8. Naturally Speaking: The Challenge of Naturalism
Stopping at Nothing
More Critical Comebacks
7 ven if all of the opposing theories conjectured by skeptics fail to account
for the collection of historical data on an individual basis, what if a few of
these explanations were combined? As an example, let us make up a combination theory and call it the °theft/multiple psychosis theory." In this theory, someone other than the disciples stole the body from the tomb (i.e., Fraud 2). Peter
experienced a hallucination of the risen Jesus and subsequently deluded the
disciples into believing that they saw him as well. Paul had a conversion disorder, and James also experienced a hallucination of Jesus. Would this account
for all of the historical data and be as good an explanation, if not better, of the
data than a resurrection?
"A combination of theories can explain the Resurrection."
At least four major problems beset all combination theories.
First, combinations of theories generally lead to higher improbability, not a more probable solution. If a combination theory is to be true, all of its subtheories must be true. If one is not, then the theory fails to account adequately for all of the data. If one subtheory fails, the combination fails. Why does this lead to higher improbability? Suppose we flip a nickel into the air. The chance that it will land with the head side up is 50 percent. Then we add a second nickel and flip both into the air. The chance that both will come up on heads is 25 percent (.5 x.5). If we add three more nickels and flip all five into the air, the chances that all will come up on heads is 3 percent. Likewise, five theories, each having a 50 percent probability, lead to a combined probability of 3 percent. That is a 97 percent chance that things did not happen according to that combination theory.' Of course probabilities here are subjective estimations assigned by the person who is considering the force of the argument. However, some may find it helpful. Realizing that all of the theories must be true in a combination theory, even if one assigned an 80 percent probability to each of the five opposing theories posited in our example (such would be straining it to say the least), the probability of the combination of all of these theories being true is much less likely (.8 x .8 x .8 x .8 x .8 = .328 or 33 percent) than the theory being false (67 percent).
Second, while combination theories do a better job of accounting for more of the data, many of the problems that are present when considered individually remain when considered together. For example, in our 'theft/multiple psychosis theory" above, a conversion disorder on Paul's part remains highly unlikely, and there is no indication that James was in a frame of mind to hallucinate.
Third, it ends up sounding ad hoc. Even if there were no remaining problems, five component theories must be employed in order to account for the data in our 'theft/multiple psychosis theory." So it appears that the theory was contrived to make everything fit. The person who has been caught in a lie and then fabricates new lies in an attempt to defend his original lie is acting in an ad hoc manner. The liar is contriving new excuses to support the initial lie. Applied to Jesus' resurrection, the ad hoc nature of combination theories creates suspicion that the critic offering it is not interested in knowing what really happened. Fewer than five theories could be combined, but the challenge is to explain all of the relevant data regarding Jesus' resurrection.
Now of course if there were evidence that Paul experienced a conversion disorder and that James hallucinated, the ad hoc nature of our combination theory would be eliminated. However, no such evidence exists.
Fourth, even if no problems remained and no signs of an ad hoc component were present, the mere stating of an opposing theory does nothing to prove that this is what really happened. The burden lies on the shoulders of the one with the opposing theory to demonstrate that this is not only possible but that each component is a probable explanation of the facts.'
"There are discrepancies among resurrection accounts."
It is often suggested by critics that the Gospel writers themselves cannot seem to agree on some details surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. For example, were there one (John 20:1), two (Matt. 28:1), or three women who visited the tomb (Mark 16:1)? Did they see one (Matt. 28:2-7; Mark 16:5) or two angels (Luke 24:4; John 20:12)? Did they see the angel(s) before they told the disciples that Jesus' body was gone (Matt. 28:7; Mark 16:4-7; Luke 24:9) or after (John 20:1-9)? Because of such tensions, some critics suggest that we cannot know what really happened if the Gospel writers contradict themselves and the alleged eyewitnesses cannot even correctly report the events. In fact, they assert, these contradictions render the whole resurrection story as dubious.
There are several problems with this conclusion:
First, discrepancies in the Gospels concerning Jesus' resurrection, at most call into question the issue of the complete accuracy of the Gospels, but not their general trustworthiness when recording historical events.
