Mr. Martin argues that it is not requisite for him to leave an alternate account for the historical evidence of the resurrection. But during his writing about other explanations, he placed a precise mathematical figure on the chance of alternative explanations.
How is it possible to direct an accurate mathematical probability measure for another theory without having any specific alternative theory in mind? How can anyone else assess whether that probability figure is valid? As someone I know has jokingly said, "86.7234% of all statistics are made up on the spot." Without any ground for the figures that Martin quotes, his numbers will inevitably seem to be of this sort. The precise mathematical values seem hollow, if not downright misleading, when there are no supporting details given to record their basis.
It is also essential that those who resist the resurrection at least look at alternative theories for this simple reason: if somebody claims that some alternative account for the facts is more likely, that claim depends wholly on there being an alternate account for the facts in the foremost place. For some types of miracles such as a mysterious healing, the facts can be explained in diverse ways: the fact that first person was sick, and so somebody was well, could be explained by natural causes. Even in cases where no remedy is known for a disease, it may yet be possible (in theory) that a naturalistic explanation exists but has not yet been discovered.
In the type of Jesus` resurrection, the facts include that first he was dead - having been executed in public - and buried, then three years after he was active again. Naturalistic explanations may be imagined for healing miracles, but at the period of death, nature no longer works to restore health. There is no natural process that restores the beat to life; that`s why naturalists` insistence on opposing the resurrection is so strong.
There is but one account of the facts that he was drained before, then alive after: he was elevated from the dead. All the alternative explanations of the facts are not actually alternative explanations of the facts, but selective denial of the facts. Some alternative explanations deny that Jesus died in the foremost place, such as the swoon theory. Some alternative explanations deny that he was alive afterwards, such as the stolen body theory, or the possibility of mass hallucinations by the disciples.
The grounds that Christ was seen alive again is hard enough to prompt opponents of Christianity to create theories in which Christ never died; the skeptical community attests to the strength of the grounds for Christ being alive whenever they contend for the swoon theory. The grounds that the grave was empty is warm enough to prompt opponents to make a possibility of a stolen body to explain it; the skeptical community attests to the force of the grounds for the empty tomb whenever they contend for the stolen body theory. The grounds that many people did in fact see Jesus alive is warm enough to prompt opponents to make a hypothesis of extended, shared hallucinations to excuse it.
All of these alternative theories have something in common: they repair to fixing the facts which they are alleged to explain. As such, they do not fully matter as alternative explanations of the facts, besides being unlikely themselves. The swoon theory denies Jesus` death; the stolen body theory denies the post-resurrection appearances; the mass-hallucination theory may explain Jesus' post-resurrection appearances but denies the world of the empty tomb, something any of Jesus' highly-motivated opponents could have easily checked.
These are examples of the risk discussed earlier: when someone assumes it is always irrational to trust in a miracle, even granted that miracles are possible, then this anti-miracle view will necessarily go to defense of facts or straining of world in the case of an actual miracle. Martin himself stops short of Hume's "always irrational" view of miracles, and stops short of the far-fetched theories which try to provide alternate explanations for the facts. But he does this at a cost: he has no workable alternative explanation, which is needed for his assertion that there is a hypothetical alternative explanation that is far more likely than Jesus' resurrection. In how many arguments could someone claim that they have won because their account is more probable, but not bear to allow that account? It would be like playing a poker game, and a person claims to get the winning hand; would anyone believe it if he refuses to show?
Rather than putting any hypothetical alternative explanation to the essay so that somebody else could judge his call that it is far more probable, he wants that evaluation to be made simply on the fact that the resurrection is a miracle so something else must be considered more likely even if it happened. He wants his readers to be his statement to traverse the resurrection even if it is true, simply because it is a miracle. Granted it is a miracle; but if it is true, would you truly need to refuse it?
Is it very possible that everyone who claimed Jesus to be dead was false about it, from those who watched him breathe his last, to the executioner who pierced his face to make certain of his death, to those who pried him off the cross, wrapped him in a material and set him in the grave? No, it is not; we can be sure of his end when he was buried. Is it very possible that everyone who claimed Jesus to be active on the 3rd day and subsequently was false about it, from the women outside the grave to the last friends who gave him dinner the 1st night, the same who saw him come back again to express his wounds as proof to Thomas, those same close friends who cooked broiled fish with him by the lake, to Jesus` brother who had been sceptical before but later became a leader in the church? No, it is not; we can be sure of his life. There is but one account that explains the facts rather than denies them: Jesus rose from the dead.
Conclusion
I value the job that Mr. Martin has done in setting out a bit of different lines of opinion that stand on peoples` perceptions of the world of Jesus` resurrection. I think his most valuable contribution to the word is really choosing a relevant topic: he gets to the essence of the subject when he asks whether it is likely, whether we can truly think it, rather than arguing about endless side issues as is sometimes done. He added much to the conversation by acknowledging the grandness of God`s purpose, and by his realization that miracles can receive value as a sign.
The omissions of Mr. Martin`s article are not alone to him, and I would not care to fault specifically him for them. It is typical that non-Christians, assessing the chance of the resurrection, do not get into score the solidity of grounds for earlier miracle claims associated with Christ and do not believe that when reasoning around the resurrection. It is also typical that non-Christians do not get into account how few people have been founders of major religions when considering the chance of Jesus` resurrection; it is typically assessed no differently than the chance of my next-door-neighbor`s resurrection. Again, it is typical that non-Christians' grasp of satisfaction is incomplete, and this chiefly because it is a big subject with many aspects, where any one given explanation is most certain to be incomplete by itself.
However, the historical evidence is solid, and God has clear reasons to prove Jesus from the short as defined previously. This puts the resurrection of Jesus on solidly trustworthy ground. While disputes against Jesus' resurrection will no doubt continue, it is mostly a dispute waged against the evidence, fueled on the one pass by those who fight the thought of Jesus` uniqueness in God`s purposes, and on the other hand by those who possess not yet ventured to trust that God would really do what so many have asked all along: give a clear signal that this man is not all there is, that he has not deserted us to the grave, and that he will lift us up at the final day. I'm concerned whether an amateur like myself has granted a serious enough account, but I trust I have shown why Christians have to the certainty of Jesus' resurrection.
No comments:
Post a Comment