William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 22: The Either/Or Fallacy and Imagination

WHERE WE ARE

In Part 21 of this series, I argued that the cases for the resurrection of Jesus made by Peter Kreeft, Josh McDowell, and William Craig are all Dead On Arrival because all three of these Christian apologists present cases that are based on a false dilemma, and thus commit the Either/Or Fallacy.

Why is this the case? For one thing, this is a very common fallacy, which indicates that it is a natural temptation to simplify our options to just two or three.  Many of us feel a bit uneasy when we walk through the cereal section of a supermarket and are confronted with two dozen different kinds of cereal to buy.  We feel more comfortable when there are just a few options to choose from.

A LACK OF IMAGINATION?

I think another problem in the case of these three Christian apologists is that they fail to exercise any imagination when thinking about this issue.  People often accept a false dilemma because they fail to make any effort to think about the question, "What are all of the relevant options in this case?" Just a little bit of effort, just a little bit of imagination, and one can come up with more alternatives to the following false dilemma:

Either there is a natural hypothesis that provides a plausible explanation of the empty tomb, or the Resurrection Hypothesis is correct.

One might accuse Kreeft, McDowell, and Craig of lacking an imagination.  However, I suspect that the problem is a bit more complicated than just a lack of imagination.  Logic and philosophy both require one to think critically and to reason logically, and in order to do so, one MUST exercise some imagination.  

Philosophers and lawyers (Kreeft and Craig are philosophers, and McDowell studied law) need to be able to think of counterexamples to broad generalizations (e.g.: All Xs are Ys), and to think of counterexamples to false dilemmas (e.g.: EITHER P is the case OR Q is the case).  Without imagination, Kreeft and Craig would not have been able to be successful in philosophy and logic, and McDowell would not have been able to be successful in studying law.

However, the cognitive bias that was a serious problem with Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus, namely confirmation bias, could explain why Kreeft, McDowell, and Craig failed to exercise their imaginations when considering the above false dilemma. 

Confirmation bias impacts various intellectual abilities and processes.  It impacts our focus or attention.  When one has a firm belief that P is the case, one will tend to search for facts or evidence that supports this belief, and when evidence supporting P presents itself, one will tend to notice that evidence.  And when evidence against P presents itself, one will tend to ignore that evidence.