WHERE WE ARE
In Part #12 of this series, I analyzed and clarified Kreeft's argument for his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory:
A. The author of 2nd Peter specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Therefore:
1. The New Testament specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Therefore:
2. IF the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories, THEN these stories are deliberate lies rather than myths (where the author does not intend for readers to take the stories as literal historical accounts).
B. But the New Testament authors who tell stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus would not tell deliberate lies about Jesus dying and rising from the dead.
Therefore:
C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.
Therefore:
D. The Myth Theory is FALSE.
In Part #13 of this series, I showed that the first sub-argument in the above chain of reasoning is a BAD argument, and that the second sub-argument is a BAD argument, and that the third sub-argument in this chain of reasoning is a BAD argument. Since at least three out of four of the sub-arguments in Kreeft's reasoning are BAD arguments, it is clear that his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory FAILS.
It is now time to evaluate the fourth and final sub-argument in this chain of reasoning for Objection #5.
EVALUATION OF THE FOURTH SUB-ARGUMENT IN OBJECTION #5
Here is the fourth sub-argument in Kreeft's chain of reasoning that constitutes his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory:
C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.
Therefore:
D. The Myth Theory is FALSE.
First of all, Kreeft has clearly FAILED to show that premise (C) is true, so the premise of this argument remains DUBIOUS.
My initial evaluation of the inference from (C) to (D) is that this is a VALID inference but that it also commits the FALLACY OF CIRCULAR REASONING. This will take a bit of explanation.
It seems, initially, that if it is NOT the case that NT stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories, then this implies that those stories are true historical accounts of actual events. If the NT stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are true historical accounts of actual events, then Jesus actually physically rose from the dead. Furthermore, if Jesus actually physically rose from the dead, then it would seem to be the case that the Myth Theory is false. Here is how, at least at first glance, I would make a logical connection between premise (C) and conclusion (D):
C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.
Therefore:
E. The New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are true historical accounts of actual events.
Therefore:
F. Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.
Therefore:
D. The Myth Theory is FALSE.
Assuming, for now, that the inferences here are logical and VALID, there is still a problem with this reasoning. The problem is that premise (F) is supposed to be the ULTIMATE CONCLUSION of Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus. The logic of his case for the resurrection is to refute four skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus in order to prove that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead. But that logic is turned upside-down here. Here the resurrection of Jesus is (supposedly) proven as the basis for then refuting one of the skeptical theories. This is a form of the FALLACY OF CIRCULAR REASONING. Kreeft cannot use the resurrection of Jesus as the basis for refuting the Myth Theory, and then turn around and use the refutation of the Myth Theory to prove the resurrection. That is reasoning in a circle.
If Kreeft has a way to directly prove that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead, a proof that does NOT involve refuting various skeptical theories about the resurrection, then there is NO POINT to all of his efforts to refute various skeptical theories. Kreeft characterized his case for the resurrection as being BASED UPON his refutations of four skeptical theories, but the reasoning I outlined here, reverses that logical order, and makes his refutation of the Myth Theory BASED UPON a direct proof of the resurrection of Jesus. Combining these two very different approaches requires Kreeft to commit the FALLACY OF CIRCULAR REASONING:
F. Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.
Therefore:
D. The Myth Theory is FALSE.
G. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
H. The Conspiracy Theory is FALSE.
I. The Swoon Theory is FALSE.
Therefore:
F. Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.
So, if I have correctly represented the reasoning that is involved in making the logical connection between premise (C) and conclusion (D), then the sub-argument for (D) has at least two serious problems:
- Premise (C) is DUBIOUS
- This reasoning involves the FALLACY OF CIRCULAR REASONING.
RE-EXAMINATION OF PREMISE (C)
In considering this final sub-argument, it occurs to me that the phrase "fictional stories" is not as clear as I previously thought. I now think that this is a complex and perhaps ambiguous phrase, and that it might be about as problematic as the ambigous term "myth". So, I'm going to attempt to clarify this premise again, to see how a clearer understanding of this premise impacts my evaluation of this final sub-argument.
