Monday, June 3, 2013

Explanations

A natural explanation is always better than a supernatural explanation. This goes for theories, hypothesises, guesses, hunches anything--if it relies on the natural it is preferable by the sheer fact that we know that the natural exists and don’t know the supernatural exists. This will remain true until we have proof of miracles, repeatable experiments in clear violation of natural laws, or something to confirm that magic is real.
This may seem obvious, but the religious rarely apply the rule to the claims of their church. For instance, Christians often claim the best evidence supporting their faith is the empty tomb of Jesus Christ.* This is really the linchpin of Christian apologetics. While whether or not there ever was an empty tomb as described in the bible is debatable, if we assume the resting place of JC was revealed to be empty--there are so many better explanations than resurrection. Examples follow.

  • Early Christians could have removed the body to propagate the resurrection lending validation to Christianity.
  • Authorities could have lied about the true location of Jesus’ tomb to keep Christians away.
  • Secretly Christian authorities could have kept the body for themselves in hopes Jesus’s reputation for healing was valid postmortem.
  • A bear inside the tomb could have eaten Jesus’ body.
  • Aliens could have removed the body just to mess with us.

There are good reasons why these scenarios are unlikely, but I find them all more likely than the divine reanimation of Jesus’ corpse. Each explanation, outside of the last option, we know could happen. They are consistent with our experience of reality. We have evidence that the man we now refer to as Jesus existed. We have evidence that this man had followers with an interest in spreading his word. We have evidence that government employees sometimes act outside or against their duties. We have evidence that religious motives can drive people to lie and break the law. We have evidence that bears exist and eat any available meat when hungry enough. Some of this evidence is not ironclad, but it’s something. This is enough to show that the above options (outside the alien bit) are possible, if not probable.

The problem with positing a divine resurrection is that we can’t even say that it is possible. We’d need evidence that both God exists and that the dead can rise, neither of which we have. In fact, brain activity returning days after brain death is contrary to everything we know about neuroscience. The heart beating again after rigamortis sets in is in direct conflict with biology. This brings me back the the alien option. Clearly an alien moving JC is excessively unlikely, but is it possible? Well, just as we don’t have evidence for divine resurrections, we don’t have evidence of intelligent alien life, but there’s a difference. Aliens are not in conflict with science. There’s nothing that prohibits life starting and evolving on another planet. Because of this, an advanced race with seemingly no motive for abduction taking a religious leader is possible while said religious leader getting up and walking away from a crucifixion is not.

*In my experience, apologists most often refer to the empty tomb as evidence supporting their faith, more so than even eye witness accounts of Christ risen. It’s as if they realize that accounts of witness could be fabricated yet believe there is still an empty tomb somewhere sealed from 2000 years of tampering that we can use as “exhibit A.” This obviously isn’t the case. There are plenty of natural explanations for eye witness accounts that are more valid than divine resurrection by the same rule referenced above--most notably that they are, in fact, fabrications.

26 comments:

  1. A difficulty I have seen with this type of thing is many people will see the impossibility as a virtue. The fact that people can't be resurrected is exactly why it is miraculous. It's why it is amazing that God does this. If we had a natural explanation it would take away from their miracle.

    Of course, when the apologists try to give an explanation it sorta goes against that, but it seems to me that trying to convince your average Christian that natural beats supernatural is a losing battle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is, people can't be resurrected and that's why it's ridiculous. There's no better reason to believe in a bodily resurrection than there is to believe that aliens abduct people in their beds or molest cows. Something being impossible doesn't make it impressive, it just makes it absurd.

      Delete
    2. LOL. This is most probably the best explanation I have heard for the resurrection not being true.

      Delete
    3. I obviously agree with you Cephus. But people are told that miracles happen, and the fact that they are impossible is what makes them impressive. If you try to explain to them why it is obviously ridiculous you just hit a wall, at least that's what I've experienced.

