Is Jesus' Resurrection Plausible?

[C1ay]

This is a long read, but the last sentence in the review is the point that I agree with, and is really my only point:

You may recall that my assertion is not that the historicity of Jesus or the resurrection is irrefutable. My assertion is that accepting the resurrection based on a preponderance of evidence is plausible.

 

And that last sentence is preceeded by the statement, "Finally, there are serious flaws in the arguments advanced by both sides. And even if those flaws were corrected, the arguments would still not constitute a strong apologetic for the resurrection."

[Biochemist]

And that last sentence is preceeded by the statement, "Finally, there are serious flaws in the arguments advanced by both sides. And even if those flaws were corrected, the arguments would still not constitute a strong apologetic for the resurrection."

I think I agree with the author as well. The notion of a "strong apologetic" implies (I believe) that the case is airtight or nearly so. I don't think the historical case is airtight. I just think a reasonable person could believe it based on the preponderance of evidence, and not be irrational. I think that is a fair definition of plausibility.

 

C1ay, I have to admit that I started this because of the large number of references in these posts to either the "irrational" nature of theism or the complete discounting of theism because it is "just faith". I don't think either position is true, and it just makes the proponents seem unschooled. It is reasonable to disagree (as I think you do). I don't think it is reaonable to claim Christianity or theism is irrational.

[C1ay]

I don't think it is reaonable to claim Christianity or theism is irrational.

I don't think I have said that it is. Many people are raised from the time they are born with strong christian influence by parents whose faith is insurmountable. I think it would be irrational to expect that these people would not develop theistic beliefs.

 

I do not particularly think there is anything wrong with theistic beliefs in and of themselves, only the interpretations of those beliefs by some of the followers. That was the backdrop for the "In the name of God" thread.

[Biochemist]

I don't think I have said that it is.

I didn't think you did either. Sorry if I implied it.

I do not particularly think there is anything wrong with theistic beliefs in and of themselves, only the interpretations of those beliefs by some of the followers. That was the backdrop for the "In the name of God" thread.

I understand the concern.

[lindagarrette]

I don't think the historical case is airtight. I just think a reasonable person could believe it based on the preponderance of evidence, and not be irrational. I think that is a fair definition of plausibility.

The story of the resurection may be believable by some people who are otherwise rational but the underlying question is: why would they choose to believe such a thing? In the first place, they need to perceive a purpose for the event to occur. That would probably be the atonement theme. Now we have to trace back to the necessity of an atonement which leads directly to the snake in the Garden of Eden. Rational thought would not permit pick and choose what to believe and not believe for no particular reason. To make any sense, it would all have to fit together, angels and all.

[lindagarrette]

I didn't make the claim, you did...

 

"He either didn't know or didn't consider valid..."

 

Just wondering if you got that from a specific writing or the lack of specific writing. Appears to be the later. I was just curious.

 

 

Anyway, I was just wondering where you got your info for that statement. Thanks!

I read the Bible.

[Biochemist]

.... Rational thought would not permit pick and choose what to believe and not believe for no particular reason. To make any sense, it would all have to fit together, angels and all.

Interesting point. So you are suggesting sort of an all-or-nothing desicion model?

[Fishteacher73]

Well put, C1ay.

I think a lot of the animosity against the theist outlook is that it is used to argue in scientific point that has plenty of hard evidence to illustrate a natural cause (such as evolution). At this point is when it starts to be a bit less rational that just a personal faith.

[paradox]

Interesting point. So you are suggesting sort of an all-or-nothing desicion model?

what do you mean by - she is suggesting ?

if you for example believe that the bible is the real thing, those are God's words

then why would you say some parts are actually true and some parts are made up ?

 

i agree with linda

it is true or not ?

 

and please don't come up with old arguments,

like some things are made up so People could understand it

if that is the case, then everything is written so we could understand it

if you get my point

[Biochemist]

what do you mean by - she is suggesting ?

if you for example believe that the bible is the real thing, those are God's words

then why would you say some parts are actually true and some parts are made up ?

Thanks for the point, Paradox. I was asking lindagarette what I thought was a straightforward question. My intent (when I started this thread) was only to argue the position that the resurrection is plausible. Nothing else. Not that Jesus is God, or that the Bible (overall) is "true" or that the resurrection event has any particular meaning. I think we use that tactic for the scientific method generally. We do not need to have an entire, end-to-end theory in place to accept a single-point experimental evidenciary observation.

 

In reality, is does seem like people behave a lot like lindagarette has suggested. When Hawking/Penrose articulated the calculations in the 1960s that translated the cosmic radiation measurements into evidence for the Big Bang, it took a while for most folks to agree with it. But I don't think the cosmologists generally rejected the experimental evidence. They just took it for what is was and mulled over the meaning.

 

My only point is that the resurrection is plausible. I think (maybe) that C1ay and I are having a disagreement on semantics. Admitting that something is plausible does not mean you think it is likely. It just means you can't yet rule it out.

