apostles actually had perceptive experiences of the resurrected Jesus and whether we should believe the tomb was actually discovered empty.

I ddin’t say anything about evidence confirming a hypothesis. I merely noted that the explanation that Jesus literally rose from the dead is supported by the evidence. Christianity is a reasonable belief given the available evidence.

Of course I disagree. I don’t see how Christianity can be a rational system, but perhaps that’s for another thread as well.

 

[itullian]

maybe they just never put his body in the tomb. the disciples see it’s empty and accept he is risen
???