WHERE WE ARE
In Part 36 I have already concluded that Peter Kreeft's three Empty-Tomb Objections FAIL to show that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE. That is because Objection #11 and Objection #12 are NOT actually objections against the Hallucination Theory, and because Objection #13, even if correct, would only provide a reason to favor Kreeft's theory (that Jesus physically rose from the dead) over the Hallucination Theory, but would NOT show that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
It is now time to examine Kreeft's Objection #11 against the Hallucination Theory.
OBJECTION #11: THE DISCIPLES COULD NOT BELIEVE IN A HALLUCINATION IF THE TOMB WAS NOT EMPTY.
Kreeft states his Objection #11 in on brief paragraph:
11. The apostles could not have believed in the "hallucination" if Jesus' corpse had still been in the tomb. This is a very simple and telling point; for if it was a hallucination, where was the corpse? They would have checked for it; if it was there, they could not have believed.
(HCA, p. 187-188)
As usual, Kreeft FAILS to state the conclusion of his argument. But since this is supposed to be an argument that disproves the Hallucination Theory, we can supply the conclusion ourselves:
A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
The last sentence needs to be clarified because of the referring expressions in it:
...if it was there, they could not have believed.
The initial phrase in the last sentence ("if it was there") can be clarified by using the parallel phrase in the first sentence ("if Jesus' corpse had still been in the tomb"):
...if Jesus' corpse had still been in the tomb, they could not have believed.
The second phrase in the last sentence ("they could not have believed") can be clarified by using the parallel phrase in the first sentence ("The apostles could not have believed in the 'hallucination'"):
...if Jesus' corps had still been in the tomb, the apostles could not have believed in the "hallucination".
Now that we have clarified the meaning of the last sentence it becomes clear that the first sentence in the paragraph says the same thing as the last sentence in the paragraph:
The apostles could not have believed in the "hallucination" if Jesus' corpse had still been in the tomb.
...if Jesus' corps had still been in the tomb, the apostles could not have believed in the "hallucination".
Clearly, the last sentence in Kreeft's paragraph is REDUNDANT; it simply repeats the claim made in the first sentence. The placement of this claim at both the beginning and end of the paragraph indicates that this is a conclusion that is based on another claim (or claims). There is a sentence in the paragraph that asks a question:
...if it was a hallucination, where was the corpse?
But it is not clear that any sort of claim is being made by asking this question. The only other claim in this paragraph is made in this way:
They would have checked for it;
The word "they" is clearly a reference to "The apostles" and the "it" is clearly a reference to "Jesus' corpse" and the checking would obviously have been done "in the tomb", that is in the tomb where Jesus' body had (allegedly) been put after his crucifixion. So, we now have two inferences of Kreeft's argument:
Thus:1. The apostles would have checked for Jesus' corpse in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion.
Therefore:2. The apostles could not have believed in the "hallucination" if Jesus' corpse had still been in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion.
A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
Premise (1) needs some further clarification because it is actually asserting a conditional claim. It asserts that the apostles would have checked for Jesus' corpse under certain circumstances. Premise (2) also needs some clarification of the phrase "The apostles" and of the phrase "could not have believed in the 'hallucination'". So, I will clarify each of these premises for Kreeft, so that it will be possible to rationally evaluate these claims:
1A. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had experienced hallucinations or dreams of the risen Jesus, THEN those disciples would have checked for Jesus' corpse in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion.
Thus:
2A. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had experienced hallucinations or dreams of the risen Jesus AND Jesus' corpse was still in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion, THEN none of those disciples could have believed that Jesus had physically risen from the dead on the basis of a hallucination or dream about the risen Jesus.
Therefore:
A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
This is a non sequitur. The conclusion (A) clearly DOES NOT FOLLOW from premise (2A).
One could add a premise to (2A) in order to create a reduction-to-absurdity argument against the Hallucination Theory:
B. Jesus' corpse was still in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion.
2A. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had experienced hallucinations or dreams of the risen Jesus AND Jesus' corpse was still in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion, THEN none of those disciples could have believed that Jesus had physically risen from the dead on the basis of a hallucination or dream about the risen Jesus.
Therefore:
A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
Although this is not a formally VALID deductive argument, I believe that the conclusion does follow logically from these premises. We would need additional premises or inferences concerning the meaning or implications of the Hallucination Theory, but I think that one could produce a logically VALID argument using these premises.
However, premise (B) contradicts Kreeft's theory that Jesus physically rose from the dead. Since Kreeft obviously rejects (B) as a FALSE claim, he cannot use (B) as a premise in an argument to PROVE that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE and that the view that Jesus physically rose from the dead is TRUE. It looks like Objection #11 FAILS, just like all of the previous objections FAILED.
However, premise (2A) could be used as the basis for a significant inference:
2A. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had experienced hallucinations or dreams of the risen Jesus AND Jesus' corpse was still in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion, THEN none of those disciples could have believed that Jesus had physically risen from the dead on the basis of a hallucination or dream about the risen Jesus.
Therefore:
This, I believe, is the actual point of Objection #11. The conclusion is NOT that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE, but rather that the Hallucination Theory implies "the empty tomb".C. IF the Hallucination Theory were TRUE, then it was NOT the case that Jesus' corpse was still in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion.
That is to say, the Hallucination Theory implies that it was NOT the case that Jesus' corpse was still in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion. Somehow or other Jesus' corpse must not have remained in the tomb where his body had been placed. Otherwise, any of the eleven disciples who had a hallucination or dream about the risen Jesus would have looked into the tomb, found Jesus' corpse there, and that would have ended any inclination of that disciple (or those disciples) to believe that Jesus had in fact physically risen from the dead.
Kreeft is claiming that the Hallucination Theory works only if the corpse of Jesus somehow or other did not remain in the tomb where Jesus body had been put after his crucifixion. This, however, is NOT an argument showing that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE. Therefore, Objection #11 is NOT an argument for the conclusion that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
The purpose of Objection #11 is to provide support for Objection #13, in that Objection #11 argues that the Hallucination Theory implies "the empty tomb", and Objection #13 is based on the assumption of "the empty tomb".
No comments:
Post a Comment