A FRESH START ON CRAIG'S CASE
William Craig presents a two-paragraph summary of his case for the resurrection of Jesus on page 360 of the 3rd edition of his book Reasonable Faith (hereafter: RF3). That summary is a bit confused and unclear. However, Craig also provides a shorter and clearer summary of his case in a single paragraph that starts at the bottom of page 360 and continues on to the top of page 361.
I am going to make a fresh start now, by focusing on that single-paragraph summary of his case, and I will also add in details, as required, from the previous two-paragraph summary on page 360.
CLARIFICATION OF THE ONE-PARAGRAPH SUMMARY
Here is Craig's one-paragraph summary of his case for the resurrection of Jesus:
As alluded to above, the case for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus seems to me to rest upon the evidence for three great, independently established facts: the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith. If these three facts can be established and no plausible natural explanation can account for them as well as the resurrection hypothesis, then one is justified in inferring Jesus' resurrection as the most plausible explanation of the data. (RF3, p.360-361)
The first sentence refers to three historical claims that Craig thinks are key claims in his case. The second sentence refers to a comparison of the explanatory power of various natural explanations in relation to the "resurrection hypothesis", which Craig believes to be the most plausible explanation.
Here is a key premise of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus:
1. IF these three facts can be established and no plausible natural explanation can account for them as well as the resurrection hypothesis, THEN one is justified in inferring Jesus' resurrection as the most plausible explanation of the data.
HISTORICAL CLAIMS VS. HISTORICAL FACTS
Because the word "facts" carries the implication that the claims made by Craig are KNOWN to be true, and this implies that the claims in question are firmly established on the basis of evidence, it is question-begging for Craig to use the term "facts" in his initial characterization of his three historical claims. The use of the word "facts" is reasonable only AFTER he has presented evidence that firmly establishes the truth of the three key historical claims that Craig asserts. To avoid a question-begging use of the word "facts", I will replace the phrase "these three facts" with the phrase "Craig's three key historical claims".
1a. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible nautural explanation can account for them as well as the resurrection hypothesis, THEN Jesus' resurrection is the most plausible explanation of the data.
I have also eliminated the phrase "one is justified in inferring..." because this is a long-winded and unnecessary inference indicator, which I will replace later by using the standard inference indicator: "Therefore".
We need to clarify the meaning of the phrase "the resurrection hypothesis" in this key premise, and we can do so based on what Craig has stated in his previous two-paragraph summary of his case:
In my estimation the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate. (RF3, p.360)
Now we can clarify the meaning of the phrase "the resurrection hypothesis":
1b. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible nautural explanation can account for them as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead", THEN the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of the data.
WHAT DOES THE PHRASE "THE DATA" MEAN?
What does Craig mean by the phrase "the data" in this key premise? There are at least three different possible interpretations of this phrase, given the context of Craig's two summaries of his case. In the first paragraph of his longer summary, Craig says the following:
According to this approach, we begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of the evidence. (RF3, p.360, emphasis added)
At the beginning of the second paragraph of his longer summary, Craig describes the scope of the evidence slightly differently:
In my estimation the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate. (RF3, p.360, emphasis added)
So, the phrase "the data" in Craig's key premise might well refer to "the evidence available to us" that is "historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate."
The concept of "the evidence available to us" is somewhat problematic, because some people have less evidence available to them than other people, even if we set aside the fact that people who lived in previous centuries had less historical evidence than we have in the 21st century (because various archeological artefacts and ancient texts have been discovered in recent centuries).
Even if we just compare two people who both live in the 21st century, one person might have carefully studied the historical evidence relevant to Jesus' final fate for many years, while another person might have never seen or considered any such historical evidence. The second person has virtually no historical evidence available to consider, at least no evidence that he or she has ever seen or read about.
We can, on the other hand, understand the idea of "the evidence available to us" more broadly to refer to ALL of the evidence that a person could see or read about if they chose to investigate this question seriously for several months and had no physical, mental, social, or financial obstacles that would prevent serious study of relevant historical evidence about Jesus' final fate.
It takes more than just a few months, however, to master the reconstruction, translation, and interpretation of ancient Greek texts, such as the Gospels and other New Testament writings. However, one can lean on experts in ancient history, in the transmission and translation of ancient Greek texts, in the interpretation of the Gospels and other New Testament writings, in order to learn the relevant historical information about Jesus' final fate.
I think we can ignore the fact that some people are completely ignorant about the historical evidence that is relevant to Jesus' final fate, and understand the phrase "the evidence available to us" to mean "all of the historical evidence that is relevant to Jesus' final fate that is generally available to people in the 21st century".
However, Craig has also focused upon "three great, independently established facts: the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith." (RF3, p.360-361). So, the phrase "the data" in Craig's key premise might instead refer only to those three historical "facts" or claims.
There is also another possible meaning of the phrase "the data" in Craig's key premise. Craig might be referring to the historical evidence that is relevant to his three key historical claims. In order to establish that these three claims are historical FACTS, Craig makes a case for each of those three claims and that case involves presenting various pieces of historical evidence. Even if Craig focuses primarily on his three historical claims, those claims are themselves based upon historical evidence. Thus, it could be that the phrase "the data" includes not only the three key historical claims but also all of the historical evidence upon which those claims are based.
