Naturally Speaking
Naturally Speaking
The Challenge of Naturalism
T T aturalism views the natural world as the sum of reality, usually holding
that scientific investigation is the best or even the only path to knowledge
and that only material phenomena are real. Those who embrace naturalism hold
that there is no such thing as a supernatural realm. God cannot be tested empirically (i.e., by observation and experiment) or by any other means. Some naturalists think that matters that cannot be resolved scientifically have little value.
What is nonscience is nonsense. This view is prevalent in Western society and
has permeated the scientific community, spilling over into other disciplines.'
Therefore, additional space will be given here to address the various objections
offered by naturalists and others who reject miraculous events, in spite of the
evidence that might be raised in their favor.
The arguments offered by naturalists are a major departure from the other opposing theories we have discussed thus far. You will notice that the objections included in this chapter are made apart from any investigation of the historical facts that may argue in favor of miracles, or Jesus' resurrection. In other words, they are philosophical considerations that are made without viewing the available evidences. Philosophers refer to these as a priori arguments. An example of an a priori argument would be to say, "No matter what evidence you are going to use in favor of miracles, such events never occur because they would contradict the laws of nature." In contrast, the opposing theories we have dis cussed in the two previous chapters attempt to address the known data and provide an alternate explanation for the observed phenomena. Philosophers refer to these as a posteriori arguments because they take a scientific or historical angle, entertaining the available facts. An example of an a posteriori argument would be to say, "I can explain all of your evidence for the Resurrection without resorting to anything supernatural," followed by the attempt to defend a particular opposing theory like those we have seen in this volume.
This may not seem like a big difference at first look. However, it will not take long for you to recognize that the way you respond to an a priori argument is quite different from the manner in which you answer an a posteriori argument. For example, if I desired to argue on behalf of miracles, I might challenge the philosopher taking the a priori argument above by saying, "How do you know that miracles are impossible? The historical evidence that I am presenting may just be what we need to refute your theory." Better yet, I might walk onto the philosopher's home turf and challenge the reasons for holding such a philosophical position in the first place. In this chapter we will use both approaches. On the other hand, we have already learned to challenge a posteriori arguments by saying, "Your alternative approach does not explain the data I am presenting. In fact, it fails by a large margin."
Most skeptics still respect the results of scientific research, continuing an outlook that has blossomed over the last century or two. We have learned a remarkable amount of information through the process of observation and testing known as the scientific method. What can science tell us about the possibility of a person rising from the dead? Has science shown that resurrections are impossible? Of what relevance are the laws of nature? Are there philosophical reasons why Jesus' resurrection was impossible or that, even if it occurred, we can never know it was a miracle, since science cannot verify it?
Let's look now at the general objections to miracles offered by naturalists. You may encounter them frequently from more sophisticated skeptics, such as some of those on the Internet and especially college students. Therefore, it is worth the effort to familiarize yourself with the following objections and their refutations.'
"Only what science can prove is true."
Some skeptics hold that scientific research is the only means of achieving new knowledge and assert that miracles such as Jesus' resurrection simply do not pass the test. So there is no way to verify that Jesus rose from the dead, since science has no tools with which to verify such an event.
This basic objection may be posed in many guises. For instance, it might simply be said that Christians do not have enough quality evidence for the Resurrection, or that, unlike scientific data, the historical evidence for miracles is not predictable or repeatable. Others think that scientific testing supersedes historical research and that history has no test for gullibility, so again we must rule out the Resurrection. These various responses have in common the belief that, somehow, the standards of the scientific method outweigh any historical data that may possibly exist for the Resurrection.
The first major problem with this objection is that the scientific method is limited in its ability to observe and test. Like history, this is simply part of the rules of research. Scientists regularly concede this. Popularly, it might be said that we can't measure love with a Geiger counter. Perhaps some examples would be helpful. Biology is frequently unable to predict outcomes. Geology and paleontology, like history, involve many situations that are not repeatable. As much as we might like to do so, we can't relive the dinosaur era.' Lastly, the scientific method cannot totally eliminate gullibility, other misrepresentations of the data, or plain old mistakes made by scientists. As with history, we must always inspect research results and require careful reporting practices. Thus, science has its own limitations that cannot serve as an excuse to rule out the supernatural.
