A KEY INFERENCE IN CRAIG'S CORE ARGUMENT
In Part 4 of this series, I stated that the final inference in Craig's core argument was this:
5a. The preferred explanation for Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate ought to be the resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).
THEREFORE:
8. The best explanation of the established historical facts that are relevant to Jesus' final fate is the resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).
In Part 6, I argued that the ultimate conclusion of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is this:
9. It is more likely than not that God raised Jesus from the dead.
In Part 5 of this series, I showed that the inference from (5a) to (8) was weak and dubious because Craig's selection of his three key historical claims was significantly influenced by Confirmation Bias. This problem with that inference is sufficient by itself to sink Craig's core argument and thus make his case for the resurrection of Jesus Dead on Arrival.
A PROBLEM WITH THE INFERENCE INTRODUCED BY THE WORDING OF PREMISE (5a)
However, there is another problem with the inference from (5a) to (8) which is the result of how I phrased premise (5a) rather than being a problem in Craig's actual reasoning. So, I need to revise the wording of (5a), and to revise other parts of the argument that support premise (5a), in order to be fair to Craig's core argument.
This other problem with the inference from premise (5a) to (8) is that (5a) talks about historical claims, but (8) talks about established historical facts. That shift in descriptions is enough to make this a bad and illogical inference. But that is not a problem in Craig's reasoning, it is a problem that resulted from how I worded premise (5a), and some of the premises supporting (5a).
At this point in the argument, Craig believes that he has already shown that his three key historical claims are established historical facts and not just historical claims. That happens with premise (2a):
2a. Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence AND alternative naturalistic explanations for Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate can be shown to be implausible.
This premise is a conjunction of two statements. The first statement asserts that Craig's three historical claims can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence. So, if we accept premise (2a), then later in the argument, we should view Craig's three historical claims as being established historical facts.
I think we need to make this shift from historical claims to established historical facts by making the following assumption an explicit premise in Craig's core argument:
A. A historical claim C is an established historical fact IF AND ONLY IF historical claim C can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence.
This assumption allows us to shift from the phrase "Craig's three key historical claims" to the phrase "Craig's three key established historical facts" after premise (2a) appears in the flow of Craig's core argument.
That means that by the time we arrive at premise (5), the description of the relevant historical information has shifted:
5b. The preferred explanation for Craig's three key established historical facts concerning Jesus' final fate ought to be the resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).
This revised wording of the fifth premise avoids the problem of the shift in descriptions of the historical information from the fifth premise to premise (8).
The serious problem of Confirmation Bias, however, remains in place and is sufficient to make the inference from (5b) to (8) a weak and dubious inference, and thus Craig's core argument for the resurrection is still Dead on Arrival.
While I'm clarifying the fifth premise of Craig's core argument, I want to make a couple of other revisions. The phrase "preferred explanation" appears to be an alternative way of saying "best explanation", so we should revise that wording to also make it clearer that there is no problem with shifting terminology from "preferred explanation" in the fifth premise to the terminology "best explanation" in premise (8):
5c. The best explanation for Craig's three key established historical facts concerning Jesus' final fate is the resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).
I also dropped the phrase "ought to be" since it is clear that Craig is asserting that the resurrection hypothesis IS OBJECTIVELY the best explanation.
Here is how I would modify the premises supporting premise (5c):
3b. IF IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT the resurrection hypothesis (i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead) has been shown to be more implausible than the alternative naturalistic explanations for Craig's three key established historical facts concerning Jesus' final fate, THEN the best explanation for Craig's three key established historical facts concerning Jesus' final fate is the resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).
4b. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT the resurrection hypothesis (i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead) has been shown to be more implausible than the alternative naturalistic explanations for Craig's three key established historical facts concerning Jesus' final fate.
THEREFORE:
5c. The best explanation for Craig's three key established historical facts concerning Jesus' final fate ought is the resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).
The sub-argument supporting the revised premise (3b) needs to have premise (A) added to the previously two premises in that sub-argument, and premise (1a) needs a minor revision to shift from talking about the "preferred explanation" to talking about the "best explanation":
1b. IF Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence AND alternative naturalistic explanations for Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate can be shown to be implausible, THEN IF IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT the resurrection hypothesis (i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead) has been shown to be more implausible than the alternative naturalistic explanations for Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate, THEN the best explanation for Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate is the resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).
2a. Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence AND alternative naturalistic explanations for Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate can be shown to be implausible.
A. A historical claim C is an established historical fact IF AND ONLY IF historical claim C can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence.
THEREFORE:
3b. IF IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT the resurrection hypothesis (i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead) has been shown to be more implausible than the alternative naturalistic explanations for Craig's three key established historical facts concerning Jesus' final fate, THEN the best explanation for Craig's three key established historical facts concerning Jesus' final fate is the resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).
REVISED ARGUMENT DIAGRAM
Here is the revised argument diagram based on the above clarifications of Craig's core argument:
No comments:
Post a Comment