WHERE WE ARE
Kreeft's argument for Objection #10 against the Hallucination Theory FAILED miserably because it was both INVALID and UNSOUND.
However, I attempted to revise and improve Kreeft's clearly defective argument by keeping his principle about hallucinations, premise (2), and constructing historical premises that are initially more plausible than the historical premises that Kreeft put forward.
Here is the core argument of the revised and improved version of the argument for Objection #10:
D. Over a period of about one or two months, Jesus' disciples had various experiences that seemed to be of the risen Jesus, and in at least some of those experiences, the person who they thought was the risen Jesus was NOT a figment of their imagination.
F. IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN in all of the experiences of Jesus' disciples that seemed to be of the risen Jesus and that took place over a period of about one or two months, it was the case that the person who they thought was the risen Jesus was just a figment of their imagination.
Therefore:
A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
In Part 34 I showed that the argument given in support of the key premise (D) was a complete and utter FAILURE, because it is based on two historical premises that are both DUBIOUS, and because it is based on Kreeft's principle about hallucinations, namely premise (2), and that principle is FALSE. Therefore, because the argument for premise (D) is a complete FAILURE, premise (D) remains DUBIOUS.
In Part 35 I showed that premise (F), the other key premise in the core argument above, is FALSE. Because premise (D) is DUBIOUS and premise (F) is FALSE, this core argument for Objection #10 is UNSOUND, and this objection FAILS, just like every single one of the previous nine objections FAILED:
Given Kreeft's miserable track record so far, it is UNLIKELY that any of his remaining four objections against the Hallucination Theory will turn out to be conclusive or strong objections.
THE EMPTY-TOMB OBJECTIONS
Kreeft's next three objections against the Hallucination Theory revolve around the assumption that Jesus' body was buried in a stone tomb after he died on the cross, and the assumption that this tomb was discovered to be empty early on Sunday morning, less than 48 hours after his body was placed in the tomb. Here are summaries of Kreeft's next three objections:
Objection #11: The Disciples Could Not Beleive a Hallucination if the Tomb was Not Empty.
Objection #12: The Disciples Could Not Persuade Others (of Jesus' resurrection) if the Tomb was Not Empty.
Objection #13: The Hallucination Theory does Not Explain the Empty Tomb.
Objection #11 is not actually an objection against the Hallucination Theory. It is arguing that IF one accepts the Hallucination Theory THEN one must also believe that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty. But Kreeft himself believes that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty, so this is clearly NOT a reduction-to-absurdity argument against the Hallucination Theory. Kreeft's point seems to be that the Hallucination Theory implies or supports the view that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty.
Objection #12 is also not actually an objection against the Hallucination Theory. It is arguing that IF one accepts the Hallucination Theory, then one must also believe that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty. But Kreeft himself believes that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty, so this is clearly NOT a reduction-to-absurdity argument against the Hallucination Theory. Again, Kreeft's point seems to be that the Hallucination Theory implies or supports the view that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty.
Objection #13 is the only objection among these three objections that is actually an objection against the Hallucination Theory. It should be noted, however, that even if Objection #13 is correct, it would NOT refute or disprove the Hallucination Theory. If the Hallucination Theory fails to explain the empty tomb, and Kreeft's theory (that Jesus physically rose from the dead) does explain the empty tomb, that would provide a reason to prefer Kreeft's theory over the Hallucination Theory, but it would NOT show that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
Objection #11 and Objection #12 appear to be arguments that are given in support of Objection #13. They provide reasons for people who accept the Hallucination Theory to also accept the view that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty. Objection #13 then assumes it to be TRUE that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty, and uses that alleged "fact" to raise an objection against the Hallucination Theory. Therefore, these three objections actually constitute only ONE objection, namely Objection #13, which is based on an assumption that is supported by the arguments constituting Objection #11 and Objection #12.
Given this analysis of the three Empty-Tomb objections, it is already clear that these three objections FAIL to refute or disprove the Hallucination Theory. At most, Objection #13 provides a reason to prefer Kreeft's theory (that Jesus did physically rise from the dead) over the Hallucination Theory. So, if Objection #13 is correct, then the view that Jesus physically rose from the dead would be more likely to be true than the Hallucination Theory OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.
That is a far cry from showing that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE. For one thing, other things might NOT be equal. There might also be other reasons that favor the Hallucination Theory over the theory that Jesus physically rose from the dead. Thus, the three Empty-Tomb objections FAIL to refute or disprove the Hallucination Theory. These three objections are therefore DEAD ON ARRIVAL.
In the next post in this series, I will examine Objection #11 and perhaps Objection #12.
SPOILER ALERT: Kreeft's final objection, Objection #14, is CRAP, so I'm confident at this point that Kreeft's attempt to disprove or refute the Hallucination Theory in his Handbook of Christian Apologetics is a complete FAILURE.
No comments:
Post a Comment