WHERE WE ARE
In Part 38, I analyzed Peter Kreeft's argument for his Objection #12, his second Empty-Tomb objection against the Hallucination Theory. Here is the core of the argument for Objection #12, based on my analysis:
E. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, THEN the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would have stopped the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead by publically producing the dead body of Jesus.
F. IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead AND the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem did NOT stop the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.
Therefore:
A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
In Part 39, I argued that premise (E) was clearly FALSE because there are at least three different scenarios where the antecedent of (E) would be TRUE, but the consequent of (E) would be FALSE. Each of those scenarios thus constitutes a counterexample to (E). These counterexamples clearly show that the conditional claim asserted in premise (E) is FALSE. Therefore, this argument is UNSOUND and should be rejected. That means that Objection #12 FAILS, just like every single one of Kreeft's previous eleven objections against the Hallucination Theory FAILED.
It is now time to consider Objection #13.
OBJECTION #13: THE HALLUCINATION THEORY DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE EMPTY TOMB
Kreeft states his Objection #13 in a few brief sentences:
13. A hallucination would explain only the post-resurrection appearances; it would not explain the empty tomb, the rolled-away stone, or the inability to produce the corpse. No theory can explain all these data except a real resurrection. (HCA, p. 188)
As usual, Kreeft FAILS to state the conclusion of his argument, but in this context the conclusion is clear:
A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
Kreeft's paragraph above can be analyzed as making three claims that function as the premises of the argument for Objection #13:
1. The Hallucination Theory explains only the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus.
2. The Hallucination Theory does not explain the empty tomb, the rolled-away stone, or the inability of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem to produce the corpse of Jesus.
3. The only theory that explains all these data (i.e. the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus, the empty tomb, the rolled-away stone, and the inability of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem to produce the corpse of Jesus) is the theory that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.
Therefore:
A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
KREEFT'S ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #13 IS LOGICALLY INVALID
It is clear that conclusion (A) DOES NOT FOLLOW from these premises.
Even if it is true that the Hallucination Theory does not explain those three "data" and the theory that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead does explain those three data, this does NOT show that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE. At most, this would show that the Resurrection Theory is more likely to be correct than the Hallucination Theory. Therefore, this argument is clearly INVALID. The conclusion DOES NOT FOLLOW from the premises. This is NOT a proof that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE. Thus, Kreeft's argument constituting Objection #13 is INVALID; therefore, Objection #13 FAILS, just like every single one of Kreeft's previous dozen objections against the Hallucination Theory FAILED.
As the Christian apologist William Craig points out, in order to intelligently and rationally evaluate alternative theories, such as the Hallucination Theory vs. the Resurrection Theory, there are MULTIPLE CONSIDERATIONS that should be taken into account in order to determine which theory is better or more likely to be correct. For this reason, the logic of comparing alternative theories won't work to support a firm and decisive conclusion like "The Hallucination Theory is FALSE".
Here are the considerations or criteria that Craig uses to compare alternative historical theories (Craig uses the term "hypothesis" instead of "theory"):
1. The hypothesis must imply further statements describing present observable data.
2. The hypothesis must have greater explanatory scope than rival hypotheses.
3. The hypothesis must have greater explanatory power than rival hypotheses.
4. The hypothesis must be more plausible than rival hypotheses.
5. The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than rival hypotheses.
6. The hypothesis must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than rival hypotheses.
7. The hypothesis must so exceed its rivals in fulfilling conditions (2) through (6) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis exceeding it in meeting these conditions. (see Reasonable Faith, 3rd edition, p.396-399)
Kreeft's argument is focused on condition (2), the claim that the Resurrection Theory has greater explanatory scope than the Hallucination Theory. But that is only ONE out of SEVEN considerations that Craig holds that we need to examine in order to rationally evaluate one historical theory (or hypothesis) in comparison to alternative historical theories (or hypotheses).
Because the premises of Kreeft's argument only cover ONE out of SEVEN important considerations for evaluating a historical theory/hypothesis, the argument FAILS to provide anything close to a justification of the claim that the Resurrection Theory is more likely to be correct than the Hallucination Theory.
Furthermore, even if Kreeft massively improved and reinforced this argument, so that it covered all SEVEN considerations, the most that such a massively improved argument would show is that the Resurrection Theory is more likely to be correct than the Hallucination Theory. It would NOT show that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE!
Finally, without going into details on all SEVEN conditions mentioned above, it is reasonable to expect that it is often the case that one theory is better than another theory in some respects and worse than the other theory in other respects, so it is often the case that there is no clear and decisive conclusion that one theory is the best, and that the alternative theories are clearly inferior to that one.