Second, historians do not conclude that an event did not occur because the accounts contain discrepancies.' Ancient accounts vary on the details pertaining to the burning of Rome. How big was the fire? Who started it? Do these discrepancies nullify the general report that Rome indeed burned?' If eyewit nesses to an automobile accident at a busy intersection differ as to which car first entered the intersection, how many cars were involved, and how many people were in each car, is it reasonable to conclude that no accident occurred?' An insurance company may want to argue in this manner, but would you buy this assertion as a member of the jury? Therefore, one could even grant that all of these discrepancies were unsolvable and still hold to the general trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts.
Third, the discrepancies in the Gospels may indicate that they were independent accounts, since copiers would have been more unified on the facts. From a historian's vantage point, this diversity adds to their credibility, since it indicates that the event is being attested by more than one source.e
Fourth, while a discussion of alleged discrepancies is not part of our task here, coherent and plausible explanations exist that account for many if not all of the discrepancies.'
"The Resurrection accounts are biased."
Another criticism offered by skeptics is that all we have are the testimonies of Christians, who most likely transferred their personal biases and traditions into their writings. Therefore, these writings must be considered biased. Thus, we must suspect that they do not accurately report what really occurred.
This objection is plagued with several difficulties.
First, Paul's testimony is stronger than that of a neutral witness of the risen Jesus, since his bias ran in the opposite direction. He was certainly not sympathetic to the Christian cause. Rather he viewed Jesus as a false Christ and severely persecuted his followers. The skeptic may reply, "Yes, but after he became a Christian, he lost his standing as an unbiased source."
Granted that Paul lost his status as a hostile source after he became a Christian. However, he maintained hostility toward Christianity right up to the time when he believed. So we still have an appearance of the risen Jesus as the reason for the belief of a hostile source.
With one who persists in asserting that Christians still lack the testimony of someone who saw Jesus risen and did not convert, we might ask, "If someone actually witnessed the risen Jesus and was not changed by the experience, wouldn't this indicate that the person was too biased against Jesus to act on the facts? Biases go both ways." We would question the testimony of a person who really saw the raised Jesus and still rejected him.
Second, the biases of James the brother of Jesus also ran contrary to Christianity. The Gospels report that he was an unbeliever during the life of Jesus. Later we find reports of the risen Jesus appearing to James (1 Cor. 15:7a) and of his death for his belief that Jesus was the risen Messiah (see pp. 67-69). So with testimonies in our hands from the disciples Paul and James, we have examples of friends and foes who believed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them.
Third, recognizing the bias of an author does not automatically merit the conclusion that he or she has distorted the facts." Modern Jewish historians of the Nazi holocaust have very carefully chronicled Nazi atrocities because they are passionately committed to exposing what really occurred, whereas revisionist historians (mostly Gentile) tend to downplay the facts. In this case, personal bias encourages historical accuracy.'
Fourth, if we reject the testimony of all interested parties, we will have to reject most of our standard historical sources. The authors of such works often would not be writing unless they had a personal interest. It is the role of the historian to comb through the literature and attempt to see past the writer's personal biases to ascertain what really happened. A good example of this is found in the writings of the ancient Roman historian, Tacitus (A.D. 55-117). He opens his Annals with the claim to write "without anger or partiality, from whose motives I am far removed." 10 However, obvious statements to the contrary are present in his work." Yet these biased remarks do not disqualify much of what Tacitus writes as history. Today's historians usually can evaluate bias and separate questionable material from the core material of the events described. As a result of our employment of historical-critical procedures, Tacitus may still be regarded as our most reliable source for Roman history during the period about which he writes. 'Z
Fifth, the skeptic must be careful not to commit the genetic fallacy. We must recognize the difference between understanding why something is true versus understanding why something is believed or how one came to believe that it is true. There is no problem if the latter is the reason for the former. For example, Bill is presenting evidence for Jesus' resurrection to Steve. Steve attempts to cast doubt on Bill's evidence by saying that the reason Bill believes Jesus' resurrection is because he was brought up as a Bible believing Christian. Steve is committing the genetic fallacy. He is shifting the issue onto why Bill may have initially believed that Jesus rose rather than the truth of that belief. He's not answering Bill's evidence.
Likewise, to claim that we cannot rationally believe Jesus rose because the New Testament authors were biased toward Jesus is to commit the genetic fallacy. Such an argument fails to address the data they provide. The prominent New Testament historian N. T. Wright comments, "It must be asserted most strongly that to discover that a particular writer has a `bias' tells us nothing whatever about the value of the information he or she presents. It merely bids us be aware of the bias (and of our own, for that matter), and to assess the material according to as many sources as we can.""
