brokensymmetry
ground state
There is a thread here which has gotten into this and has inspired me to rethink this argument in some detail. Originally, considerations about this argument persuaded me to become a Christian in the first place. I want to lay out the basic argument that persuaded me, then explain where I think it is lacking. If nothing else I will have a better grasp on my own thoughts on the matter.
It typically goes as follows. First is the attempt to establish using ordinary historical criteria, that you could apply to any history, some historical facts relevant to the matter. Next is the proposing of hypotheses to explain the body of facts. Last is some abductive reasoning guided by normative epistemic values to pick the best hypothesis. At this point you are supposed to see that the resurrection is the best explanation.
Going through all of these actually takes a great deal of detail so I will attempt to hit on the major things here, filling in details if necessary.
1. the establishing of historical facts. This is complicated because in order to really get into this step you also end up learning some things about historical criticism about the Bible. In this step you look at how the Bible was put together, the sources that go into it, and what scholars think the dating of pericopes ought to be. Every little section may have come from a separate source. For instance, Luke is thought to have derived from Mark, a hypothetical sayings source called Q, and some things unique to Luke not used in the other synoptic gospels. The letters of Paul are thought to be the oldest writings in the NT, but not all are thought to be genuinely written by Paul. For instance, the pastoral epistles such as Timothy are not thought to have been written by Paul by most NT scholars. At this point hopefully you can see how complicated matters can get. All of these sayings and deeds of Jesus are broken down, assigned a potential author (such as, the author of Mark, or reported by Paul), date, etc.
So what are the criteria that are applied to all these? Something like, the older usually the better, the more independent attestations the more likely to have happened, if there is reason to think the fact in contention would have caused the author or the community embarrassment the more likely to be true.
For instance, take the reported crucifixion of Jesus. That the leader of the community would have been easily killed like a common criminal is supposed to have caused the community embarrassment and more likely to have happened because of this. Also, the killing is reported in Paul's epistles, the oldest sources, as well as in independent sources, such as the gospel of Mark (Mark thought to be the oldest writing). Therefore, it is likely Jesus was killed via crucifixion. You could flesh this out quite a bit more, but hopefully you get the gist.
In the end, the facts gathered are something like: Jesus existed and preached. He had a small following. He was killed. His followers were convinced that they saw him resurrected. As a result of this conviction his followers were willing to endure hardships. Other things people throw in are often the empty tomb (one I never thought was particularly well established), Jesus preaching his upcoming death (sayings that could have easily been inserted later to help explain matters) and maybe a couple others.
2. Once the basic facts about the case are gathered, come up with potential explanatory hypotheses. For instance, perhaps Jesus didn't fully die and came to later. Perhaps Jesus died, but wasn't resurrected, there were hallucinations and so on. These potential hypotheses are assessed for plausibility based on criteria like which one has the least amount of ad-hocness? which one explains the greatest number of facts about the case? and so on.
3. The resurrection is supposed to come out as the strongest candidate. If the resurrection, and here I mean the bodily, physical resurrection, of Jesus is true then the basic gospel which undergirds Christianity is very likely to be true.
I will explain my issues with this in the next post.
It typically goes as follows. First is the attempt to establish using ordinary historical criteria, that you could apply to any history, some historical facts relevant to the matter. Next is the proposing of hypotheses to explain the body of facts. Last is some abductive reasoning guided by normative epistemic values to pick the best hypothesis. At this point you are supposed to see that the resurrection is the best explanation.
Going through all of these actually takes a great deal of detail so I will attempt to hit on the major things here, filling in details if necessary.
1. the establishing of historical facts. This is complicated because in order to really get into this step you also end up learning some things about historical criticism about the Bible. In this step you look at how the Bible was put together, the sources that go into it, and what scholars think the dating of pericopes ought to be. Every little section may have come from a separate source. For instance, Luke is thought to have derived from Mark, a hypothetical sayings source called Q, and some things unique to Luke not used in the other synoptic gospels. The letters of Paul are thought to be the oldest writings in the NT, but not all are thought to be genuinely written by Paul. For instance, the pastoral epistles such as Timothy are not thought to have been written by Paul by most NT scholars. At this point hopefully you can see how complicated matters can get. All of these sayings and deeds of Jesus are broken down, assigned a potential author (such as, the author of Mark, or reported by Paul), date, etc.
So what are the criteria that are applied to all these? Something like, the older usually the better, the more independent attestations the more likely to have happened, if there is reason to think the fact in contention would have caused the author or the community embarrassment the more likely to be true.
For instance, take the reported crucifixion of Jesus. That the leader of the community would have been easily killed like a common criminal is supposed to have caused the community embarrassment and more likely to have happened because of this. Also, the killing is reported in Paul's epistles, the oldest sources, as well as in independent sources, such as the gospel of Mark (Mark thought to be the oldest writing). Therefore, it is likely Jesus was killed via crucifixion. You could flesh this out quite a bit more, but hopefully you get the gist.
In the end, the facts gathered are something like: Jesus existed and preached. He had a small following. He was killed. His followers were convinced that they saw him resurrected. As a result of this conviction his followers were willing to endure hardships. Other things people throw in are often the empty tomb (one I never thought was particularly well established), Jesus preaching his upcoming death (sayings that could have easily been inserted later to help explain matters) and maybe a couple others.
2. Once the basic facts about the case are gathered, come up with potential explanatory hypotheses. For instance, perhaps Jesus didn't fully die and came to later. Perhaps Jesus died, but wasn't resurrected, there were hallucinations and so on. These potential hypotheses are assessed for plausibility based on criteria like which one has the least amount of ad-hocness? which one explains the greatest number of facts about the case? and so on.
3. The resurrection is supposed to come out as the strongest candidate. If the resurrection, and here I mean the bodily, physical resurrection, of Jesus is true then the basic gospel which undergirds Christianity is very likely to be true.
I will explain my issues with this in the next post.