Second, to claim that truth is found only in what science can test and "prove" is self-refuting. "There is no such thing as truth; and that's the truth" is a selfrefuting statement. If it is true that truth does not exist, then the statement itself is false-because that comment professes to be true. If it is false that there is no such thing as truth, then at least some truth exists because the statement itself is true. Either way, some things are true and the statement that denies it is false.'
But what is not as easily recognized is that the person who claims that truth is found only in what science can prove makes the same sort of self-refuting claim. Using only the scientific method, can the skeptic show that truth is found only in what science can demonstrate? The answer is obviously, no. There is no way to test the claim that only science yields truth. Lock a scientist in a room with all of the latest hi-tech equipment and ask for proof that only what science proves is true. The scientist will not succeed. The rule that science is the only way to know something is itself unscientific; it cannot be tested. So the claim that only science can demonstrate truth actually flunks its own test, since it cannot validate itself! Therefore, it is illegitimate to require that religion be proved in a test tube.'
Third, to require that historical events be predictable or repeatable also turns out to be self-refuting, since these are just different ways of stating that science is the only way to know something. Few historical events of any kind are truly predictable in the sense a scientist means, and none are, strictly speaking, repeatable. But once again, we have the same dilemma. The rule that levels these sorts of requirements is not scientific, hence it fails its own test. Further, should we reject the veracity of statements that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River or that George Washington was the first president of the United States? These events are not repeatable. Even worse for the scientist, unless the historical enterprise is reliable, science as we know it could not even proceed, since scientists must build on the shoulders of those who have made past discoveries. There is insufficient time in one's life to retest all former experiments before moving onward. Little progress could be made without historical assumptions. So we have a host of problems if historians must work only according to the scientific method. The system would be self-defeating for the scientist and an unscientific requirement that fails its own criteria.'
Fourth, while science perhaps cannot measure God's activity, there is no reason why we cannot consider non-supernatural portions of claims concerning the Resurrection. For example, did Jesus die? Was he seen alive at some later time? The scientist or historian could evaluate the conclusion: "Jesus was seen alive after his death." However, in his capacity as a scientist or historian, he perhaps could not draw the conclusion: "God raised Jesus from the dead," since he is unable to detect God's actions with the tools of his trade.'
Of course, this would not prohibit the scientist or historian from believing that God raised Jesus, and many of them do.' On the other hand, the philosopher or theologian can argue that God raised Jesus based on other well-founded data (see pp. 174-81).
"Science proves that people do not come back to life."
Let's look at another specific example or extension of the previous objection. A resurrection requires dead cells to come back to life. Hasn't science determined that such a state of affairs is clearly impossible? Through observation and testing, scientific laws are formulated in order to state what normally happens under certain circumstances. These laws have been observed throughout the past. We get similar results most of the time. The historian must employ his or her knowledge of scientific laws as they currently exist in order to determine whether something happened in the past. It may make sense that these laws, which produce consistent results today, produced the same results in the past. By understanding the laws of nature and how living cells work, we know that, when humans die, they stay dead. Their cells do not just regenerate, allowing them to return to life.
Therefore, assuming that the laws of nature are consistent, many skeptics claim that it is irrational to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, since science has proven that resurrections are impossible. But does scientific investigation really show that resurrections are impossible-period? Not at all. First, what science has shown is that a person is not going to rise from the dead by natural causes. But this does not apply to Jesus' resurrection, since we are not claiming that Jesus came back to life naturally.9 The writers of the New Testament asserted that it was God who raised Jesus from the dead. 10
Second, the Resurrection is not an isolated event; it occurred in an interconnected religio-historical context that helps to provide meaning. This context includes such facts as Jesus' personal claims to divinity," his deeds that appeared miraculous in nature,'Z and possibly even his predictions concerning his resur- rection.13 Jesus' life and claims happened within a context in which his resurrection is right at home.