Sixth, the skeptic must also avoid arguing ad hominem, a tactic that focuses on the person rather than on the content of the argument being considered. Someone who claims that the arguments of an atheist are invalid because the atheist has a bias against God is using an ad hominem argument. Here, the critic focuses on the person and not on the arguments presented by the atheist. The atheist may be very biased against God. But this says nothing in terms of the legitimacy of the arguments, which must be evaluated on their own merits.
Bias does not mean lying. Someone may be biased and correct. Likewise, even if the testimony that Jesus rose from the dead came from those who would benefit from the miraculous reappearance of their teacher, this does not necessarily mean that they lied about it, especially since the data indicate that they were not (see discussion on Fraud 1, p. 93-95).
"A risen Jesus would have made a greater impact."
If Jesus performed all the miracles that are claimed, especially his resurrection from the dead, why isn't he mentioned in the first century beyond a few Christian sources? A risen Jesus would have made more of an impact on his culture.
In the first century, people did not have access to all of our convenient ways to record and preserve the facts about events. Further, we know that much of what was recorded in the past has been lost. New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg, who served as an editor for and contributor to a large scholarly work on the Gospels," provides four reasons why more was not written on Jesus in his time: "the humble beginnings of Christianity, the remote location of Palestine on the eastern frontiers of the Roman empire, the small percentage of the works of ancient Graeco-Roman historians which have survived, and the lack of attention paid by those which are extant to Jewish figures in general."" We know that about half of what the Roman historian Tacitus wrote is no longer available. Only a fragment of what Thallus wrote in the first century about ancient Mediterranian history has survived. Suetonius is aware of the writings of Asclepiades of Mendes, yet, his writings are no longer available. Herod the Great's secretary, Nicholas of Damascus, wrote a Universal History in 144 books, none of which have survived. Livy, the great Roman historian, has suffered a similar fate. Only his early books and excerpts of the rest survive. '6
We also know of several early Christian writings that are no longer available. For example, an influential church leader of the early part of the second century named Papias wrote five books that are quoted by several early church fathers." However, none of these books has survived. Only a few citations and slight summary information remain." Quadratus was a Christian leader who wrote a defense of the Christian faith to the Roman Emperor Hadrian around 12 5. However, if Eusebius had not quoted a paragraph and mentioned his work, we would be totally unaware of its composition.'9 The five books of Recollections, written by Hegesippus in the second century, have likewise been lost. Only fragments have been preserved, mostly by Eusebius.
What we have concerning Jesus actually is impressive. We can start with approximately nine traditional authors of the New Testament. If we consider the critical thesis that other authors wrote the pastoral letters and such letters as Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians, we'd have an even larger number. Another twenty early Christian authors20 and four heretical writings mention Jesus within 150 years of his death on the cross.21 Moreover, nine secular, nonChristian sources mention Jesus within the 150 years: Josephus, the Jewish historian; Tacitus, the Roman historian; Pliny the Younger, a politician of Rome; Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories; Lucian, the Greek satirist; Celsus, a Roman philosopher; and probably the historians Suetonius and Thallus, as well as the prisoner Mara Bar-Serapion.22 In all, at least forty-two authors, nine of them secular, mention Jesus within 150 years of his death.
In comparison, let's take a look at Julius Caesar, one of Rome's most promi nent figures. Caesar is well known for his military conquests. After his Gallic Wars, he made the famous statement, "I came, I saw, I conquered." Only five sources report his military conquests: writings by Caesar himself, Cicero, Livy, the Salona Decree, and Appian.23 If Julius Caesar really made a profound impact on Roman society, why didn't more writers of antiquity mention his great military accomplishments? No one questions whether Julius did make a tremendous impact on the Roman Empire. It is evident that he did. Yet in those 150 years after his death, more non-Christian authors alone comment on Jesus than all of the sources who mentioned Julius Caesar's great military conquests within 150 years of his death.
Let's look at an even better example, a contemporary of Jesus. Tiberius Caesar was the Roman emperor at the time of Jesus' ministry and execution. Tiberius is mentioned by ten sources within 150 years of his death: Tacitus, Suetonius, Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Seneca, Valerius Maximus, Josephus, and Luke.24 Compare that to Jesus' forty-two total sources in the same length of time. That's more than four times the number of total sources who mention the Roman emperor during roughly the same period. If we only considered the number of secular non-Christian sources who mention Jesus and Tiberius within 150 years of their lives, we arrive at a tie of nine each.25
"The disciples experienced `something.' What it was will never be known."
