Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Getting the skeptical story straight

Of course one can deny the truth of Christianity without having a good theory as to how the movement started. One can appeal to the improbability of the resurrection story itself, and using broadly Humean reasons, maintain that even though you don't know what did happen, it couldn't have been a resurrection. Even if you were a theist, you could dodge the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected. That wasn't my point.




My point was that skeptics seem to lack a story about the founding of Christianity that makes sense. I said that if they had one, it would make Christianity seem less You had swoon theories, theft theories, hallucination theories, going to the wrong tomb, etc. In fact, skeptics in the 19th Century actually attacked one another's naturalistic theories of the origin of Christianity. Skeptics about the founding of Christianity still have pretty widespread disagreements as to how it all happened. One plausible story from the skeptical side has yet to emerge. That, to me, is an interesting fact that supports, but of course does not strictly prove that Christianity is true.



Anyone who believes a world-view has to live with some difficulties. This is a difficulty for every world-view except Christianity.

13 comments:

Blue Devil Knight said...

Do you think this argument could be used to support Mormonism and Islam as well, or do you think there is something special about the Christian story that makes it hard to explain its origins?

Victor Reppert said...

I talked about this in an earlier thread. With Islam, you have to take Muhammad's word for it that he was touched by an angel. Same with Mormonism and Joseph Smith. With Christianity, you have a pre-crucifixion story where Jesus is supposed to have performed miracles in public. Did these miracles happen? The disciples, at least, are convinced by them, and that's why we find them dropping their nets and following. Then, you have the death and resurrection events, again, a public execution, and a resurrection claimed to have been seen by lots of people. And then you have such things as the preaching of Peter and the missionary journeys of Paul. With the missionary journeys you have a story of a series of encounters with government officials in those localities, and at least the facts about local government have been verified by archaeology. So what was Paul doing that got him hauled up before government officials on a regular basis?

If you can understand the psychology of Muhammad or Joseph Smith, and that seems easy to do, more so for Smith than for Muhammad, then you can see how those religions started. With the founding of Christianity you have a long public history involving lots of kinds of people.

In Islam and in Mormonism, you have those religions forming a government around their leaders. Muhammad goes military, and the Mormons move out to Utah and set up territorial government run their way. Christianity expands with no help from the government until 313 and Constantine.

So I think the founding of Christianity is far more difficult to explain than Mormonism or Islam.

Walter said...

I wonder if believers will accept any naturalistic scenario as to the birth of Christianity?

Christians won't accept a natural origin to their beliefs due to their supernatural presuppositions :-)

Seems only fitting since I am constantly told that I reject Christianity due to my naturalistic presuppositions.

Walter said...

What we have with Christianity is Paul's word that he had a revelation from God. That and some gospel stories that may very well be far more fiction than fact. I see no good reason to believe that any of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

Vic, have you read "Not the Impossible Faith" by Richard Carrier?

Or how about this: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/

Victor Reppert said...

I've read some of Carrier's debates with other people when his site was being built. I forget who was debating against him.

The archaeological evidence, combined with the first person plural in parts of Acts, strongly indicates that Luke was there for at least part of the missionary journeys.

Victor Reppert said...

It's very difficult to get a level playing field for debate on the origins of Christianity, because different people are going to come in with different antecedent probabilities for the miraculous. Unlike some who claim that whole thing is too improbable to be false, period, I think different people's antecedent probabilities for the miraculous is going to result in different interpretations of these events with no clear case to be made for irrationality charges.

Anonymous said...

The archaeological evidence, combined with the first person plural in parts of Acts, strongly indicates that Luke was there for at least part of the missionary journeys

Not necessarily:
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/matthewluke.html#luke

Anonymous said...

I think different people's antecedent probabilities for the miraculous is going to result in different interpretations of these events with no clear case to be made for irrationality charges.

What about the billions of non-Christian theists who have no problem with miracles? Why do you think that they reject the Christian faith? Could it be that the evidence is simply not that strong? Are people from other religions too blinded by their culturally inherited dogmas to give Christianity a fair shake?

Victor Reppert said...

If somebody doesn't get the truth, do we have to say they were culturally blinded or culpable in some way? Why? We do the best we can with the evidence we've got. We go with it. We are left with the pedestrian conclusion that we could be wrong. So what?

Why the massive infatuation with irrationality charges?

Walter said...

If somebody doesn't get the truth, do we have to say they were culturally blinded or culpable in some way? Why? We do the best we can with the evidence we've got. We go with it. We are left with the pedestrian conclusion that we could be wrong. So what?

So what?

According to most Christians, our eternal fate hangs in the balance if we don't get this question right. (I was the previous two anon. posts)

The point I was getting at was that it is not just naturalists that don't find the resurrection of a Galilean preacher all that believable. It is also billions of non-Christian theists who have no problem believing in miracles. Why do you suppose that most of the world's theists do not believe in your religion?

Walter said...

Here is a link to a quick summary of Kris Komarnitzky's book, "Doubting Jesus Resurrection"

http://secweb.infidels.org/article809.html

The theory basically being that belief in the resurrection could have formed due to cognitive dissonance reduction.

Victor Reppert said...

Walter: According to most Christians, our eternal fate hangs in the balance if we don't get this question right. (I was the previous two anon. posts)

VR: Yes, if you are a Christian exclusivist like Bill Craig, you do have a motive to perceive unbelief as culpable, since it would be unjust for God to send people to hell for not believing something they rationally could not have believed. Unless you're a Calvinist. Then, that's just God's predestined plan.

I've always had problems with exclusivism, so it's not quite such an issue for him. But I wonder why skeptics are so bent on making irrationality charges.

Victor Reppert said...

I remember covering those arguments against Lukan authorship in my Acts of the Apostles class back in seminary. However, the archaeological evidence suggests that Luke knew exactly what kind of government were in place in the different cities Paul went to. I personally think that's pretty remarkable, since I don't even know how many people are on the city councils in the metropolitan Phoenix area. There are other sorts of accuracy problems in other parts of Acts, but it's just amazing that he knew, for example, that there was a First Man in Malta. In fact, as Bruce points out, the governmental systems changed from year to year, and yet Luke had the governmental forms just right for the time that Paul was supposed to have been there. How do you explain his remarkable accuracy, if he was a much later writer with no communication with Paul.