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.

The Truth Is Out There, We Just Can't Reach It

I used to debate theists on the merits of evolution, the origins of the universe, and the foundations of morality. I never thought I’d say it, but those were the good ol’ days. I’ve had seven of my last ten apologetic opponents throw literally everything into question as soon as they realized they weren’t debating a newb. It's finally happened. They've come to the conclusion that there’s only one defensive strategy when the entirety of human knowledge is mounting against their belief: to throw human knowledge under the bus.

Epistemology (\i-ˌpis-tə-ˈmä-lə-jē\) is the study of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity. Apologists have their own theory on the validity of knowledge--that is, knowledge is only valid when grounded in the divine. There is no truth, only Truth. The capital “T” relates the word to the imaginary and changes the definition to the less accepted yet, in their minds, more accurate attribute and/or synonym of God.

The apologist is applying the philosophical argument that objective truth is impossible to determine to the naturalistic worldview. This speaks to my aversion to pointless philosophy, and yet, I must admit, I can’t refute their claim. When I take into account thought experiments in which our reality could be an elaborate holographic simulation or our brains could be drugged and electrically stimulated to perceive things that are false, I intellectually have no choice but to accept that any objective truth is out of my jurisdiction. Where the apologist goes wrong is their claim of exception.

Any philosophical argument for why I can’t know what I believe can also be applied to Catholics, Fundamentalists, Mormons, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Taoists, Scientologists, Buddhists, Pagans, Occultists, Rastafarians, whatever. In a naturalistic framework, we are all in the same uncertain boat. Claiming divine revelation of capital “T” Truth isn’t an argument based on reason or logic, it’s a claim of exception based on probable myth--which tends to be unconvincing to those who actually value reason and logic. Moreover, believers face further uncertainty simply by subscribing to a supernatural worldview. Sure, their brains could be in something as pedestrian as vats, but also could their brains be telepathically manipulated by any number of magical entities (gods included,) forever beyond our ability to quantify. For the supernaturalist, all bets are off, giving any epistemological high ground to the naturalist.

While I can’t deny philosophical uncertainty, I see no reason to apply it. Absolute truth is beyond our grasp, fine. Then there’s no point in trying to grasp it. I’m pragmatic. If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck--that’s good enough for me. It’s a duck--especially if others agree. There is something to be said for consensus reality. Essential truth is what we can ascertain about our consensus reality, and science is the most objective method to ascertaining this truth. When I say something is true, I mean it is the best, most objective data available. It’s not capital “T” Truth, but then nothing is.