13. People Skills: The Art of Sharing ............................ 191
"Elvis sightings are like those of Christ."
It is possible to find people who honestly believe that there is no body in the tomb of Elvis Presley or that he rose from death but no one has found the evidence convincing enough to dig up the casket to see what it contains. Jesus' tomb, however, was demonstrably empty.
Elvis sightings are best explained by various opposing theories such as mistaken identity, especially since many Elvis impersonators are about. It is also conceivable, if highly unlikely, that Elvis faked his death. All such explanations of Jesus' resurrection fail."
The religio-historical context for a resurrection is not present with Elvis as it was with Jesus. Elvis never claimed divinity; Jesus did. Elvis did not perform deeds that appeared miraculous; Jesus did. Elvis never predicted his resurrection; Jesus did.
"Extraterrestrial sightings are like post-Resurrection appearances."
We can establish that multiple believers and even a couple of hard-core skeptics believed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them. No good reasons exist for doubting the testimonies of the disciples, since they are also supported by a couple of hard-core skeptics, James and Paul, who were also convinced that they saw him. The tomb was empty. These even occurred within the historical context of Jesus' claims,19 his miracles,20 and the probable existence of God.21 There are no plausible explanations that can account for the known historical data.
Therefore, Jesus' resurrection is not only the most plausible explanation to account for the known data; it also fits into a context charged with theological significance that increases its evidence as well as explanatory power.
Eyewitness testimony of alien activity is often questionable on its own grounds. Plausible opposing theories abound to account for the phenomena (e.g., weather balloons, military aircraft, hallucinations, and poor reporting techniques). There is strong data from science that renders the chances of life elsewhere in the universe as extremely unlikely.
The fact that these same UFO testimonies frequently attest that these phenomena regularly break the laws of nature requires a rejection of material entities, as concluded by scientists who have researched this phenomenon. So we must consider a spiritual reality as a possible cause.22 Certain UFO reports may actually be true and don't have to be explained away, but we must still inquire as to the cause for these data.
Ad hominem arguments
At one time or another, almost everyone has argued in an ad hominem manner. Ad hominem argumentation comes in different forms, but in general it can be said to attack the individual rather than the issues. One candidate for public office says of the opponent, "You cannot trust his reasoning for opposing import car taxes because he owns a Toyota dealership." That is an example of arguing ad hominem. Motives are irrelevant to the content of an argument. The dealership owner may have selfish motives for holding his position, yet his arguments not to impose import taxes may still be valid.
When discussing Jesus' resurrection, a skeptic may say, "Well, Christianity was responsible for the atrocities of the Crusades." This is an ad hominem argument, since it attacks the position but does not address the evidence. You might respond, "Politically motivated people may have advanced the Crusades in the name of Christ, but that does not necessarily make those activities Christian. Certainly Jesus would not have approved of the Crusades. This doesn't come close to answering the evidence I have presented."
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Skeptics occasionally cite the maxim that the more radical the claim, the stronger the requirement of evidence to justify belief. This would be the case with Jesus' resurrection. It requires more evidence to justify belief in the Resurrection than evidence required to justify belief that he was crucified.
This imposed rule possesses a common sense appeal, but there are problems with it.
We believe that we have enough evidence to satisfy such a requirement. We have a collection of historical data that is consistent with Jesus' resurrection and in fact strongly attests to it. The risen Jesus appeared to individuals and to groups. His appearances are attested by friends, an enemy, and a skeptic. His tomb was empty and opposing theories to account for the collection of data fail. Therefore, Jesus' resurrection from the dead is the most plausible explanation to account for the historical data.
