The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas & Licona - Part 2: The Conclusion of the Case

 CASES VS. ARGUMENTS

A case for the resurrection of Jesus is basically an argument for the resurrection of Jesus.  The difference between a case and an argument is that a case is a complex argument. The main thing that makes a case complex is that it involves arguments within an argument.  

A simple argument involves one or more premises and just one conclusion. The following argument has two premises and one conclusion:

1. Either the butler killed Mr. Smith or the maid killed Mr. Smith.

2. The maid did not kill Mr. Smith.

THEREFORE:

3. The butler killed Mr. Smith.

Suppose that a homicide detective presents this argument to the head of the detective department, and his boss asks, "How do you know that it must have been either the butler or the maid who killed Mr. Smith? What about the cook, a neighbor, or Mrs. Smith?" If the detective replies to this objection, the detective will probably give another argument:

4. Mr. Smith was stabbed to death in the dining room of his home.

5. Based on video evidence, the only other people in the house at the time of the killing were the butler and the maid.

THEREFORE:

1. Either the butler killed Mr. Smith or the maid killed Mr. Smith.

Now we have an argument for premise (1) of the original simple argument.  The detective's boss might also ask, "How do you know that the maid is not the killer?"  Again, the detective will probably reply by giving an argument for premise (2) of the original simple argument. The detective has now started building a case, a complex argument where the premises of a "core argument" are supported by other arguments.

Another complexity of cases is that they usually include replies to objections and objections to alternative views. A person making a case for a claim will usually present a positive case for the claim, and then also respond to anticipated objections to that claim, and reply to anticipated objections to the arguments in their positive case, and also raise objections to alternative views.  The combination of a positive case, replies to objections, and objections to alternative views constitutes a typical case for a claim. 

You can see this structure of cases in the first two volumes of Habermas's On the Resurrection series. Volume 1: Evidences presents a positive case for the resurrection of Jesus, and Volume 2: Refutations presents replies to objections and objections to alternative views.

 CLARITY IS A BASIC STANDARD OF CRITICAL THINKING

In order to think critically about a claim or belief or argument, one must continually strive to conform one's thinking to the standards of critical thinking.  One of the most basic and important standards is: CLARITY.  

Before one can critically evaluate a case or an argument, one must obtain a clear understanding of the case or argument: Don't criticize what you don't understand.  That is a fundamental principle of critical thinking.

There are two main kinds of clarification needed when one is analyzing a case or an argument: 

• clarification of vague or unclear words and phrases
• clarification of the logical structure of the case or argument

THE FIRST STEP IN CLARIFYING A CASE 

A case consists of more than one argument and more than one premise. Usually, a case, like an argument, will have just one conclusion. The first step of clarifying a case or an argument is to identify the statement or claim that is the conclusion of the case or argument.  That is a clarification of the logical structure.  Most of the statements or claims will be reasons or premises, and usually only one statement or claim will be the conclusion.

The second step of clarifying a case or an argument is to get a clear understanding of the meaning of the statement or claim that appears to be the conclusion.  This may require clarification of vague or unclear words and phrases in that statement or claim.  It is often necessary to revise the wording of the conclusion to make its intended meaning clear.

THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE BY HABERMAS & LICONA

One clue about the conclusion of the case by Habermas and Licona is the title of their book:

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

Their case is in support of "the Resurrection of Jesus".  However, "the Resurrection of Jesus" is just a phrase; it is not a complete sentence.  A conclusion asserts a claim, and a claim is expressed by a complete sentence.  We need both a subject and a predicate in order to have a clearly expressed claim. 

But it is easy to see what they had in mind.  We can just add a couple of words to turn the phrase "the Resurrection of Jesus" into a complete sentence:

The resurrection of Jesus actually happened.

This is a claim, and this is the conclusion of their case. This statement or claim is not entirely clear, however, so we should look at other statements in their book to see if they provide a clearer statement of their conclusion.

Here are some quotes from their book that contain alternative statements of the above claim:

The message [of Paul in Romans 10:8-9] was that, in order to have eternal life, one must acknowledge and be committed to Jesus as the Son of God, the Sovereign over all things, and the Savior who died for us and was raised from the dead by God. (CRJ, page 26, emphasis added) 

The conclusion of their case, as indicated in the above quote is this: 

Jesus was raised from the dead by God.

;lakdjfa;sdlkfj