If someone reported that they had seen Mike's grandfather walking around after being dead for over twenty years, we would have no context in which to believe them. Mike's grandfather never claimed divinity, never performed a miracle, and did not predict that he would rise from the dead. Obviously, we would rightly have many serious questions. It is much more likely that some sort of misunderstanding has taken place. But if we also saw Mike's grandfather, especially in groups and on several occasions, in contexts where we could check out the circumstances, we might begin to wonder.
Now if, unlike Mike's grandfather, these events did occur in a religiously significant environment, as in Jesus' case, the situation would differ on another level. We might even begin thinking about the possibility that God was at work. It seems that this is what happened to Jesus' disciples, as well as to James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul. The evidence overwhelmed them all."
Thus, this objection does not apply to Jesus' resurrection unless a naturalistic theory is workable, and we've already seen how difficult it is to find one that works. We should also remember that, as we have said, this objection is an ex tension of the previous scientific response. As such, it is additionally burdened by many of those objections, as well as a few that we will now list.
"Science can explain everything, so we don't need a God."
"Science will one day explain everything, so we don't need a God," says the naturalist, who may argue that often "God" has been suggested as the cause of everything a culture cannot understand. God was handy to fill in the holes in current knowledge. This is sometimes referred to as a "God of the gaps" theory. For example, prior to a scientific understanding of weather phenomena, some may have described thunder and lightning as the audible and visible indications of God's anger. An eclipse might have signaled even greater wrath. Further, since science can explain much more today, there is a good chance that, as we learn still more in the future, science will be able to one day explain everything, including Jesus' resurrection. Then there will be no need to appeal to "God of the gaps" explanations.
First, the existence of "God of the gaps" explanations in the past no more undermines current arguments for God than discarded scientific theories and medical beliefs undermine today's science and medicine. The mistakes in each should only drive us to more careful theorizing in the future.
Second, the criticism that God is simply a way to explain unknown phenomena commits the informal logical error known as the genetic fallacy. Remember, this occurs when it is assumed that discovering how a belief originated (e.g., God of the gaps) is sufficient to explain that belief. However, it is a fallacy because it attacks the origin of a view instead of the view itself, which could still be correct. For example, that some ancient Romans may have thought that Jupiter was responsible for their victory over the Gauls, does not nullify the historical factuality of the battle or Rome's great victory.
Third, what we already know from respected disciplines like medical science, history, and psychology is precisely what renders the conclusion of Jesus' resurrection so compelling. Conversely, these same disciplines disprove natural explanations of this event, as we have seen. Interestingly enough, without a workable opposing theory, the skeptic must be careful not to substitute a "naturalism of the gaps" view. This occurs when critics have little ground on which to oppose the Resurrection, yet they conclude that it still could not have happened (which is a mere denial). Or they simply refuse to believe in spite of not having a viable counter response. We must not suspend judgment when adequate evidence is available upon which to make a decision. The Resurrection challenges nature's laws, and there does not seem to be a way to incorporate it within nature.
Fourth, it is an unjustified leap to proclaim that at some future point in time we will find a scientific answer for the resurrection of Jesus. This could be said about almost anything. For example, would it be permissible for someone to proclaim that at some undisclosed future point we will overturn some wellfounded scientific or historical position and then begin acting as if this hope already is a reality? Miracle-claims are always subject to future investigation, so what is the issue? If the Resurrection is attacked at some future date, Christians will research and respond accordingly. In the meantime, we should not overrule the possibility of the Resurrection without a viable reason.
"If God exists, he cannot intervene in natural laws."
If God exists, he is not stronger than the laws of nature, or he may choose not to act in our world." This might be the position of a deist who holds that God exists and created the world, but does not get involved in his creation. It is also held by one who thinks that God is unable to overrule his laws. Of course, these are not naturalistic positions, but someone with this view of God agrees with the naturalist that God does not act in history, so he did not perform Jesus' resurrection.
