WHERE WE ARE
In Part 28 I clarified and analyzed Kreeft's Objection #8 (Hallucinations Don't Eat). Here is the core argument in Objection #8:
2A. On at least two occasions, some of Jesus' disciples had experiences in which it seemed to them that the risen Jesus ate something.
B. IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN none of Jesus' disciples had any experiences in which it seemed to them that the risen Jesus ate something.
Therefore:
A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
The logic of this argument is fine, so we only need to evaluate the two key premises:
- Is premise (2A) true?
- Is premise (B) true?
If one (or both) of these premises are FALSE or DUBIOUS, then Kreeft's Objection #8 FAILS.
IS PREMISE (2A) TRUE?
Although Kreeft FAILS to argue for premise (2A), he does provide references to two gospel passages:
8. Hallucinations do not eat. The resurrected Christ did, on at least two occasions (Lk 24:42-43; Jn 21:1-14). (HCA, p.187)
I have previously argued that the story about Jesus appearing to his gathered disciples in Chapter 24 of Luke is probably a FICTIONAL story. That is because the Jerusalem-appearance stories in Luke and John clearly CONTRADICT both Mark and Matthew. According to Mark and Matthew, the first appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples took place in Galilee a week or more after Jesus was crucified. So, the reference to this DUBIOUS story in Luke 24 FAILS to show that Jesus' disciples had an experience in which it seemed to them that the risen Jesus ate something.
The appearance story in Chapter 21 of John does not have this same problem, because it takes place in Galilee. However, the Gospel of John was written about six decades after the crucifixion, and Jesus scholars view the Gospel of John as an UNRELIABLE source of information about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus. So, this is also very weak evidence for the claim that Jesus' disciples had an experience in which it seemed to them that the risen Jesus ate something.
Furthermore, a very serious problem with the "evidence" from Chapter 21 of John is that this story does NOT claim that Jesus ate anything! In the story, Jesus apparently cooked some fish and gave some cooked fish to his disciples, but there is no assertion in it that the risen Jesus ate anything:
4 Just after daybreak, Jesus stood on the beach; but the disciples did not know that it was Jesus.
5 Jesus said to them, “Children, you have no fish, have you?” They answered him, “No.”
6 He said to them, “Cast the net to the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in because there were so many fish.
7 That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on some clothes, for he was naked, and jumped into the sea.
8 But the other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from the land, only about a hundred yards off.
9 When they had gone ashore, they saw a charcoal fire there, with fish on it, and bread.
10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish that you have just caught.”
11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred fifty-three of them; and though there were so many, the net was not torn.
12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” Now none of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord.
13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish.
14 This was now the third time that Jesus appeared to the disciples after he was raised from the dead. (John 21:4-14)
Thus, even if someone thinks this passage in John provides us with accurate and reliable historical information, this passage does NOT state that the risen Jesus ate anything, and so the reference to this passage clearly FAILS to show that Jesus' disciples had an experience in which it seemed to them that the risen Jesus ate something. It probably would have been a good idea for Kreeft to actually READ this passage from the Gospel of John before presenting it as "evidence" for premise (2A). (Apparently reading a short passage from the Gospel of John was too much of an intellectual effort for Kreeft.)
Since BOTH passages provided by Kreeft FAIL to show one example of Jesus' disciples having an experience in which it seemed to them that the risen Jesus ate something, it is very clear that Kreeft has FAILED to show that such an experience occurred on "at least two occasions". Therefore, Kreeft FAILED to show that his key premise (2A) is true. That historical claim remains DUBIOUS.
IS PREMISE (B) TRUE?
Kreeft provided a reason in support of premise (B):
1A. No experience that constitutes a hallucination can ever eat something.
Thus:
B. IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN none of Jesus' disciples had any experiences in which it seemed to them that the risen Jesus ate something.
This is NOT a formally valid deductive argument. The premises say nothing about the Hallucination Theory, so a conclusion about the Hallucination Theory cannot be a formally valid deductive inference from such premises. Kreeft has to make an explicit claim about the Hallucination Theory in order to make this into a formally valid deductive argument. Here is a potential UNSTATED premise in Kreeft's reasoning supporting premise (B):
Thus:1A. No experience that constitutes a hallucination can ever eat something.
C. IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN any experience had by any of Jesus' disciples in which it seemed to them that the risen Jesus ate something would be a case in which a hallucination ate something.
B. IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN none of Jesus' disciples had any experiences in which it seemed to them that the risen Jesus ate something.
With the addition of premise (C), this becomes a formally valid deductive argument, assuming that the phrase "a hallucination ate something" has the same meaning in (C) as the similar phrase in premise (1A).
However, it seems fairly clear that the phrase has a different meaning in (C) than it does in (1A), and if so, then this argument commits the FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION.
In premise (1A) the phrase "a hallucination can never eat something" does NOT exclude the possibility of someone experiencing a hallucination of the risen Jesus eating something. This is because a hallucination of the risen Jesus eating something does NOT involve any actual eating by anyone or anything.
But premise (1A) is talking about the actual eating of something. Premise (1A) is based on the obvious fact that an experience is not the sort of thing that can actually eat something. People can actually eat things. Animals can actually eat things. Experiences are subjective mental events. Experiences don't have teeth. Experiences don't have mouths. Experiences don't have stomachs or digestive systems. Thus, it is a CATEGORY ERROR to say that "This experience ate my cheeseburger." Experiences are not the sort of thing that can actually eat something.
Premise (C), on the other hand, is NOT talking about any actual eating, just an experience that seems to be of a person eating something. A hallucination of Jesus eating something does not involve anyone doing any actual eating. Thus, there is a shift in the meaning between what (1A) is talking about, and what (C) is talking about. Therefore, this argument commits the FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION.
Also, premise (C) is clearly FALSE, because, as I have pointed out many times, the Hallucination Theory does NOT require that ANY of Jesus' disciples had a hallucination of the risen Jesus. A DREAM of the risen Jesus, for example, would suffice. Therefore, this argument for premise (B) contains a FALSE premise and an INVALID inference. It is clearly an UNSOUND argument for (B), and thus Kreeft has FAILED yet again to provide us with a good reason to believe (B), and (B) remains DUBIOUS.
Furthermore, based on the counterexample of DREAM experiences, we may conclude that premise (B) is in fact FALSE. It is obvious that a disciple of Jesus could have DREAMED about the risen Jesus eating something, and such a DREAM (or such dreams) could be sufficient to make the Hallucination Theory true. In that case the antecedent in (B) would be TRUE and the consequent would be FALSE, thus making the conditional claim (B) FALSE. Therefore, premise (B) is in fact FALSE.
EVALUATION OF OBJECTION #8 (HALLUCINATIONS DON'T EAT)
Because the key premise (2A) in the core argument for Objection #8 is DUBIOUS and because the other key premise (B) in the core argument is FALSE, we may reasonably conclude that this argument is clearly UNSOUND, and that Objection #8 FAILS, just like all of Kreeft's previous seven objections against the Hallucination Theory have FAILED.
No comments:
Post a Comment