      Honestly, I think a lot of the problem is that people are trained to think faith is a virtue. If believing something with no good reason is good for some things, where do you draw the line? Makes me sick

      Delete
    4. Actually, aliens visiting earth and abducting people doesn't violate a field of science like a resurrection would violate all we know about biology...so I'd say E.T.s hanging out around here is even more likely.

      Delete
  2. I have been thinking a lot about these strange claims recently. And what you have shown here is that anything is possible but not probable. And for it to be possible you need to show that the probability exists. In the case of the supernatural you have to show the existence of the supernatural to make it probable.

    Great Post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I could be walking into a den of lions, but would anyone be willing to read the book, The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel. It offers a journalistic approach in search of facts about Jesus. If anyone is actually curious and wanting to step outside of their comfort zone...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't be completely opposed to such a thing, I've read other apologetics books, the problem was there was nothing new in them, I didn't even finish the second one. I think the arguments in the books get repeated in various blogs and such, so I wind up seeing whatever is in the book through other means. Granted, the organisation in the books is different, but the message seems to be the same.

      Of course I could be wrong and this book could be a special case, but I doubt it. Especially since that book seems to be popular (I see it recommended fairly often), I'm guessing their favorite parts get used in blogs and such and anything interesting that originated from the book I will have seen already.

      Delete
    2. I'm not in the market of reading apologetics or atheist books right now. I've read an equal quantity of both, and have since opted to come to my own thoughts rather than adopting others'.

      Delete
    3. I found it interesting because of the writers legal, journalistic and atheistic/agnostic viewpoints at the beginning of his search. He seemed to fairly investigate the person of Jesus using his training. It is worth a look. I do enjoy reading atheistic perspectives. It challenges me to not accept things without further investigation. Keep 'em comin'!

      Delete
    4. Hi Stefan. I don't think you'll find a den of lions here. Grundy doesn't seem to attract them in general. :-)

      I read The Case for Christ, oh, it must be at least over a decade ago. I've also watched the documentary version, maybe a few years ago? As I remember, you are right, in that Strobel does do a good job laying out the case. However, I also noticed a handful of critical "leaps of faith" along the way which were not really consistent with good journalism. The way his argument flowed, though, you would really have to be paying close attention to the details to pick up on them.

      For what is is worth, I've also read Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith, and I would say roughly the same thing about that book as I just did about The Case for Christ! :-)

      Delete
    5. TWF, thanks, :). I'm usually careful, I have generally held my own with others in discussions and suppose I am used to people getting upset because I challenge people to search for the truth and challenge what I believe. I don't usually post on atheist sites. It is nice to find people open to discussing things and searching for intellectual integrity. As far as the books, in the end, there is a point where an ACT of doubt or faith is required in any belief system. I think Strobel's approach is suited to the modern temperament, but yes there are some leaps of faith. He is good at bringing the reader to the viable options and probable explanations. At those points the reader can suspend belief or make a choice to believe or not. The explanations offered by Grundy and others in the comments for the resurrection are overly simplistic and don't account for a solution that incorporates all the evidence. That is why I suggested the book, because it tries to do just that. Thanks.

      Delete
    6. I hope you keep reading, Stefan, and call me out when I get things wrong.

      Delete
    7. "The explanations offered by Grundy and others in the comments for the resurrection are overly simplistic and don't account for a solution that incorporates all the evidence."

      The problem for over 2000 years is how complicated and "divine" the crucifixion of Jesus Christ by the Romans has become.

      We have no "evidence" other than what others "thought" of it and wrote down as "gospel" many, many, years after the fact. Why isn't a simple theory as plausible as a complicated one, Stefan? Who on earth will ever come up with a "solution" to what really happened without ever being able to know the absolute facts regardless of how genius they are?

      Delete
    8. Grundy, no problem, you too.

      Sorry about the lateness of my reply, busy week.

