Defending the Hallucination Theory - Part 45: Jesus Was Not Always Recognized (Objection #14)

 WHERE WE ARE

In this series of posts, I have shown that 13 of  Peter Kreeft's 14 Objections against the Hallucination Theory have FAILED:

Because of Peter Kreeft's PERFECTLY BAD track record, it is a safe bet that the next and final objection by Kreeft will also FAIL.   

It is now time to examine Kreeft's Objection #14 against the Hallucination Theory.

OBJECTION #14: SOME APPEARANCES WERE NOT IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZED AS JESUS 

Kreeft thinks that he gave only 13 objections against the Hallucination Theory, but he is mistaken.  In the paragraph immediately following Objection #13, Kreeft states another different objection but he fails to label it as Objection #14.  Apparently, he failed to notice that this paragraph presents a different objection than the one presented in the previous paragraph.

Here is his final objection against the Hallucination Theory:

Any theory of hallucination breaks down on the fact...that on three separate occasions this hallucination was not immediately recognized as Jesus (Lk 24:13-31; Jn 20:15; 21:4).  Even granting that God sent a holy hallucination to teach truths already widely believed without it, and far more easily taught by other methods, and certain to be completely obscured by this, might we not at least hope that he would get the face of the hallucination right? Is he who made all faces such a bungler that he cannot even work up a recognizable likeness of the Man who was himself?  

(Handbook of Christian Apologetics, p.188)

Here is a summary of the above argument:

1. In some cases of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples, the person who appeared was not immediately recognized as being Jesus.

2. IF God caused the disciples to have hallucinations of the risen Jesus, THEN God would have caused the person who appeared to the disciples in those hallucinations to be immediately recognizable as being Jesus, and the person who appeared to the disciples in those hallucinations would have been immediately recognized as being Jesus.

Therefore:

3. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.

THE LOGIC OF THIS ARGUMENT IS INVALID 

The inference in this argument is clearly INVALID.  For one thing, there is no mention of the Hallucination Theory in the premises, so the argument cannot be formally valid. In any case,  the conclusion DOES NOT FOLLOW from the premises.  So, this argument constituting Objection #14 is clearly UNSOUND and should be rejected.

One could add another premise in order to make this argument VALID, a premise that links the Hallucination Theory to the idea that God caused the disciples to have hallucinations of Jesus:

1. In some cases of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples, the person who appeared was not immediately recognized as being Jesus.

A. IF the Hallucination Theory is true, THEN God caused the disciples to have hallucinations of the risen Jesus.

2. IF God caused the disciples to have hallucinations of the risen Jesus, THEN God would have caused the person who appeared to the disciples in those hallucinations to be immediately recognizable as being Jesus, and the person who appeared to the disciples in those hallucinations would have been immediately recognized as being Jesus.

Therefore:

3. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.

This makes the argument logically VALID, but premise (A) is clearly FALSE. 

The whole point of the Hallucination Theory is to explain the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus WITHOUT assuming that God exists or that God intervenes in human affairs by performing miracles (such as causing people to rise from the dead).  OBVIOUSLY, the Hallucination Theory does NOT imply that God caused the disciples to have hallucinations of the risen Jesus.  Thus, premise (A) is FALSE.

I suspect that Kreeft is confusing the Hallucination Theory with the Objective Vision Theory.  Some Christian theologians argue that God sent VISIONS of the risen Jesus to his disciples to reveal to them that Jesus was alive again and in heaven with God:

Objective vision theory

Hans Grass (1964) proposed an "objective vision hypothesis," in which Jesus' appearances are "divinely caused visions," showing his followers that His resurrection "was a spiritual reality." Jesus' spirit was resurrected, but his body remained dead, explaining the belated conversion of Jesus' half-brother James. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_theory_of_Jesus%27_appearances#Objective_vision_theory

But this Christian theory is not the same as the Hallucination Theory in that the purpose of the Hallucination Theory is to provide a NATURALISTIC explanation of the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus, an explanation that does NOT involve God or miracles or any other supernatural beings or powers or events.

The Objective Vision Theory is usually contrasted with the Subjective Vision Theory.  The latter theory is basically the same as the Hallucination Theory. 

EVALUATION OF OBJECTION #14

Kreeft's Objection #14 is IRRELEVANT to the Hallucination Theory.  It might work as an objection against the Subjective Vision Theory, but that is not what is at issue here.  Kreeft has apparently confused a theological explanation of the appearances with a naturalistic explanation of the appearances.  It is hard to believe that a professional philosopher would confuse such obviously different kinds of explanation, but Kreeft is clearly not a brilliant philosopher.

Without premise (A), Kreeft's argument is clearly INVALID and UNSOUND.  If we add premise (A) to make the argument logically VALID, then we add a FALSE premise to the argument, so it still ends up being UNSOUND.  This argument for Objection #14 is UNSOUND and should be rejected.  Therefore, Objection #14 FAILS.

Actually, premise (1) of Kreeft's argument for Objection #14 IS relevant to the Hallucination Theory, because it provides evidence in SUPPORT of the Hallucination Theory.  As I pointed out in Part 44, the Hallucination Theory provides an explanation for why in some of the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus, the person who appeared was not immediately recognized as being Jesus.  

The Resurrection Theory, however, does NOT explain this curious phenomenon.  If Jesus physically rose from the dead, we would expect him to be immediately recognized when he was seen by his disciples.  So, premise (1) actually provides us with a reason to favor the Hallucination Theory over the Resurrection Theory.

EVALUATION OF KREEFT'S ATTEMPT TO REFUTE THE HALLUCINATION THEORY

Every single one of Kreeft's fourteen objections against the Hallucination Theory has FAILED.  Kreeft has given us no good reason to conclude that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE.  

Thus, Kreeft has FAILED to refute the Hallucination Theory.  But Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus depends on him refuting each one of four skeptical theories, including the Hallucination Theory.  Therefore, Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus FAILS.