WHERE WE ARE
In Part 20 of this series, I argued that Craig failed to give us a good reason to believe premise (D1) of the reformulated sub-argument for his key premise (5c). This means that we may reasonably reject this sub-argument, which gives us a third good reason to conclude that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
However, this problem with Craig's case reveals a deeper problem that impacts not only Craig's case but also other cases for the resurrection of Jesus by other Christian apologists. Specifically, Peter Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus and Josh McDowell's case for the resurrection of Jesus are both Dead on Arrival because their cases involve the Either/Or Fallacy, also referred to as a False Dilemma. Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is also Dead on Arrival because his case commits the Either/Or Fallacy.
THE EITHER/OR FALLACY
Howard Kahane was a professor of philosophy who promoted informal logic, especially in his textbook called Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life:
According to argumentation theory scholar Michael A. Gilbert, before Kahane's 1971 book, North American curricula on critical thinking and fallacies were primarily taught from textbooks (such as Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic) in which "fallacies are presented in a brief fashion using examples that were mostly invented or taken out of context. [...] The 'radical change' was that Kahane's book took current examples from newspapers and periodicals dealing with issues students cared about or, at least, recognized. This meant that fallacies were more situated than in older books."[1]
Here is Howard Kahane's characterization of the Either/Or Fallacy:
Strictly speaking, the fallacy of false dilemma (also called the either-or-fallacy) occurs when we reason or argue on the assumption that there are just two plausible solutions to a problem or issue, when there is at least three. However, it's convenient to stretch the term false dilemma to cover false trilemmas, and so on.[2]
THE EITHER/OR FALLACY IN PETER KREEFT'S CASE
Let's begin with Peter Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus. Peter Kreeft uses a diagram to lay out the various logical possibilities in relation to alternative hypotheses about Jesus' final fate[3]:
According to Peter Kreeft, there are only five possible hypotheses about the final fate of Jesus. The five hypotheses are listed on the right side of the above diagram.
EO1. EITHER there is a plausible naturalistic hypothesis that explains the relevant facts about Jesus' final fate, OR the supernatural explanation of the Christian Hypothesis is correct.
EO2. There is no plausible naturalistic hypothesis that explains the relevant facts about Jesus' final fate.
EO3. The supernatural explanation of the Christian Hypothesis is correct.
Now let's take a look at Josh McDowell's case for the resurrection of Jesus. McDowell also uses a diagram to lay out the various logical possibilities in relation to alternative hypotheses about Jesus' final fate[4]:
McDowell divides all hypotheses about Jesus' final fate into two broad categories: Occupied Tomb hypotheses and Empty Tomb hypotheses. Unlike Kreeft and Craig, McDowell does consider one supernatural hypothesis in addition to the Resurrection Hypothesis. Among the Occupied Tomb hypotheses, McDowell considers and evaluates the Spiritual Resurrection Hypothesis:
A fourth 'occupied tomb' theory is that Christ's body decayed in the grave and that His real resurrection was spiritual.[5]
This hypothesis accepts that there was a resurrection miracle, but that the miracle did not involve Jesus' physical body. God returned Jesus to life after death, but did not do so by giving Jesus an immortal physical body. After his death, Jesus became a spirit or an angel, and his physical body remained in the tomb where it had been buried, according to the Spiritual Resurrection Hypothesis.
Because McDowell does consider at least this one supernatural hypothesis about Jesus' final fate, the reasoning that I used to summarize Kreeft's case does not accurately represent McDowell's reasoning.
However, if we focus on the general category of "Empty Tomb" hypotheses, McDowell does commit a similar Either/Or Fallacy and thus his case for the resurrection of Jesus is Dead on Arrival:
JM1. EITHER there is a plausible naturalistic hypothesis that explains the Empty Tomb and other relevant facts about Jesus' final fate, OR the supernatural Resurrection Hypothesis is correct.
JM2. There is no plausible naturalistic hypothesis that explains the Empty Tomb and other relevant facts about Jesus' final fate.
THEREFORE:
JM3. The supernatural Resurrection Hypothesis is correct.
Premise (JM1) is false because there are alternative supernatural hypotheses besides the Resurrection Hypothesis that explain the empty tomb. For example, McDowell does not mention or evaluate the Demonic Hypothesis. In a later post, I will discuss another supernatural hypothesis that would also explain the empty tomb.
Josh McDowell's diagram of the logical possibilities is clearly mistaken because it fails to take into account the fact that there are other supernatural hypotheses about Jesus' final fate that explain the empty tomb besides the Resurrection Hypothesis.
McDowell's case for the resurrection is based on an Either/Or fallacy. Premise (JM1), in the above summary of McDowell's reasoning, asserts a False Dilemma.
THE EITHER/OR FALLACY IN WILLIAM CRAIG'S CASE
William Craig summarizes his case for the resurrection of Jesus in two paragraphs on page 360 of his book Reasonable Faith (3rd edition). Although Craig mentions "alternative naturalistic explanations" in those paragraphs, the ONLY reference to a supernatural explanation or hypothesis in those paragraphs is to the "resurrection hypothesis", the view that God raised Jesus from the dead.
Craig also provides a shorter one-paragraph summary of his case at the bottom of page 360 and the top of page 361:
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.[6]
Given this summary of his case, Craig's argument is based on showing that the Resurrection Hypothesis provides a more plausible explanation of certain alleged historical facts about Jesus' final fate than various natural explanations or hypotheses. This completely ignores the fact that there are alternative supernatural hypotheses that should be considered and evaluated in comparison to the Resurrection Hypothesis.
Therefore, Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus, like Kreeft's case, is Dead on Arrival because it can be accurately summarized as an argument that commits the Either/Or Fallacy:
EO1. EITHER there is a plausible naturalistic hypothesis that explains the relevant facts about Jesus' final fate, OR the supernatural explanation of the Christian Hypothesis is correct.
EO2. There is no plausible naturalistic hypothesis that explains the relevant facts about Jesus' final fate.
EO3. The supernatural explanation of the Christian Hypothesis is correct.
This is a third good reason to conclude that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is Dead on Arrival. His case fails because it is based on a False Dilemma.
END NOTES
1. "Howard Kahane" in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Kahane
2. Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 3rd edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc.,1980), p.80-81.
3. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), p.182.
4. Josh McDowell, The Resurrection Factor (Milton Keynes, England: Authentic Media, 2005), p.114.
5. Josh McDowell, The Resurrection Factor (Milton Keynes, England: Authentic Media, 2005), pp. 90-91.
6. William Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd edition (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), pp.360-361.
No comments:
Post a Comment