THE SCOPE OF DATA TO BE CONSIDERED
It should be clear by now that a crucial aspect of thinking critically about the alleged resurrection of Jesus is being clear about the scope of the data that should be considered.
As I showed in Part 3 of this series, William Craig implies that the scope of data that should be considered is this:
established historical facts that are relevant to Jesus' final fate
This suggestion seems right to me, or, at least, this suggestion by Craig is a good place to start. Some further clarification of this scope will probably be helpful to people who want to think critically about this issue.
THIS IS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY ISSUE
First, although it is probably the case that most of the relevant information is "historical" evidence, there is some evidence from other fields that is also relevant.
Medical facts and evidence are clearly relevant to having a good understanding of crucifixion and of Jesus' alleged death by crucifixion. Here is what Craig says about the skeptical view called the Apparent Death Hypothesis:
The Apparent Death Hypothesis is massively disconfirmed by medical facts concerning what would happen to a person who has been scourged and crucified. (Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed., p.374)
If we limit ourselves to "established historical facts", then Craig cannot make this objection to the Apparent Death Hypothesis in order to try to show that this skeptical view is "implausible".
Although this claim by Craig has implications for questions about the alleged historical event of the crucifixion of Jesus, and although this claim is based in part on historical assumptions or facts about the nature of Roman crucifixion, this claim also (obviously) requires evidence in terms of medical facts, which are outside the scope of the expertise of ancient historians. Medical facts come from the field of medicine, NOT from the field of history.
Therefore, Craig undermines his own objections to the Apparent Death Hypothesis by limiting the scope of relevant evidence to just established historical facts.
Psychological facts and evidence are clearly relevant to having a good understanding of the alleged responses of Jesus' disciples to his crucifixion and of their alleged experiences of the risen Jesus. In discussing the Conspiracy Hypothesis, Craig makes the following objection to that skeptical view:
...one cannot plausibly deny that the earliest disciples at least sincerely believed that Jesus was risen from the dead, a conviction on which they staked their very lives.... The transformation in the lives of the disciples is not credibly explained by the hypothesis of a conspiracy. (Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed., p.372)
I grant that this is the sort of reasoning that historians often engage in. However, it is clear that there are more than just strictly historical assumptions being made here. When we are talking about "a conviction on which" someone stakes his or her life, and about a significant "transformation in the lives" of a group of people, we are making assumptions about human psychology, assumptions which can be confirmed or disconfirmed by experts and experiments in psychology.
An even clearer reference to the field of psychology occurs when Craig discusses the Hallucination Hypothesis. Here is an objection to that hypothesis by Craig:
Although Allison makes a great deal out of the alleged similarities between the postmortem appearances of Jesus and visions of the recently departed on the part of the bereaved, the overriding lesson of such fascinating stories is that the bereaved do not as a result of such experiences, however real and tangible they may seem, conclude that the deceased has returned to life--rather the deceased is seen in the afterlife. (Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed., p.384)
Craig is discussing here the nature of "visions of the recently departed on the part of the bereaved" which is a subject of investigation in the field of psychology. The facts here are facts of psychology, NOT historical facts.
The "lessons" or implications of those facts are what is discussed and argued by experts in psychology in journals of psychology. If Craig wants to limit relevant evidence and facts to established historical facts, then he will not be able to draw on the facts and findings of psychologists to support his objection against the Conspiracy Hypothesis.
Philosophical considerations are also clearly relevant to the evaluation of the claim "God raised Jesus from the dead". One must have a clear idea of what the term "God" means in this sentence, otherwise the conclusion of Craig's core argument is UNCLEAR.
The probability of the claim "God raised Jesus from the dead" depends on the probability of other philosophical claims, such as "God exists" and "God sometimes intervenes in human affairs" and "God believes that humans are in need of a divine savior", and "God believes that humans have a great need to hear truth and wisdom from God about God." Such assumptions are crucial in order for a person to logically reach a conclusion about God being the cause of some event.
If there is no God, then the claim "God raised Jesus from the dead" is FALSE. If the existence of God is very improbable, then so is the claim "God raised Jesus from the dead". Furthermore, the existence of God does not necessarily imply that miracles happen. Deists believe that God exists, but they also believe that God does not intervene in human affairs. Even if it was certain that God exists, it might still be very improbable that miracles happen, because God could have a policy of not intervening in human affairs.
CONCLUSION
Although Craig appears to think that the scope of facts and evidence we should consider when investigating the question "Did God raise Jesus from the dead?" is this:
established historical facts that are relevant to Jesus' final fate
This scope is clearly too narrow, because it fails to include facts and evidence that are from the medical field, from the field of psychology, and from the field of philosophy. Historical facts and evidence are of obvious relevance, but the question at issue here is clearly an interdisciplinary one, NOT a strictly historical question.
Here is the scope of information that we should be considering:
established facts that are relevant to Jesus' final fate
This includes historical facts, medical facts, psychological facts, philosophical facts, and interdisciplinary facts (that require confirmation from more than just one field of inquiry).
No comments:
Post a Comment