This view is beset with a number of problems. First, where do these questioners receive their information? This conclusion would not seem to be arrived at through scientific means, since we are regularly told that science can know nothing about God. Therefore, these philosophical beliefs that God cannot supersede the laws of nature must be justified some other way.
If God created the universe, including the natural laws that govern it, what would prohibit such a Being from suspending or temporarily overriding those same laws to perform a miracle? God cannot perform logically impossible acts such as making a married bachelor or a square circle. However, there is nothing logically impossible about God suspending the physical laws he set up, especially if he wished to send a message. And if he acted miraculously to create the world, it would certainly seem that he can work further in nature. In the end, it does not seem there is any reason, either scientific or philosophical, why God could not intervene in the world he created if he chose. In the absence of any compelling reasons to reject this possibility, we must be open to it.
Third, Jesus' resurrection is an excellent reason for concluding that God not only could act miraculously in the world, but that he actually did.
(Continued on pg. 145)
"Science must assume a naturalistic explanation for everything."
Not wishing to abandon a scientific demeanor, the skeptic might continue along a related path to explain, "Science must assume that all events have natural causes." A scientist would most likely assume that, even if there were good evidence that a dead man had been seen later, this would have to be explained in a natural manner. Once again, this objection to the Resurrection could be expressed variously, using one or more of the theories that we discussed in chapters 6 and 7.15
Or a person might allow that such an occurrence as someone returning to life did occur as a freak event of nature, a one-of-a-kind set of occurrences that, in spite of appearances, was really quite natural as the result of an unusual confluence of natural properties we do not yet understand. After all, strange things do happen. Or maybe a specific strategy would be proposed: "We should expand our concept of nature's laws to make room for such an event that is otherwise unexplainable in natural terms." Or someone could charge that, as long as something occurs in nature, we will simply call it a natural event.
The force of all such strategies is to keep scientific reasoning in control of the explanation, to avoid the idea of divinity superseding nature. These responses are really quite creative. But they still face a number of serious problems such as the following.
First, although natural causes should be considered first, a supernatural cause may be considered when all natural theories fail, and there is credible evidence in favor of divine intervention. True, we should be careful that this not become a'God- of-the-gaps" solution, where God becomes the default answer whenever we cannot think of something else. Nevertheless, when the facts seem to point strongly to the divine, and all natural explanations appear highly improbable, a supernatural explanation should be strongly considered. Another reason to keep an open mind is that we cannot apply the scientific method to a supernatural occurrence if one comes along. That is a limitation on science, not on our ability to know. 16 Molecular biologist, Michael Behe, clearly states the dilemma for the scientist:
Imagine a room in which a body lies crushed, flat as a pancake. A dozen detectives crawl around, examining the floor with magnifying glasses for any clue to the identity of a perpetrator. In the middle of the room, next to the body, stands a large, gray elephant. The detectives carefully avoid bumping into the pachyderm's legs as they crawl, and never even glance at it. Over time the detectives get frustrated with their lack of progress but resolutely press on, looking even more closely at the floor. You see, textbooks say detectives must "get their man," so they never consider elephants."
When it comes to Jesus' resurrection, Behe's elephant may represent God. The complete inability of opposing theories to account for the disciples' beliefs that they had seen the risen Jesus, coupled with supporting evidence favoring the truthfulness of their beliefs, leaves Jesus' resurrection as the best explanation to account for our collection of historical data. 's In fact, it is the only plausible explanation that accounts for it.
Second, the laws of nature would be no match for an omnipotent God who chooses to act by superseding those laws. Thus, the entire naturalistic mindset misses the forest for the trees. The issue here is not whether everything can be explained by the laws of nature. The crucial question is whether there is a God who may have superseded nature by a superior power. Scientific reliance upon natural processes to explain everything does not answer the question of whether all things that happen are controlled only by natural processes. God may have momentously stepped in to do something that nature cannot explain. Further, if we had evidence that such an event occurred, this data would actually be supe- riorto the natural working of nature's laws, since that would mean that God performed an act for which nature cannot account. The result of this critique is that historical evidence might, for a brief time, actually supersede scientific evidence, since it means that, at that very moment, God intervened in nature.