      Anna Maria, I guess I am not as concerned as to whether an explanation is natural or supernatural. I also am not concerned as to whether a theory is simple or complex. I am concerned if it is true. An explanation is only as useful in regards to how much it matches what is true.

      I am not as cynical as some, and I do not put the limits of scientific laws on everything because not everything is scientific (I guess I am cynical of how much reach the scope of science has). For example, the usefulness of science can not be explained by science. Science is not conscious and can not explain itself. We however, through the use of our minds can see the value of science, how to use it, and the patterns of logic and consistency in the universe as described by scientific discoveries. We do this through the use of other ways of knowing which are not scientifically verifiable. I have faith that science explains my experience of the physical universe, just like I have faith in Catholic teachings because they accurately describe my spiritual experiences. I look for the best and most consistent explanations and theories I can. I am always open to converting my paradigm because I try to keep my paradigm flexible enough to accept new evidence in line with truth

      For example, I do not think that something has to be absolutely confirmable to be believable. My skepticism would run over my skepticism if that were the case. There are certain things that I can and at times must accept without absolute proof. There are certain are certain ways of understanding and learning that are not compatible with the sola science paradigm.

      I have found that science is lacking in many areas of understanding that Christianity is not and vice-versa. The resurrection is one of those cases. There is evidence that is not scientific. I am not sure what sources you are using to date the gospels, but it does seem quite reasonable to date them within the first generation of Christians who lived with Jesus. They are written in a very matter of fact way, even when describing extraordinary events. These contain historical, experiential evidence.

      There is empathetic evidence in the life of St. Paul. The conversion and life of St. Paul are of particular interest when trying to confirm the events of early Christianity. What did he have to gain by converting? What did he have to gain from being turned away and waiting seven years? Why would he be willing to die for a cause he was trying to destroy? A man of his intelligence, insight into the human condition, and passion does not just switch directions without some extraordinary experience.

      There is physical evidence in the survival and growth of the Catholic Church, there is evidence in the witness of martyrdom of so many in the early Church and today, there is experiential evidence through learning and sharing my faith, and so on.

      Delete
    9. Stefan...the only "evidence" we have has been edited by the Catholic Church for 2000 years. I was raised Catholic and remained one for 35 years before I could see the fallacy of it. My cousin and I "saw" a vision of an "angel" who spoke to us when we were seven years old. I had a nervous breakdown when that cousin died in his Marine Jet because my witness was no longer. I've researched religion for over 40 years after a priest tried to molest me when I went to him for help. I believe in a Supreme Creator, I do not believe Jesus was "God" incarnated. I have my reasons for believing what I have found out. You have yours for believing in the "faith" that you do. Every human being has the right to believe what they feel they must regarding where we came from and where we are going. Blessings be with you.

      Delete
    10. Anna Maria... I am sorry to hear about these difficult times. Although nothing happened to me, we had a priest with a history moved to our parish. The culture of secrets and scandal within the Church is finally being aired out, but way too late. The damage to trust caused by these events to so many disgusts me and I pray that healing may happen for everyone. Granted I am only a 30 year old electrician, I have tried to learn about Jesus, especially in the past year after many crisis'. My dad's suicide, my son's near death at birth, my own near death in a car accident and in a suicide attempt when I had lost all hope for myself stuck in a life of drink and drugs. Through all of this I have had to search for answers as well. I do not surrender my assent to a belief lightly, but have found Catholicism to be the most complete paradigm that coincides with my experience. G. K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy sums up many of the reasons why.

