 |
| He's dead! No, he's risen! No, he's dead. Ah, now I'm not sure. Whatever. |
Watch how this happens.
First:
Last night the media erupted with news that Osama Bin Laden has been tracked down and killed by American forces. President Obama went on national television and proclaimed that Bin Laden is dead. I believe him. Why should I believe Obama? Because no one in their right mind would declare to be true that which can easily be proven false.Then:
Now consider the case for Christ. In the months and years following the crucifixion Jesus’ disciples proclaimed that he was alive. I believe them, because, again, no one in their right mind would declare to be true that which can easily be proven false.And finally:
I am unable to deny the resurrection. To do so requires a leap of blind credulous faith that I simply cannot manage.Now, I have confidence that the report of Osama's death is accurate. My point is simply that a crappy reason for believing the report is "no one in their right mind would declare to be true that which can easily be proven false."
It is demonstrably true that people in their right minds can and will lie even if their lies can be easily uncovered. It happens all the time in homes, between buddies, in police interrogations, and everywhere else.
In any case, the proclamation for the living Jesus was never easy to prove false. Hey, I saw Elvis Presley shopping at the mall yesterday. Prove I didn't.
About as much time has passed between Elvis's death and now as had passed between Jesus's death and the earliest Gospels. Add to this the fact that we don't know the level of the Gospel reports. That is, we know they certainly ain't first-hand accounts. Are they second-hand? third-hand? embellished?
We could go on--and I have in earlier posts--but I'm not trying to engage the argument above. A cursory reading is enough even to intuit that it's nonsense.
And so your point, I take it, is that bin Laden really isn't dead.
ReplyDeleteNo, that's not my point at all.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that there are much better reasons to believe or disbelieve a certain story than "no one in their right mind would declare to be true that which can easily be proven false."
People lie all the time, quite convincingly, even when they know they could easily be caught in the lie.
But haven't you implied that one can't actually believe, then, the claims of Obama and the CIA? In other words, is there any good reason to believe that Obama isn't just lying?
ReplyDeleteNo, I have not implied that.
ReplyDeleteIs Obama a credible source of information for Osama being dead? Are the CIA a credible source?
Yes, they are pretty credible because (1) I can be reasonably assured that they have correct information on this specific matter and (2) people are killed all the time, so I require no special brain gymnastics to accept this claim.
Could Obama and the CIA be lying or misinformed? Yes, certainly. This is why it's a crappy reason to accept their claims at face value or on the premise that "no one in their right mind would declare to be true that which can easily be proven false."
Please also note that I have not accused anyone of "lying" in the case of Jesus.
Ultimately, all I'm saying is that if you want a good reason to believe someone is telling the truth, you better have something better than "no one in their right mind would declare to be true that which can easily be proven false."
Is this so hard?
Thanks for engaging.
ReplyDelete1. The problem with your post (and argument) is that you've assumed that the blog you cited takes the position that this the only rational evidence given for the resurrection. No one has ever said that this argumentation should be taken at face value. It seems you're really attacking a strawman.
2. But isn't this piece of argumentation foundational to eye-witness testimony? Musn't the eye-witness actually believe what he/she is saying? Moreover, while this sort of proof is not incontrovertible, it is surely weighted in favor of the claimer, for the simple fact that the claim--in the cases of bin Laden's death and Jesus' resurrection--is so public and so verifiable. Of course Paul, Peter et al could have lied, but it is more probable that they didn't.
3. And so, as one must do with any verification of an historical claim, a thorough, multi-faceted case must be made. This notion--that the many who claimed to have witnessed the resurrection are more likely to have been telling the truth for the simple fact that exposing the lie would have been easy--is only part of the whole evidential pie.
4. "Please also note that I have not accused anyone of 'lying' in the case of Jesus." Fine, but this is the only alternative you suggested. I'd be willing to hear others.
Anon.,
ReplyDelete1. I have made no such assumption. Rather, I have critiqued the specific argumentative support of "no one in their right mind would declare to be true that which can easily be proven false." This support is clearly offered in two different arguments, why one should believe Obama about Osama and why one should believe the Jesus case. So, I am "attacking" exactly what has been presented and in the way it was meant.
2. I don't know what the eyewitnesses believe or believed. We do not have eyewitness accounts of Jesus. None. We have some, I presume of Osama's demise.
3. The many who are reported to have claimed, not the many who claimed. Let's not forget that what we have are reports of reports, and way after the "fact."
4. I think the situation is more complicated than lying or telling the truth. Is Gilgamesh a lie? Is the Iliad? Is belief in angels a lie? In a 9/11 conspiracy? Is advertising a product and putting the "best spin" on it the same as lying? Bottom line is that the term "lie" has several connotations that I am not sure apply. I think that if we rather ask whether we have any good reason to think the Jesus story is true the answer very often is no.
1. This is what you previously said:
ReplyDelete"Ultimately, all I'm saying is that if you want a good reason to believe someone is telling the truth, you better have something better than 'no one in their right mind would declare to be true that which can easily be proven false.'"