Third, certain miracles have characteristics that show that they are actually caused by interferences with the laws of nature. Philosopher Richard Swinburne suggests that the best case for recognizing a miracle would include all of the following: (1) It has never happened before or since; (2) the event definitely cannot be accounted for by a current law of nature; and (3) no foreseeable revision of our statement of a law of nature could explain the event in natural terms. Swinburne claims that a resurrection meets these criteria." Intriguingly, resurrection claims in other religions are not well-attested.20 Will the naturalist say that dead men do not rise, except for Jesus Christ?
Fourth, when a naturalist insists on assuming that all events must be interpreted naturally, or that nature must always be made to allow only natural events, he is arguing in a circle because he assumes his naturalistic stance in order to pronounce judgment on other conceptual issues. But how does he know that naturalism is correct, especially when good evidence for a divine miracle exists?
"Even if a miracle occurred, we could never know that it was a miracle."
This objection does not so much question the evidence for a miracle, but wonders how we can trace it to God. Like other objections we have examined in this chapter, this can be raised from various directions. Events do not come with nametags on them identifying their cause, so, short of such a signature, how could we ever know that God performed it? Besides the event itself, we need a pointer that will help to indicate its significance. Otherwise, even if we discover an incredibly strange event, we could treat it like a 'natural miracle"-a one of a kind natural oddity (like a group hallucination) instead of an act of God.
At least three problems exist with this view. First, if God exists, then we have a good reason to consider a link between some events and a divine cause.21
Second, signs exist that identify an act as a miracle. It is true that a historical event, by itself, could never be labeled as a miracle without additional criteria. We need another yardstick, besides the event itself, to indicate that God performed it. And we have just these sorts of pointers in the case of the Resurrection. In addition to the outstanding evidence for Jesus' resurrection, we have the religio-historical context of his claims to divinity (see chapter 10). He was known as a powerful miracle-worker.Z2 He claimed that how people responded to him would determine where they spent eternity. Further, no plausible natural explanations can account for all of the known facts regarding the resurrection of Jesus. Never in history has there been such a unique combination of events, along with additional criteria.
Third, expanding the laws of nature in order to eliminate the miraculous nature of the data surrounding Jesus' resurrection creates more problems. For example, some will argue that it is preferable to accept that there were "natural miracles," or exceptional oddities like mass hallucinations, to accepting the existence of real supernatural miracles. But a huge problem is that no single natural option, however unusual, can explain all of the evidence for the Resurrection, even if we stretch to this further position of referring to it as a natural miracle.
On the one hand, such an adjusted hallucination theory would still leave facts like the empty tomb, Paul's conversion, James's conversion, and other facts unexplained. But on the other hand, this revised theory is even more problematic than it first appears. It does not simply require one group hallucination, but several of them. A separate group hallucination would be required for every time Jesus appeared to a group of people. Instead of a single group hallucination, which is foreign to modern psychology, we need several of these "natural miracles' in a row. Should we conclude, then, that mass hallucinations do not occur, except among Jesus' followers, and then they did so repeatedly? Certainly, this would seem to be a highly problematic admission for naturalists, since it appears in itself to border on a real miracle. And even if we accepted that possi bility, we still would not have resolved several of the critically acknowledged historical facts.
A resurrection looks more plausible than these repeated rational contortions.
"Miracles in other religions count against Christian miracle claims."
Some critics may charge that Christians must disprove miracles in all other religious traditions in order to let their examples stand. Or they complain that non-Christian miracle claims somehow make Christian claims less likely. Although popular, this sort of response is opposed by a host of issues that are frequently overlooked.
First, genuine miracles could happen among unbelievers and still be entirely compatible with Christian belief. Thus, Christians have no obligation to disprove miracle claims in other religious traditions. Even in Scripture, God acted supernaturally among unbelievers, such as healing Naaman's leprosy.23 If Scripture is correct, it may even be the case that demons can perform actual supernatural wonders or counterfeit illusions designed to confound people.
