Replies

Dear Phantom4,

I am unable, due to time constraints, to devote the effort to formulating a reply to your thoughts, though they (your thoughts) certainly do deserve a thorough response.

I am certainly not an adherent of Hume, since events need not necessarily be less believable merely because they have occurred only once.

In fact, I wouldn't even have considered using that argument (that Christ's resurrection was a one-time event, and thus must be assigned a mathematical probability of zero), insofar as, on the day of the Crucifixion, thousands of people were raised from the dead (according to Scripture). So, actually, coming back from the dead could even be said to have been a commonplace occurrence, in Christ's era.

You are correct. There is no reproducible experiment that can “prove” the resurrection happened [...]

My problem is not so much whether or not the Resurrection actually happened, but rather that it couldn't have happened, without a serious breach of Natural Laws. And once you allow for a suspension of physical laws... well, then almost anything can be argued.

[...] but there are no reproducible experiments to “prove” some of things that Carl Sagan holds sacrosanct, either.

Again, I don't think that the issue is whether things Carl Sagan believed happened actually happened; the point is, they could have at least happened.

Further, the point is not whether an event could be necessarily reproduced. In some cases, it should suffice to demonstrate that, in principle, something could have happened.

For example, no reproducible experiment could be conducted in a lab (or even imagined) to prove that I was, in fact, born (rather than appearing, e.g., ex nihilo). In such cases, inductive reasoning makes it clear that it is not ridiculous to claim that I was, in fact, born, and so therefore it is reasonable to assume that I was born.

“The universe is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” Now that is pretty popish stuff, far beyond a mere alleged resurrection. You might even call it “an extraordinary claim.”

I think that that was not so much a "pronouncement" ex cathedra, as it was a tautology (i.e., "by definition, the universe is all that was or ever will be.")

And if I'm wrong, and it was a claim, then it was at least not an "outrageous" one, like claiming that the universe will cease to exist within the lifetime of his hearers (as Christ asserted).

Yet he and his colleagues keep their electronic ears tuned to the heavens, looking for ordered, coherent (“intelligently designed”) signals from heaven. I don’t think it would be unkind to call this cosmic hypocrisy.

I don't see the self-contradiction. Carl Sagan merely believed that, among the billions and billions of other planets likely to exist, life may have arisen on some of them, and intelligent life a a few of those (Drake's Equation). He didn't publish it as an article of faith. To him, it was merely a reasonable assumption.

If the Resurrection of Christ were an isolated event, like crop circles and alleged saucer sightings, I could actually agree with you. But it is set into a matrix of written documents, therefore it drags in the issues of textual purity and reliability, bibliographical soundness etc. These are all things that can be assessed, measured, compared, and judged. The miracle of the resurrection occurred only after it had been foretold centuries earlier. It is part of a coherent body of writings produced by 40 authors, each writing in different places, and in different moods and contexts, spread over huge amounts of time. It even records the foibles and flaws of the heroes of the faith.

Yes, much like the miracles recorded in many other sacred writings like the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, etc.

I understand your insistence that something like the Resurrection should demand extraordinary proof, but such proof would leave no room for faith. If you asked a girl to marry you, how much “proof” of her good standing in the community, or the probability that she would remain faithful, would you demand? Would you not accept a reasonable assurance, or would you hire a private detective? Would she not then prove her faithfulness?

Well, I wouldn't love her LESS if she had been able to provide prima facie evidence. But in my view, not only is the evidence weak, there is also counter-evidence from the Bible, itself, i.e., statements which weaken the assertion that Jesus Christ was a Divine person.

No, I do not feel hostile at all, and I hope you do not. I only insist that whether Buddhism is “better” or “just as good” as Christianity is quite beside the point.

I would rather say that Christianity is "just as bad" as Buddhism, or any of a number of other faiths based upon sacred writings "documenting" miraculous occurrences.

Remember not to make the worst mistake an intellectual can make on this subject: Rejecting that which you do not understand.<7i>

I am, of course, inclined to make mistakes (I am, after all, fallible). But if given the choice, I would rather make the mistake of rejecting that which I do not understand (or which seems to be irrational) instead of embracing it, in the unfounded hope that it might nevertheless be true.

Kindest regards,