 

Lindagarette was suggesting that she is not accepting the evidence in support because she needs an integrated view, again analogous to weaving the Hawking/Penrose data into existing theory. I don't have a problem with that approach, unless one contends that the data should be rejected becouse you can't integrate it. I suggest that ruling out possibilities that cannot be disproven is inconsistent with the scientific method.

 

Accepting the resurrection completely as "fact" might be "faithful" but the quantity of faith might not be all that much, compared to what we do every day in physics or biological sciences. In that sense, holding to a position that the resurrection actually happened is similar to holding (now) to punctuated equilibrium. PE is an idea that is consistent with the evidence, but there is not a lot of explicit mechanism behind it.

 

Again, my only point is that accepting the resurrection at face value it not irrational, whether or not you agree with it.

[Biochemist]

I think a lot of the animosity against the theist outlook is that it is used to argue in scientific point that has plenty of hard evidence to illustrate a natural cause (such as evolution). At this point is when it starts to be a bit less rational that just a personal faith.

True, FsT, but I have greater expectations than that for the folks on this site. I agree that I have seen some pretty irrational arguments from theists. Some even here.

 

But I think I have seen some pretty irrational arguments from the atheist/agnostic side as well. I think that most of us agree that a bad argument is bad, irrespective of source, and a good argument is good, irrespective of source.

 

I have to admit I cringe when I listen to classic Creationists (I still bump into one upon occasion). But I don't hold their point of view against thoughtful theists, e.g., Einstein.

[lindagarrette]

Lindagarette was suggesting that she is not accepting the evidence in support because she needs an integrated view, again analogous to weaving the Hawking/Penrose data into existing theory. I don't have a problem with that approach, unless one contends that the data should be rejected becouse you can't integrate it. I suggest that ruling out possibilities that cannot be disproven is inconsistent with the scientific method.

You completely misunderstood. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. In the first place, there is no evidence of a resurection, only Bible stories. In the second place, someone who is actually dead and whose brain is deteriorating cannot possibly be revived. Third, even according to the Bible books, the resurection could not have been a physical event. (He was supposedly restored to life before the stone was moved0. Lastly, what would be the point of having a resurection in the first place unless there was some truth to the Adam and Eve story? again with the only evidence being ithe Bible.

 

Accepting the resurrection completely as "fact" might be "faithful" but the quantity of faith might not be all that much, compared to what we do every day in physics or biological sciences. In that sense, holding to a position that the resurrection actually happened is similar to holding (now) to punctuated equilibrium. PE is an idea that is consistent with the evidence, but there is not a lot of explicit mechanism behind it.

 

Again, my only point is that accepting the resurrection at face value it not irrational, whether or not you agree with it.

Are you suggesting that the resurrection could be partially true and partially faith? Which part would you consider true and on what basis?

 

Why is it necessary to have any reference to scientific theory or evidence when the entire notion is faith based? Once you start to prove a supernatural event, you completely contradict the scientific method. Science could not survive with an intervening god or with miracles. There is no in between.

[lindagarrette]

Interesting point. So you are suggesting sort of an all-or-nothing desicion model?

No. I'm saying that either you believe in supernatural things or you understand reality. You can't do both at the same time. Some people live with what's called "duality" which means they are able to redirect their thinking from realistic patterns to faith based patterns. They don't mix and somehow, those people are able to keep them separate. Beats me!

[Fishteacher73]

Relativistic physics and quantum phsyics do not mix....Should we abandon one of them?

[Freethinker]

Thanks for offering this. It is a good place to start building the argument for the empty tomb.

 

There are three commonly offered justifications for the finding that Jesus' tomb was empty:

 

A) Someone stole the body (either Jesus' followers or the authorities)

:o Jesus "swooned" and regained consciousness (the "swoon" theory)

C) The followers went to the wrong tomb

Until you are first able to prove this biblical fairytale has ANY validity, the only valid answer any thinking person can draw from an empty cave is:

 

THE CAVE IS EMPTY.

 

Meanwhile your continued effort to ignore your failure to prove the first part of your assertion shows that it will be impossible to have a reasoned discussion on other topics as well.

[Freethinker]

It's not my impression. How can I show what isn't there? There is no reference in any of Paul's writings to the physical Jesus, the tomb, or anything else about his supposed life, only the "teaching" and aftermath. If you can find something to support your claim, then quote it.

Oh come on Linda, it seems we have given up even any hope of rational scientific discourse here. We ignore requests for proof of the very opening assertion of the claim and pretend an empty cave is proof of soemthing that is claimed to have happen to someone that didn't exist. And we are to carry on a reasoned discussion about it? YA RIGHT!

 

With that in mind, of course you are not expected to actually PROVE things you claim. That is only required at Science sites! Just make the claim Linda and when they ask for proof, just tell them you have 20,000 of them but they are invisible at this time and that will be enough to convince them.

[C1ay]

There are three commonly offered justifications for the finding that Jesus' tomb was empty:

 

BTW, where exactly is the tomb? Are there any photographs of it on the web?