Second, miracles in other religions tend to be rather poorly attested. Their questionable factuality as historical events cannot rule out the possibility that a real miracle with good attestation could occur.24 Miracle stories involving founders of major world religions such as Buddha or Krishna, appear centuries after the events they are said to record. In other cases, like the lives of Confucius and Lao-Tzu, there are no serious miracle claims. Historian Edwin Yamauchi, one of the foremost scholars on ancient world cultures and religions, argues that the reports relating to miracles by Jesus and the accounts of his resurrection are unique.25
Third, miracles in other religions usually can be dismissed with a plausible opposing theory, whereas we have seen that opposing theories fail to answer the facts regarding Jesus' resurrection.26
"There is a huge mountain of probability against an event ever being an act of God."
Another major scruple stands behind many naturalistic objections to miracles. The critic says, "Even before investigating a claimed miracle, we know that there is a huge mountain of probability against it ever being an act of God." To say that corpses stay dead much more often than they come back to life is a wild understatement. In short, the world we inhabit does not make room for the miraculous. It is simply not that kind of universe. So even if we cannot explain what happened to Jesus after his crucifixion, this reasoning would insist that there could not have been a resurrection. The technical name for the issue that is being raised by this sort of objection is antecedent probability. Even before an investigation, miracles are so improbable because of the evidence against miracles from past experience, that they are considered highly unlikely, if not practically impossible."
This mindset seems to make sense and is a thoughtful approach, but it has serious problems:
First, if the sort of God described in the Christian Scriptures exists, there is no reason to reject the possibility of miracles as the explanation of well-attested events for which no plausible natural explanations exist.2R
Second, to say that we should deny Jesus' resurrection, no matter how strong the evidence, is to be biased against the possibility that this could be the very case for which we have been looking.29
Third, the entire foundation on which this objection is based is fatally flawed. We learn about the nature of this world by our experience of reality. Our knowledge of the world around us is gained by gathering information. When we cast our net into the sea of experience, certain data turn up. If we cast our net into a small lake, we won't be sampling much of the ocean's richness. If we make a worldwide cast, we have a more accurate basis for what exists.
Here is the crunch. If we cast into our own little lakes, it is not surprising if we do not obtain an accurate sampling of experience. However, a worldwide cast will reveal many reports of unusual occurrences that might be investigated and determined to be miracles. Surely most of the supernatural claims would be found to be untrustworthy. But before making the absolute observation that no miracles have ever happened, someone would have to investigate each report.
It only takes a single justified example to show that there is more to reality than a physical world. We must examine an impossibly large mountain of data to justify the naturalistic conclusion assumed in this objection. When data relating to the supernatural are examined, unwanted evidence is cast aside. This point does not claim that we actually have such evidence.30 Rather it is simply a straightforward challenge to naturalistic methods.
Evidence exists that there have been (and perhaps still are) supernatural phenomena. Although not as well-attested as Jesus' resurrection, to the extent that they can be confirmed, they should significantly change our ideas concerning the nature of this world. Consequently, not only would the backdrop for the entire naturalistic objection disappear, but also it would actually turn the subject in the opposite direction. If other miracles do occur, then the Resurrection is far more plausible. Although we cannot defend such specifics here, we do note that scientists have occasionally found ways to measure and discern a possible correlation between prayer and healing." We might be able to find other potential avenues for looking at the possibility of supernatural intervention into today's history.32 Due to its evidential nature, we will take a more-detailed look in the next section at one of these areas, "near death" experiences.
Naturalism (continued)
Near-death experiences challenge naturalistic understandings.