Another way to make this point is to note that condition (7) above creates a high standard that it is rare for theories to meet. Prior to critically examining lots of relevant details about the Hallucination Theory and the Resurrection Theory it is unlikely that either theory will meet the high standard that is put forward in condition (7), which means that it is unlikely that there will be a clear and decisive "winner" between these two theories.
Without going into all the details on all SEVEN conditions, it is likely that the Resurrection Theory is better than the Hallucination Theory in some respects and that it is worse than the Hallucination Theory in other respects. If that likely outcome of a careful critical investigation is actually the case, then there would be no clear and decisive "winner" between these two rival theories, and it certainly would be UNREASONABLE in that case to conclude that the Hallucination Theory was simply FALSE.
In any case, since Kreeft's argument only touches on ONE out of the above SEVEN conditions, and since it only touches on TWO out of several alternative historical theories about the death of Jesus, it would clearly be very UNREASONABLE to conclude that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE on such a flimsy and superficial comparison of just ONE aspect of just TWO alternative theories. Thus, Kreeft's argument constituting Objection #13 is logically INVALID and also clearly provides an insufficient reason for the conclusion that the Resurrection Theory is more likely to be correct than the Hallucination Theory. Therefore, Objection #13 FAILS, just like every single one of Kreeft's previous dozen objections against the Hallucination Theory FAILED.
IS PREMISE (1) TRUE?
Here, again, is premise (1) of Kreeft's argument for Objection #13:
1. The Hallucination Theory explains only the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus.
Obviously, dreams or hallucinations of the risen Jesus had by some of the eleven disciples would explain appearances of the risen Jesus to the disciples who experienced those dreams or hallucinations. As we have seen previously, dreams or hallucinations could explain not only visual appearances of a risen Jesus, but experiences that seemed to be of talking and eating with the risen Jesus, and experiences that seemed to be of touching the risen Jesus, and even experiences that seemed to be of a group talking or eating with the risen Jesus (e.g. Peter could have had a dream or hallucination in which he and other disciples talked and ate with the risen Jesus). So, that aspect of premise (1) is correct.
However, Kreeft uses the qualification "only" here. This implies that the ONLY data explained by the Hallucination Theory is the experiences of the disciples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus. But this is NOT the ONLY data explained by the Hallucination Theory, so this premise is FALSE.
The Hallucination Theory, for example, explains why the disciples left Jerusalem and returned to Galilee. As I have argued previously, it is more likely that the eleven disciples headed back to Galilee shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus, and that the FIRST experiences of the risen Jesus took place in Galilee a week or more after the crucifixion.
If Jesus had physically risen from the dead early on the first Easter Sunday, then he probably would have come to see his eleven disciples in Jerusalem on that Sunday, as indicated by the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John. But those Jerusalem appearance stories are probably FICTIONAL, and it is more likely that Mark and Matthew are correct in placing the FIRST appearances of the risen Jesus to his eleven disciples in Galilee a week or more after the crucifixion of Jesus.
The most likely historical scenario is that the eleven disciples left Jerusalem believing that Jesus was still dead, and NOT believing that Jesus had physically risen from the dead. A week or more later, when they were back in Galilee, they began to experience appearances of the risen Jesus. The Hallucination Theory fits this historical circumstance better than the Resurrection Theory. A physical resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday would likely have resulted in the eleven disciples being firmly convinced that very Sunday that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, and then they would probably have remained in Jerusalem with Jesus, rather than immediately heading back to Galilee.
There is a closely related problem of why it took nearly two months for the eleven disciples to start preaching about the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem. According to the Resurrection Theory Jesus physically rose from the dead in Jerusalem on Sunday, only about 36 hours after he was buried in a stone tomb. In that case, Jesus probably would have visited his eleven disciples in Jerusalem that Sunday, like the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John claim. But then the disciples would have become firmly convinced that Jesus had physically risen from the dead on that Sunday, and they probably would have begun preaching about the resurrection of Jesus within a few days. It is unlikely that they would have waited nearly two months to start preaching about the resurrection of Jesus.
But on the Hallucination Theory, the disciples don't have to start believing in the resurrection on the first Easter Sunday. They could have headed back to Galilee in defeat, believing that Jesus had died on the cross and that Jesus remained dead. It probably would take a week or a month for dreams or hallucinations to occur to some or most of the eleven disciples. It is unlikely that they would all immediately have dreams or hallucinations of the risen Jesus, and much more likely that different disciples would experience such dreams or hallucinations at different times on different days. Furthermore, dreams and hallucinations would probably not immediately convince all eleven disciples that Jesus had physically risen from the dead. It would likely take a week or more for these experiences to produce a firm conviction of the resurrection among this group of disciples.
