THE FINAL SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (5c)
The argument for the key premise (5c) consists of five inferences or sub-arguments, as can be seen in the argument diagram below:
Each red arrow represents an inference in the argument supporting premise (5c). I am going to focus on the final sub-argument in this post, and in the next few posts. Here is the final sub-argument supporting premise (5c):
D. The Resurrection Hypothesis is a more plausible explanation of Craig's three key established historical facts concerning Jesus' final fate than the alternative supernatural hypotheses.
B. The Resurrection Hypothesis is a more plausible explanation of Craig's three key established historical facts concerning Jesus' final fate than the alternative naturalistic hypotheses.
C1. A hypothesis H is the best explanation of a specific set of facts IF AND ONLY IF hypothesis H is a more plausible explanation of that set of facts than the alternative naturalistic and supernatural hypotheses.
THEREFORE:
5c. The best explanation for Craig's three key established historical facts concerning Jesus' final fate is the Resurrection Hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).
All of the other premises and inferences in the argument for (5c) provide support for premise (B), so it is clear that Craig's primary concern is to show that there is a good reason to believe that premise (B) is true. No evaluation of Craig's case for the resurrection would be complete without comments about whether Craig has provided us with a good reason to believe that (B) is true.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE OTHER TWO PREMISES
However, the success of the final sub-argument for (5c) also depends on whether the other two premises are true or false, probable or improbable. If premise (D) is false or dubious, then Craig's argument for the key premise (5c) fails, and that would mean that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus also fails.
If premise (C1) is false or dubious, then Craig's argument for the key premise (5c) fails, and that would mean that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus also fails.
Thus, even though Craig focuses almost all of his attention on arguing for premise (B), the other two premises of the final sub-argument for (5c) are also crucially important for the success of his case for the resurrection of Jesus.
THE FINAL SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (5c) FAILS
All three premises of Craig's final sub-argument for premise (5c) have a very serious problem:
They are too UNCLEAR to be rationally evaluated.
In order to provide us with a good reason to believe the key premise (5c), the premises of Craig's final sub-argument for (5c) must be clear enough for us to rationally evaluate whether they are true or false, probable or improbable. But none of the three premises is sufficiently clear to be subject to rational evaluation. Therefore, the final sub-argument for (5c) fails to provide us with a good reason to believe that the key premise (5c) is true.
The unclarity of the premises in the final sub-argument for (5c) is due to the unclarity of two phrases that occur in those premises:
"the alternative supernatural hypotheses"
"the alternative naturalistic hypotheses"
It is not at all clear what these two phrases mean, so the final sub-argument for the key premise (5c) cannot be rationally evaluated. Therefore, Craig's argument for (5c) fails to provide us with a good reason to believe that (5c) is true, and that means that we have a third good reason to conclude that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
THE ONLY HOPE FOR CRAIG'S FINAL SUB-ARGUMENT FOR (5c)
In order for someone to evaluate the premises of Craig's final sub-argument for (5c) as being true or probable, the meaning of those premises must be clear enough to make it possible for them to be rationally evaluated. So, the only hope for this argument to be successful, and to provide us with a good reason to believe that premise (5c) is true, is to figure out what the above two unclear phrases mean, and then either revise the wording of the three premises in this sub-argument or else provide clear definitions of the meaning of the two unclear phrases.
I suspect that premises (D) and (B) are dubious or false, but I cannot be confident of this unless and until I have a clear understanding of the meaning of those two premises. As things stand, I am not clear about what the two above unclear phrases mean, so I don't have a clear understanding of the meaning of premises (D) and (B).
CONCLUSION
As it stands, Craig's argument for the key premise (5c) fails, because the premises in the final sub-argument for (5c) are too unclear to be rationally evaluated. Thus, Craig has failed to give us a good reason to believe that premise (5c) is true.
The only hope for Craig's argument for (5c) to be successful, is to figure out what the above two unclear phrases mean.
No comments:
Post a Comment