Surely the disciples did have some kind of experience. The prevalent reaction among critical scholars today who reject Jesus' resurrection is to agree that something happened, but add that we will never know exactly what transpired. A few points may help us address this type of response.
First, this response is a rejection of the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead, rather than a rejection of the evidence. It is not even a denial of the evidence.
Second, it is not what we do not know that is the issue here. It is what we do know. The facts are pieces of a puzzle that when assembled looks only like a resurrection. These facts cannot be ignored, especially since we have chiefly used only the minimal data that are so well evidenced that virtually all critical scholars who address these issues admit them. Two thousand years of attempts by critics to account for these facts by natural causes have failed. Most modern critics even grant this. Therefore, Jesus' resurrection from the dead is the only plausible explanation for the known facts.
Third, the context in which the evidence for Jesus' resurrection appears increases the likelihood that it occurred. This context includes Jesus' claims to divinity,2e that he was known as a powerful miracle-worker,27 and other data that support God's existence.21 In the absence of a valid reason for rejecting Jesus' resurrection, nothing prevents a rational person from concluding that Jesus' resurrection from the dead was an event in history.
"Jesus was an extraterrestrial alien."
Even if Jesus rose from the dead, this does not mean that he was who he claimed to be. Perhaps he was an alien from another planet who was playing some sort of cosmic joke on humankind and led us to believe that he died on a cross and rose from the dead. While this objection may be heard on a popular level, it is never raised in a scholarly context.
A skeptic who brings up an objection like this may be grasping for any argument. If you believe that the person is not truly seeking the truth at this point, smile and say something like, "It may be better to deal with the academic criticisms first, and if there is any time left over, we can look at the fun ones." This lets the person know that such a theory should not be given much merit, without being insulting."' Or you could answer with a smile, "Yes, I agree. Jesus was an alien. As the Son of God, he was certainly not from this world!"
But what if the alien theory comes from someone who views it as a serious opposing theory? How will we answer the charge that Jesus may have been an alien?
Alien theory does not deny Jesus' resurrection, only God as the cause of it.
We observe that the life of Jesus differs substantially from typical alien accounts. Aliens usually arrive in a spaceship; Jesus was born on earth. Aliens usually appear for a very short time; Jesus was on earth for over thirty years. The usual report of an encounter with aliens describes them as abusive; Jesus was loving and compassionate.
The supposition that life exists in the universe outside Earth is questionable. Contrary to the popular media's portrayal of aliens in movies like ET, Cocoon, and Contact, the scientific evidence from astrophysics within the past thirty-five years makes it seem increasingly improbable that life exists anywhere else in the cosmos.
Cosmic constants are factors in our universe that if altered just a little, would make life impossible. Many factors must be within an extremely narrow range in order for a planet to meet just the most basic criteria for sustaining life. Constants relate to planet-star relationships, planet-moon relationships, the degree which a planet rotates on its axis, and many other conditions.
It is frequently stated that there must be life somewhere else in such a vast universe. Even if cosmic constants require that a planet meet an extremely narrow range of conditions to support life, given the immensity of our universe and the number of planets, wouldn't the existence of life elsewhere be prob able? The estimated number of galaxies in the cosmos is a little fewer than 1 trillion. Each galaxy has an average of 100 billion stars (1022). An average estimate of the number of planets is one planet per 1,000 stars (1019). The existence of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets would seem almost to require that the conditions for life to exist must come together somewhere other than Earth. Or does it?
The required constants for planet-star relationships themselves would eliminate 99.9 percent of all potential planets. When additional constants are considered, the odds of the existence of a planet capable of sustaining life are 1:1025. Since the total estimated number of planets in the universe is 10", it seems that we would not expect life to exist on even one planet, much less any others.3o
There is good evidence that God exists." Not only does the resurrection of Jesus provide strong evidence for the existence of God, but new understandings of complexity make recent arguments for an intelligent Designer of the universe very compelling. Scientific discoveries made during the past thirtyfive years in the fields of molecular biology and astrophysics have increased awareness of the intelligence behind creation.32 In addition, many have found compelling the arguments for an eternal first Cause of everything.33 Therefore, this interconnected account involving Jesus' resurrection is better explained as God's confirmation of his claims to divinity than an alien playing a cosmicjoke.34