One idea I had in mind in talking about "fictional stories" is the idea of "false or untrue stories". If we say that some story is NOT a "false or untrue story" that seems to imply that it is a TRUE story.
But another interpretation of "fictional stories" is the idea of a "made up or invented story". While "made up or invented stories" are usually also "false or untrue stories" that is not necessarily the case. A "made up" story might turn out to be true.
Authors of fictional stories are often inspired by actual events in the lives of actual people, either people who they know personally or people who they read about in newspapers or magazine articles or in books. So, in some cases, a character in a work of fiction might have the same personality, the same job, and be involved in the same events as an actual living person, or as an actual historical person. Fiction often imitates reality, so a story can match up well with the life, or some of the experiences of, an actual person and actual events. In that case, the story, or part of the story, would be true and actual even though the story is "made up" or "invented" and "fictional".
A third sense of the phrase "fictional stories" concerns genre, which is primarily about the intentions of the author about how readers are to view and understand his/her story. An author writes a "fictional story" if the author intends for readers to view and understand his/her story as being fictional, as being made up or invented, and NOT as being an accurate historical account of actual people and actual events. This is closely related to the concept of "myth" as I understand this concept. The creator of a myth intends his/her readers to view and understand the story that is a myth as being a myth, as being a made-up or invented story about gods or angels or spirits or some other supernatural beings or forces. This third sense of "fictional stories" seems to be the most relevant for clarification of premise (C):
C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.
A revised and clarified version of (C):
C1. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are intended by the authors of the stories to be viewed and understood by readers as being made-up or invented stories.
From (C1), we can infer a relevant conclusion:
C1. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are intended by the authors of the stories to be viewed and understood by readers as being made-up or invented stories.
Therefore:
J. It is NOT the case that the stories in the Gospels about the death and resurrection of Jesus are intended by the authors of the stories to be viewed and understood by readers as being made-up or invented stories.
Therefore:
D. The Myth Theory is FALSE.
This seems like a more reasonable and plausible argument than the chain of reasoning that I constructed previously to try to logically connect premise (C) to the conclusion (D). Based on the Principle of Charity, this appears to be a better interpretation of Kreeft's reasoning in the fourth and final sub-argument constituting Objection #5.
The inference from (C1) to (J) appears to be logical and VALID. However, the inference from (J) to (D) is ILLOGICAL and INVALID. Thus, this final sub-argument is a BAD argument, and Objection #5 FAILS.
There are two problems with the inference from (J) to (D). First, the intentions of the authors of the Gospels for their readers to view and understand their stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus NOT as being made-up or invented stories, does NOT imply that those stories are in fact NOT made-up or invented, nor does this imply that the stories are accurate historical accounts of actual events. The authors of the Gospels might be naively and unintentionally passing on myths and legends, mistakenly thinking they were passing on accurate historical information about the death and alleged resurrection of Jesus. Or they may just be passing on false or inaccurate information and not realize that their stories contain false and inaccurate information.
The second problem with the inference from (J) to (D) is the same problem we have seen with every one of the preceding objections by Kreeft against the Myth Theory. Premise (J) is about the Gospels and the intentions of the authors of the Gospels. But Kreeft's characterization of the Myth Theory implies that the Myth Theory is NOT about the Gospels, but is about the preaching and teaching of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus ("the apostles") and about their intentions concerning their stories about the death and alleged resurrection of Jesus.
Because the Myth Theory is NOT about the Gospels, premise (J) is simply IRRELEVANT to the conclusion (D), and thus the inference in this fourth and final sub-argument is ILLOGICAL and INVALID. Thus, Kreeft's Objection #5 FAILS.
CONCLUSION ABOUT OBJECTION #5
Kreeft's chain of reasoning that constitutes his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory consists of four sub-arguments. I have shown that each of the four sub-arguments in that chain of reasoning is a BAD argument. Thus, it is clear that Kreeft's Objection #5 against the Myth Theory FAILS, just like each one of his previous four objections against the Myth Theory FAILED.
No comments:
Post a Comment