The requirement for extraordinary evidence cuts both ways. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, one must explain the known data. Let's say that the critic suggests group hallucinations in an attempt to account for the group appearances. We know from psychology that group hallucinations, if not impossible, require certain circumstances of expectation and ecstacy, both of which were absent from the groups of disciples he allegedly appeared to. Therefore, the skeptic's assertion that group hallucinations account for the appearances to the disciples is an extraordinary claim and, therefore, requires extraordinary evidence in order to justify our belief. We have observed that all opposing theories to Jesus' resurrection are extremely improbable, if not practically impossible. Accordingly, they face the same challenge for extraordinary evidence.23
Unsubstantiated issues may be a tactic of avoidance
A very common tactic of some skeptics is to raise a number of objections without substantiating them, because they think that as long as a question can be raised against something, one is justified in dismissing the data. Michael Licona once had a very involved discussion on the Internet with a skeptic over the matter of Jesus' resurrection. It was an extremely beneficial discussion, during which time the skeptic was able to expose weaknesses in Licona's arguments for Jesus' resurrection that he gladly acknowledged and corrected. The skeptical friend also came to the realization that there is some pretty good evidence for Jesus' resurrection that neither he, nor anyone else he knew of, had been able to answer.
During the course of a lengthy discussion that ended up being 260 typed pages, the skeptic raised many questions and possibilities. However, as was pointed out to him, "You have to do more than raise issues. You must also support them. You can't just say, 'Well what about this or that' without supporting those theories, and then claim that you have effectively undermined the data I provided."
Why is it important that the other guy provide support for his view? Without supporting data, the view is considerably weaker. We'll call this the "Plutonian Fowl Principle." Let's suppose that someone named Bert proposes that invisible purple polka-dotted geese from Pluto are responsible for all of the unexplained phenomena in the universe. Bert appeals to a dream he had about these colorful Plutonian fowl and adds that if they are indeed invisible, we wouldn't see them, and since they are from a planet we are not yet capable of exploring, this would explain why so many phenomena have not yet been explained. However, if and when we can explore Pluto, he believes that we may discover these geese and, consequently, all of the unexplained phenomena in the universe will be solved. Finally, Bert challenges you, "Now I think this is a pretty good argument that accounts for the unexplained phenomena in our universe. Try and disprove it!"
I might respond to Bert by saying, "If you want to hold that view, be my guest. But you really need to provide some reasonable data in its support. I have no responsibility to refute your theory until you can provide evidence to support it. The burden of proof is on you, since you make the positive claim."
Another problem with this strategy of proposing an opposing theory without support is that many of these types of objections are sometimes raised simultaneously. Here are some suggested responses.
"If historians dismissed data merely because a doubt could be raised in opposition, then virtually nothing could be held as knowable history."
"One cannot just say, 'Well what about this? ... or that? ... or still that?' without providing good reasons for embracing those ideas. The ideas in themselves cannot undermine the case for Jesus' resurrection."
Skeptics sometimes try to raise more questions than can be fairly answered in the allotted time available. Throw it back on them: "If you want to speculate with an opposing theory, the burden of proof is upon you to show that your theory is plausible. Why should I be stuck with the responsibility of thoroughly researching and refuting every possible unsubstantiated assertion that can be thrown at me? Do the work yourself; then give me something credible to consider and I will consider it. Until then, such a theory should fall upon deaf ears." This response cuts both ways. We could also respond to the skeptic with far more objections to their position or theory than they could possibly answer in the allotted time. You could even raise a string of your own objections and then say, 'Where does this get either one of us? Let's agree to raise objections one at a time and only when we have some data to discuss.
Conclusion
We have spent a considerable amount of time discussing the evidence for Jesus' resurrection and how to answer skeptics who provide opposing theories that attempt to account for the known facts. It should be noted that, just because someone asks, "Why couldn't the disciples have experienced hallucinations rather than having actually seen the risen Jesus?" does not necessarily mean that person is a skeptic. Many times people who are seeking the truth, including believers, will ask the same questions in order to see if there is a good answer and a reason why they should believe. There is nothing wrong with this. Many believers have been encouraged in their relationship with God upon learning that their Christian faith has a rational foundation.
We have seen that Jesus' resurrection is strongly attested historically and is the most plausible explanation for the facts. In fact, it is the only plausible explanation for them. We have also looked at preferred ways of communicating the truth. When dialoguing with skeptics and those who are seeking truth, we must not have the objective of "winning" the debate. Our goal should be to show the love of Christ through compassion, gentleness, and respect (1 Peter 3:15). In the next two chapters, we will discuss how you may do this and then pull everything together and show how it can play out in real life.