There is clearly a big difference between these three different sets of historical data:
HD1: All of the historical evidence that is relevant to Jesus' final fate that is generally available to people in the 21st century.
HD2: Craig's three key historical "facts" (or claims) about: the empty tomb, the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus, and the origin of the Christian faith.
HD3: Craig's three key historical "facts" (or claims) mentioned in (HD2) plus the historical evidence relevant to determining whether those three historical claims are historical facts.
(HD1) includes a large amount of historical evidence, while (HD2) might contain no historical evidence at all, since it is, strictly speaking, just a set of three historical claims, and historical claims are NOT the same as historical evidence. (HD3) contains some historical evidence, but not nearly as much historical evidence as contained in (HD1).
Let's consider the possibility that Craig meant the phrase "the data" to refer to his three key historical "facts" (which are actually historical claims unless and until he shows that the historical evidence firmly establishes that those three claims are true, and thus deserve to be called "facts"). Here then is the further clarification of his key premise:
1c. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible nautural explanation can account for them as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead", THEN the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.
This key premise of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is a conditional claim; it has this logical form:
IF P, THEN Q.
The other sentence in Craig's one-paragraph summary of his case makes this claim:
As alluded to above, the case for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus seems to me to rest upon the evidence for three great, independently established facts: the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith. (RF3, p.360-361)
In saying that his three key historical claims are "independently established facts", Craig is claiming that the relevant historical evidence shows that his three key historical claims are clearly and definitely true. In other words, Craig is clearly implying this claim:
2. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts.
This is one part of the condition specified in the conditional statement that Craig asserts in premise (1c). The other part of the condition specified in premise (1c) is this:
A. No plausible nautural explanation can account for them as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."
The word "them" in premise (A) can be clarified by replacing this word with the previous phrase that it references from premise (1c):
THE CORE ARGUMENT OF CRAIG'S CASEA1. No plausible nautural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."
In order to make use of his key premise (1c), Craig must assert both parts of the condition stated in that conditional claim. That way, he can logically infer the consequent of the conditional claim asserted by (1c):
1c. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible nautural explanation can account for them as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead", THEN the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.
2. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts.
A1. No plausible nautural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."
THEREFORE:
B. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.
Claim (B) is not, however, the ultimate conclusion of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus. He makes a stronger claim than (B) in his two-paragraph summary:
In my estimation the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate. (RF3, p.360)
Here is the stronger claim that Craig infers from (B):
3. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate.
Claim (3) refers to a broader scope of evidence that goes beyond Craig's three key historical claims/historical facts. It refers to "the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate" which clearly includes much more evidence than just Craig's three key historical claims/facts.
Claim (3), however, is still not the ultimate conclusion of Craig's case. The idea that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of the historical evidence relevant to Jesus' final fate is an interesting claim, but the central question at issue is whether this hypothesis is TRUE. Thus, in his two-paragraph summary, Craig connects his case to this central question at issue by asserting a claim about the truth of this hypothesis:
I think that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is such that a well-informed investigator ought to agree that it is more likely than not to have occurred. (RF3, p.360)
We can shorten this claim by setting aside the long and unnecessary inference indicator:
4. The resurrection of Jesus is more likely than not to have occurred.
What Craig means by the phrase "the resurrection of Jesus" is spelled out in the other premises of his argument:
4a. It is more likely than not that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is true.
THE CLARIFIED STATEMENT OF CRAIG'S CASE
We can now outline the main premises of Craig's case:
1c. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible nautural explanation can account for them as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead", THEN the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.
2. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts.
A1. No plausible nautural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."
THEREFORE:
B. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.
THEREFORE:
3. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate.
THEREFORE:
4a. It is more likely than not that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is true.
SOME MINOR CLARIFICATIONS OF THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF CRAIG'S CASE
The above statement of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is O.K. as it stands, but I would like to make a few minor revisions in order to make the logical structure of the argument a bit clearer and more obvious.
Craig's one-paragraph summary is the basis for the initial sub-argument in support of premise (B). I propose that the sub-argument be represented as a standard modus ponens inference. To do this, we need to combine premise (2) and premise (A1) into a conjunction:
2. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts.
A1. No plausible nautural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."
THEREFORE:
C. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts AND no plausible nautural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."
The conjunction asserted in premise (C) can then be combined with premise (1c) to form a straightforward modus ponens inference:
1c. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible nautural explanation can account for them as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead", THEN the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.
C. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts AND no plausible nautural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."
THEREFORE:
B. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.
Although the final two inferences in Craig's case do not have to be represented as modus ponens inferences, I think it makes the argument clearer by explicitly stating the assumptions required to represent these as valid modus ponens inferences. Here is the second-to-last inference in Craig's case, put into the form of a modus ponens:
D. IF the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts, THEN the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate.
B. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.
THEREFORE:
3. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate.
Here is the final inference of Craig's case, also put into the form of a valid modus ponens inference:
E. IF the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate, THEN it is more likely than not that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is true.
3. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate.
THEREFORE:
4a. It is more likely than not that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is true.
THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF CRAIG'S CASE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
No comments:
Post a Comment