It is one thing to say that you disagree with this sort of argumentation altogether (and so you'd need to respond to the second point in my last comment). But it is something else to say that just because the argument is not slam dunk that it can't be offered at all.
2. And this is where you and I part company, which is not earth-shattering. But what's interesting--and I'm sure you've gone into this in other posts--is that you're in the minority on this position, even amongst really liberal, non-Christian scholars. Too bad we don't have the time or space to hash this out. Of course everything hangs here.
3. Ditto.
4. Fine, but I still don't know what you actually think about the argument itself (and to give an opinion you'll have to assume hypothetically that the gospels really are historical, eye-witness accounts).
Anon.,
ReplyDeleteNow you are just trolling.
1. I didn't say the argument couldn't be offered. It certainly can be offered. It has been offered. And it sucks. In a society of free discourse, people are allowed to offer sucky arguments, and I am allowed to criticize and even mock such arguments.
2. Disagree all you want, but the facts still stand. Are you saying we have a confirmed first-person eyewitness account of the life of Jesus? Please let me know the name of this document, who wrote it, when, and how its authenticity has been verified.
3. OK.
4. I think the Gospels we have now developed over time to accrue some historical facts, some fiction, and some sun-god mythology. I think there's probably a difference between the way we today understand the Gospels and the way the earliest readers and hearers understood them.
Is it possible to claim someone a troll without himself falling prey to trolling? ;-) At least with regard to my contribution here, it was never intended to be inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic (if that's your definition of trolling). Sorry if you took it that way.
ReplyDelete1. It seems you're unwilling to deal with the substance of the argument other than calling it "crappy." So let me ask the question directly: if you assume that the eye-witness testimony of Peter and John is actually eye-witness testimony, is it more or less likely that, due to the public nature of Jesus' death and burial, and due to the resurrection's verifiability, that the authors really did believe (in the best sense of the word) that they witnessed the resurrection?
And this is over-and-against your Elvis analogy. The exact reason so few people believe that Elvis is alive is because it's so easy to point out Elvis' grave.
2. No, I'm serious. This is a brick wall for us, and I'm fine with that. Obviously what is "fact" to you isn't to me. I trust that Luke's and John's accounts, for example, are first-hand, historically credible, and accurate. Agree to disagree for now.
3. ...
4. Ok, that makes sense.
Thanks for your time!
Let's break this down:
ReplyDelete"if you assume that the eye-witness testimony of Peter and John is actually eye-witness testimony"
But Peter and John are not themselves reporting to us. They did not write the account(s) themselves. We don't have their testimony from their own hands. We have second/third/fourth-hand accounts of their alleged reports. And these reports are not recorded in writing, so far as we know, until about 30 years after the event(s) in question would have taken place.
"is it more or less likely that, due to the public nature of Jesus' death and burial, and due to the resurrection's verifiability,"
This brings in many questions for which we don't have answers. Crucifixion of a person would have been a public event, but we simply do not have first-hand accounts of Jesus in specific having been crucified, having dies, or having appeared again alive to others. You seem to give way more credence to the Gospels than is warranted.
"the authors really did believe (in the best sense of the word) that they witnessed the resurrection?"
I don't know what "the authors," a word that does not seem to apply in the situation of the Gospels, really believed or did not believe. Neither do you. This is precisely why I reject the argument that points to "why would they lie?" as key support. We don't know why they would lie or if they thought they were lying. We can speculate about the mindset of others endlessly, but that's art and ultimately unhelpful in a real determination of what we know.
Dude, yes. Exactly.
ReplyDeleteWhat you've done this whole while is begged the question. Of course all of this is moot if you don't believe that John, the beloved disciple, really wrote the book of John. Your hangup, then, is not with the general argument itself (publicly made claims that can be easily verified are more likely to be true) but with whether or not this argumentation applies to the New Testament. It's our brick wall, and I'm cool with that.
Thanks again.
Seriously, dude, there's no question begging because I am not dealing with the claim of "John." I'm dealing with the argument made by the person at the blog Uncommon descent. That person suggests, as you do, that "publicly made claims that can be easily verified are more likely to be true." This argument has been demonstrated false.
ReplyDeleteIt's therefore a crappy argument to use for believing Obama and a crappy argument to use for believing the Gospels.
You can construct plenty of arguments for believing the Gospels that rely on better logic than "publicly made claims that can be easily verified are more likely to be true."
But you cannot just believe "John" wrote John because it suits you. The historical evidence is decidedly against this belief. Let's not be naive.
What else do you have?
I like this post...Interesting! Comparing Jesus and Osama death. I think what will happen to Osama's followers in the next months will show us what that really happen to Osama. GBU
ReplyDeleteThe Truth for you
ReplyDeleteThe Jesus is not been crucified at all, at the night before crucification, GOD lifted Jesus in Havens, and GOD changed the face of the man as Jesus, who led romans to jesus. Romans crusified that Man.
Jesus will return to earth.
And ya Jesus is a Messenger of GOD, Not the Son of GOD.
Thank you. That clears up everything.
ReplyDelete