The phenomenon that has come to be called a "near-death experience" (NDE) also provides a substantial challenge to naturalism. It might even be said that, by themselves, NDEs offer evidence that naturalism is mistaken at a key pointthat of life after death. We are not interested here in the thousands of reports by those who have claimed simply to have experienced tunnels, lights, and meetings with deceased loved ones, angels, and even God. During the past few decades, however, dozens of more credible reports have been documented of individuals who returned to consciousness after being comatose or at the point of clinical death. Some of these individuals have described in amazing detail, facts about their physical surroundings that they should not have been able to know. Some have described details of medical procedures performed on them. Some have related memories of conversations that others had during their medical emergencies or even described the jewelry and clothing worn by those around them. Some accounts have given verified details about what happened outside the immediate room, down the hallway, or even miles away. The amount of verification is sometimes staggering. People blind from birth have correctly recalled visual details of things around them and outside their presence. Many of these near-death details were of events occurring when the individual had no heartbeat or brain wave activity, as indicated by "flat" EKG and EEG readings, sometimes over lengthy periods of time.33
A nine-year-old girl had a swimming accident and was under water for nineteen minutes. She was given very little chance of surviving. Hooked up to machines to keep her alive, she surprised everyone by regaining consciousness three days later. She took almost one hour to explain her experiences during that time. Even though Melvin Morse, the pediatrician who resuscitated her in the emergency room, reported that she was "profoundly comatose" with "fixed and dilated pupils" and without brain activity, she accurately described several details from the emergency room. Then she said that she visited heaven with an angel and had spoken with her deceased grandfather. She said that she also looked in on her family at home, and accurately described what her father, brother, and sister were doing, as well as their clothing. She knew that her mother had cooked roast chicken and rice for dinner. Since she claimed that these conditions had occurred only a couple of days before, Morse was able to verify these details with the family.34
Interviews with those who claim to have visited heaven often are very moving. However, these comments do not contain the verifiable landmarks possible with NDEs that describe events or conditions in this world. Only evidential reports concern us here.
Many of these reports are so well-documented that some naturalists have been forced to take them seriously, even admitting the possibility they pose of life beyond the grave. John Beloff, writing in The Humanist, argued that the evidence for an afterlife was so strong that humanists should just admit it and attempt to interpret it in naturalistic terms.3S Amazingly, the well-known atheist philosopher A. J. Ayer experienced an NDE that he could not explain in natural terms: "On the face of it, these experiences, on the assumption that the last one was veritical, are rather strong evidence that death does not put an end to consciousness. "16 Ayer concluded, "My recent experiences have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death, which is due fairly soon, will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be."37 Atheist philosopher Antony Flew attests that NDEs "certainly constitute impressive evidence of the possibility of the occurrence of human consciousness independent of any occurrences in the human brain.... This evidence equally certainly weakens if it does not completely refute my argument against doctrines of a future life."3R
The challenge provided by NDEs is just an example of numerous indications we might cite that this is most likely not a naturalistic universe. Of course, we have been arguing throughout this book that Jesus' resurrection is another evidence that needs to be answered by naturalists. Strong evidence for an afterlife as well as other pointers mentioned above, challenge naturalism's attempt to explain reality."' So strong is the totality of evidence that the assumption of naturalism needs to be abandoned. If naturalism is no longer tenable, the most influential backdrop for rejecting miracles is itself an illegitimate avenue.
We have seen that the naturalistic worldview fails to account adequately for the known facts that surround Jesus' resurrection. Often dressed up with scientific jargon, some naturalists appear to think that science and religion cannot coexist. The skeptic asks us to come to our senses and realize that Jesus' resurrection is shown to be nonsense by the same science that has taken us to the moon and created technology that leaves our minds reeling in amazement. When we examine the naturalist's claims, however, we discover no wedge between science and religion. Indeed the approach of the naturalist fails to disprove miracles. We also find that naturalism fails to account for some crucial phenomena regarding the nature of the world in which we live. This is indeed distressing to the critic, since what it fails to explain sheds an entirely new light on the question of Jesus' resurrection. The world is a more complicated place than some critics have thought. Strong data suggests it is a world where God has acted.
Conclusion
We have taken a good look at the major theories that oppose the proposition that Jesus rose from the dead. Over the last two thousand years, critics have developed and proposed these alternatives to account for the collection of strongly attested data. We have seen that, one by one, they have all suffered mortal blows from the known data.
