WHERE WE ARE
William Craig's sub-argument for the key premise (5c) fails, because the meaning of the premises of the sub-argument are too unclear to be rationally evaluated. So, as the argument stands, it fails to provide us with a good reason to believe that (5c) is true. Unless we can fix Craig's sub-argument by clarifying the meaning of its premises, the sub-argument should be rejected, and that will give us a third good reason to conclude that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
In Part 17 of this series, I considered a possible clarification of the unclear phrase "the alternative naturalistic hypotheses" by means of a proposed definition of this phrase that was based upon listing "the alternative naturalistic hypotheses" that Craig examines in Chapter 8 of Reasonable Faith. Although the proposed definition clarified the meaning of premise (B), it did not work to fix Craig's sub-argument because the proposed definition also made premise (C1) false. Thus, using the proposed definition would make Craig's sub-argument unsound, and the sub-argument would fail.
THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (5c)
Here, once again, is Craig's sub-argument for the key premise (5c):
D. The Resurrection Hypothesis is a more plausible explanation of Craig's three key established historical facts concerning Jesus' final fate than the alternative supernatural hypotheses.
B. The Resurrection Hypothesis is a more plausible explanation of Craig's three key established historical facts concerning Jesus' final fate than the alternative naturalistic hypotheses.
C1. A hypothesis H is the best explanation of a specific set of facts IF AND ONLY IF hypothesis H is a more plausible explanation of that set of facts than the alternative naturalistic hypotheses and the alternative supernatural hypotheses.
THEREFORE:
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).
CRAIG'S HINT ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE "ALTERNATIVE NATURALISTIC HYPOTHESES"
Because Craig does not realize the significant unclarity of the phrase "alternative naturalistic hypotheses" in his sub-argument for premise (5c), he makes no serious attempt to clarify or define what that phrase means. So, I suspect I will have to clarify the meaning of this phrase on my own, without much help from Craig.
However, Craig does provide a hint at what he means by this phrase:
An argument for Jesus' resurrection which conforms to actual historiographical practice will be formulated as an inference to the best explanation. According to this approach, we begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of that evidence. Out of a pool of live options determined by our background beliefs, we select the best of various competing explanations to give a causal account of why the evidence is as it is and not otherwise. (Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed., p.360)
The last sentence in the above quote contains the hint that explanations or hypotheses should be considered from "a pool of live options determined by our background beliefs". In short, according to Craig, we can ignore any "alternative naturalistic hypotheses" that are NOT "live options" based on our "background beliefs".
In Part 17 of this series, I mentioned that there was some unclarity of the scope of the phrase "the alternative naturalistic hypotheses", and that this phrase might refer to ALL such hypotheses, or to SOME such hypotheses, or to a subset of such hypotheses that are characterized in a specific way. We now have a specific characterization that limits the scope of "the alternative naturalistic hypotheses" that need to be considered and evaluated: such hypotheses that are "live options" based on our "background beliefs".
Craig believes that God exists and that God sometimes intervenes in human affairs (i.e. performs miracles). Thus, the Resurrection Hypothesis is a "live option" for Craig, and he should consider and evaluate that hypothesis to see whether it is a better or worse explanation of the relevant facts than other hypotheses.
However, if Craig is allowed to ignore or set aside some "alternative naturalistic hypotheses" because they are not "live options" for him, based on his background beliefs, then I, and other skeptics, must also be allowed to ignore or set aside some "alternative supernatural hypotheses" if some such hypothesis is not a "live option" for us, because of our background beliefs.
There is an obvious problem here. Different people have different background beliefs. I, for example, am an atheist. I believe that God does not exist. Thus, based on this background belief, I am free to ignore and set aside the Resurrection Hypothesis that Craig is so intent on persuading us all to believe.
Recall that the Resurrection Hypothesis is the claim that "God raised Jesus from the dead." Since my backgound belief is that there is no God, the Resurrection Hypothesis is NOT a "live option" for me. So, based on Craig's proposed methodology, I am free to ignore or toss aside the Resurrection Hypothesis before I even begin to evaluate the relative merits of various competing alternative hypotheses.
Furthermore, even if Craig could persuade me to change my mind and to believe that God exists, that would not resolve the issues from the differences in our background beliefs. As a skeptic, I believe that humans do NOT know the purposes, plans, and motivations of God, even if God does exist. As a result of this belief, I see no hope of ever knowing whether "God raised Jesus from the dead".
Believing in the existence of God is not sufficient to make the Resurrection Hypothesis a "live option" for me. I do not share Craig's belief that God sometimes intervenes in human affairs, and I do not believe that humans are able to determine if and when God has intervened in human affairs. To do so would require knowing about God's purposes, plans, and motivations, but humans don't have such knowledge, according to my background beliefs.
I'm pretty sure that Craig would not want atheists and skeptics to ignore or toss aside the Resurrection Hypothesis before even considering it and evaluating its plausibility as an explanation for the relevant historical facts about Jesus final fate. In order to ensure that atheists and skeptics don't simply ignore or toss aside the Resurrection Hypothesis as not being a "live option" based on the background beliefs of atheists and skeptics, Craig might want to lower the requirements for a hypothesis to be a "live option".
For example, Craig might point out that most atheists and skeptics are not 100% certain that there is no God. He might use this idea in order to make the Resurrection Hypothesis into a "live option" even for atheists and skeptics. Craig might say that as long as there is a small chance (say a 1% chance) that God exists and that God sometimes intervenes in human affairs, one should view the Resurrection Hypothesis as a live option. On this lowered standard, most atheists and skeptics would be rationally obligated to consider and evaluate the Resurrection Hypothesis in comparison to alternative hypotheses, such as various alternative naturalistic hypotheses.
If Craig wishes to lower the bar for what counts as a "live option" such that a hypothesis need only have a 1% chance of being true in view of the background beliefs of the person who is doing the investigation, then the bar for alternative naturalistic hypotheses must ALSO be lowered, so that any alternative naturalistic hypothesis that has only a 1% chance of being true in view of the background beliefs of Christians or believers in God, must ALSO be counted as a "live option" for such investigators of Jesus' final fate. I'm not sure whether Craig would be willing to lower the bar this much for alternative naturalistic hypotheses.
No comments:
Post a Comment