      I completely agree that everyone has a right to believe what they choose. I saw an opportunity to show another viewpoint. I appreciated when Grundy challenged me on my blog. I was disappointed when someone tried to flag his comment as inappropriate. By bouncing off of each other and learning from each other we can challenge each other to be better people. Sorry about the long quote, but I used it earlier today in regards to a person accusing Catholics of being apostates. I thought he shouldn't have been silenced. John Milton said:

      "They are not skillful considerers of human beings, who imagine to remove sin by removing the matter of sin.... Suppose we could expel sin by this means; look how much we thus expel of sin, so much we expel of virtue: for the matter of them both is the same; remove that, and ye remove them both alike.... Why should we then affect a rigor contrary to the manner of God and of nature, by abridging or scanting those means, which books freely permitted are, both to the trial of virtue and the exercise of truth? ... Well knows he who uses to consider, that our faith and knowledge thrives by exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion. Truth is compared in Scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition. A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy."

      As far as Catholic censorship of the past, I can't see that being the case. The early Christians and their writings still exist. The records of their deeds and martyrdom show sufficiently for myself that they believed to the point of a terrible death. The Old Testament, still used by the Jewish people bears witness to Jesus through all of the prophecies concerning the Messiah. The O.T. has not been filtered by the Catholic Church. Research and discoveries of old copies of the New Testament show it has not changed. The members of the infant Catholic Church were clear about the message of Christ and had no motivation other than truth to spread the message. It meant segregation, suffering, and/or death to be a Christian. It was not a power grab at this time, it couldn't have been. It took generations for Christianity to be accepted after the suffering of so many. Yet today, the average Catholic seems to fold under the pressures of secularization and has little integrity when comparing beliefs to their life lived. Seeing this removes credibility from the Christian life especially among many of the clergy. There is much lukewarmness and hypocrisy in the Church, but there is also so much good. The weeds grow among the wheat.

      As Chesterton said, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

      Anyway, I probably have gone on long enough. :-)

      Blessings to you as well.

      Delete
    11. Stefan, there are many, like you, who after having to deal with a lot of trauma in their lives, found a religious dogma they felt they could cling to and it helped. If that's the case, so be it. As far as what I meant by "edits," for many, many centuries the Popes ruled with iron fists and decided what was truth and what was not. Study the periods of the Crusades, Inquisition, and the Renaissance, and you will find what I'm referring to. I didn't give up Christianity easily and I still respect Jesus for who I now believe him to have been, not what any Pope or religion claims.

      My idea of an afterlife does not include heaven or hell ...but eternal life after life...but where there spark originated from is the 64 million dollar question no one on earth can answer. Peace be with you with whatever you choose to believe. Anna Maria (I was named after the Mother and Grandmother of Jesus) :D

      Delete
  4. Miracles by definition are the least likely events, so to assert that a miracle is the most probable explanation, is to say the least likely is the most likely.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've been inclined to think for many years that Jesus didn't really die on the cross. That he was taken down before his death, after passing out from pain, according to a lot written about it. If he did survive, it certainly would have been kept a secret from the Romans until he had a chance to "disappear"...and centuries later the Christians came up with the idea he was "resurrected" as "proof" of his divinity. To me, it's the only logical answer as to how he appeared to some of his devoted followers several days later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's definitely an interesting perspective, and it does explain a lot of it pretty well. The only difficulty I have with it is that when Jesus appeared after the resurrection he was in a different form (see mark 16:12 for example). It's possible that he was in disguise or something, but it sounded more to me like he was in another body. Perhaps the resurrected Jesus was just an impostor.

      Delete
    2. Jesus was only mostly-dead, which means he was slightly-alive! (Princess Bride reference.) It's possible, as is an imposter.

      Delete
    3. When you keep in mind these story's were handed down mouth to mouth for hundreds of years before they became "scripture," it's plausible they added the "change" of appearance as being "miraculous" rather than an effect of him "almost" being tortured to death. He was likely a little paler. ;)

      Delete
    4. The Islamic theory states that Jesus wasn't crucified and that a look-alike was substituted for him on the cross.

      Delete
    5. Since the Islamic view is a near copy-cat of the hardline Jewish/Christian views of ancient times, I suppose that's plausible.

      Delete
    6. Ah, the Jesus stunt double theory. :-)

      Delete