Nothing can ruin an otherwise interesting argument like the facts.
Although several opposing theories have been posited, it seems to us that most of them can be traced to one difficulty. Each critic is committed to a particular worldview that cannot permit Jesus' resurrection without their worldview being overturned. This applies to atheism and deism, both of which hold that supernatural events like a resurrection from the dead cannot or do not occur. The Muslim must likewise reject Jesus' resurrection for theological reasons, since this event would confirm the Christian worldview and expose Muhammad as a deceiver or as one deceived.40 If one does not start out with a philosophical or theological bias against the Christian God, there are no good reasons to reject the resurrection of Jesus, particularly because the evidence for it is so good. As the prominent atheist scholar Antony Flew commented, "Certainly given some beliefs about God, the occurrence of the resurrection does become enormously more likely.""
In spite of the strong evidence and the fact that opposing theories fail to explain it adequately, critics of Jesus' resurrection abound today within scholarship. As stated in the introduction to part 3 (See also pp. 118-9), the prevalent view among sophisticated critics today is that the disciples seemed to have experienced "something," but what it was that they experienced will never be known. The general bias is against resurrections because of the widespread acceptance of naturalism. However, we have seen that naturalism is besieged with problems. Therefore, when we consider what we do know historically about Jesus' resurrection, there simply are no opposing theories that can account for the facts.
Let's sum up where we are at this point. We have seen that the resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of Christianity, which stands or crumbles depending on whether this event actually occurred.
The "minimal facts approach" considers only those historical data that are so strongly attested that virtually all scholars who study the subject grant them as facts, even the majority of nonbelieving scholars. Therefore, one cannot object to Jesus' resurrection because he rejects the Bible, since in our argument nothing hinges on the trustworthiness of the Bible.
Using this approach, we have observed four minimal facts, plus a fifth fact that is granted by an impressive majority, though not virtually all of scholars. We refer to these five facts as "4+ 1."
We have seen that (1) Jesus died due to crucifixion. Subsequent to his death, (2) the original disciples sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them. Since the disciples themselves claimed to be eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus, a legend developed over time cannot account for the story. Since there is good evidence that they believed that what they said was fact, deliberate lies cannot account for it either.
We have also seen that there is good evidence to support the credibility of the disciples' claims about the resurrection of Jesus. (3) We have credible testimony from one enemy of Christianityand (4) one skeptic, both of whom converted to Christianity based on their beliefs that the risen Jesus had appeared to them. Therefore, not only did Jesus' friends believe that he had risen and appeared to them, one of his foes did as well, as did a skeptic. Moreover, (5) the tomb was empty, a fact totally consistent with a resurrection.
We have seen that, to date, no opposing theories have developed that can adequately account for the collection of facts we have. That leaves us with good reason to hold Jesus rose from the dead and no good reasons for rejecting it.
Therefore, Jesus' resurrection is more than the most plausible explanation to account for the data. It is the only explanation that accounts adequately for all of the facts.
Before we wrap up our studies on Jesus' resurrection, it will be beneficial to cover a few topics that are likely to come up in discussions with others. These will be the focus in the next four chapters. However, since these issues are not of primary importance, if you are feeling quite challenged or overwhelmed by all of the new information, feel free to skip over those chapters for now and proceed to chapter 13. You can return to them later.
It is time again to improve your skills. Take your second quiz using the software that came with this volume. The first quiz reinforced your knowledge of the evidence. This second quiz will help you remember how to answer objections to Jesus' resurrection. We would appreciate hearing from you when you have passed both quizzes with a minimal grade of 80 percent. A hyperlink will be provided. Click and go to the special web site. This will let us know that another person has successfully passed both quizzes. You will also be able to download a "Certificate of Completion." Once you have completed the quizzes successfully, congratulations on your good work! We encourage you to move to Part 4 after completing the quiz. We pray that our Lord will use you more effectively than ever to share his good news with others.