After a month or so of being back in Galilee, hallucinations and dreams of the risen Jesus could have created enough conviction about the resurrection of Jesus to spur the eleven disciples to return to Jerusalem and to begin preaching the resurrection of Jesus there. So, the Hallucination Theory helps to explain WHY it took nearly two months for the disciples to begin preaching about the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem.
The Hallucination Theory also fits better with the alleged doubts of the eleven disciples about the resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus had physically risen from the dead and appeared to his disciples on the first Easter Sunday, then they probably would have become firmly convinced on that very Sunday that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, and they would not have any significant doubts about this conclusion.
But according to the Gospels, the disciples did have doubts about the resurrection of Jesus, even after he allegedly appeared to them. The Hallucination Theory fits better with those doubts. Individuals having separate dreams or hallucinations about the risen Jesus would probably not result in the same sort of immediate and firm conviction that an actual ordinary sensory experience of a physically resurrected Jesus would produce, especially an actual ordinary sensory experience of a physically resurrected Jesus had by a group of disciples at the same time and same place.
Some accounts of alleged appearances of the resurrected Jesus have Jesus doing physically impossible things, such as walking through walls or vanishing into thin air, or flying up into the sky. The Hallucination Theory provides a better explanation of these "data", than does the Resurrection Theory. Dreams and hallucinations often involve physically impossible events, such as people being able to fly like birds or vanishing into thin air. Walking through walls is something that could easily happen in a dream or hallucination.
The Resurrection Theory by itself does NOT explain these physically impossible events. Jesus being alive again does NOT imply that Jesus had a body or powers that allowed him to walk through walls or to vanish into thin air or to fly up into the sky.
One can add the further hypothesis that Jesus' body had been transformed into a new body that had supernatural or extraordinary powers. But that additional hypothesis makes the Resurrection Theory more complex and much less likely to be true. No such unlikely supernatural hypothesis is needed by the Hallucination Theory to explain why the risen Jesus could apparently walk through walls or fly up into the sky. These are natural and common aspects of the experiences people have in dreams and hallucinations.
Some accounts of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus indicate that Jesus was not immediately recognized by the disciple or follower who had this experience. The Hallucination Theory explains this "data" better than the Resurrection Theory. According to the Resurrection Theory Jesus' body came back to life after it was placed into a stone tomb. If this were true, then we would expect that followers and disciples of Jesus would immediately recognize the physically resurrected Jesus.
But according to some Gospel accounts, the risen Jesus was sometimes not immediately recognized by the disciple or follower of Jesus. But a dream or hallucination could easily explain this "data" because the appearances of people in dreams and hallucinations can quickly and significantly change (without any constraints from laws of physics), and because it is a common feature of dreams (and perhaps of hallucinations?) that the dreamer can identify a person in a dream as someone they actually know even though in the dream the person does NOT look like that person looks in reality.
The following questions summarize aspects of the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus that are better explained by the Hallucination Theory than by the Resurrection Theory:
- Why did the eleven disciples depart from Jerusalem and return to Galilee shortly after Jesus was crucified?
- Why did it take nearly two months for the eleven disciples to start preaching in Jerusalem about the resurrection of Jesus?
- Why was the risen Jesus apparently able to do extraordinary things like walk through walls and fly up into the sky and vanish into thin air?
- Why did some of the disciples continue to have doubts about the resurrection of Jesus after the first Easter Sunday?
- Why was Jesus not always immediately recognized by his own disciples and followers when they experienced an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus?
Even if you disagree with my view that the Hallucination Theory provides a better explanation of these "data" than the Resurrection Theory, it is still clearly and obviously the case that the Hallucination Theory explains MORE THAN just the bare appearances of the risen Jesus. So, it is clear that premise (1) is FALSE. Thus, Kreeft's argument for Objection #13 is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Therefore, Objection #13 FAILS, just like every single one of Kreeft's other dozen objections FAILED.
INITIAL EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #13
So far, I have shown that Kreeft's argument for Objection #13 is logically INVALID, and that premise (1) of this argument is FALSE. So, it is already clear that this argument is UNSOUND and thus should be rejected. Therefore, Objection #13 FAILS, just like every single one of Kreeft's previous dozen objections against the Hallucination Theory FAILED.
In the next Part in this series, I will continue to evaluate Kreeft's argument for Objection #13 by focusing on these two remaining questions about Kreeft's third Empty-Tomb objection against the Hallucination Theory:
Is premise (2) true?
Is premise (3) true?
No comments:
Post a Comment