William Lane Craig Responds to Robert Cavin's Argument Found in The Empty Tomb

Spencer Lo called my attention to Dr. Craig's recent Q & A in answer to Cavin. He also sent me his response to it, since he's been pushing it. See what you think:

You might want to begin by reading Dr. Craig's answer.

Here is Spencer Lo's response:
William Lane Craig thinks my argument "needn’t be of concern to most Christians, who don’t base their belief in Jesus’ resurrection on historical evidence." Construed narrowly, this is (somewhat) true: no Christian attempts to establish the resurrection -- "in the full Jewish sense of that term" -- in the same way that historians attempt to establish some widely attested historical event, via documents and testimony. But construed more broadly, the claim is false, as Craig tacitly concedes. What Craig attempts to demonstrate in his debates, on historical grounds, is what he identifies as the Resurrection Hypothesis, the statement that “God raised Jesus from the dead.” Once this more modest claim is established, one then infers that Jesus rose from the dead "in the full, Jewish sense of that term." Hence, Christians who base their belief in Jesus' resurrection -- "in the full Jewish sense of that term" -- on what Craig identifies as the Resurrection Hypothesis, the more modest statement that "God raised Jesus from the dead," DO indirectly base their belief on historical evidence.

Craig is also wrong when he says the Resurrection Hypothesis is all he means by "resurrection" -- apparently he forgot what he has written in one of his books:

"Resurrection is not resuscitation. The mere restoration of life to a corpse is not a resurrection. A person who has resuscitated returns only to this early life and will die again."

In contrast,

"Jesus rose to eternal life in a radically transformed body that can be described as immortal, glorious, powerful, and supernatural. In this new mode of existence he was not bound by the physical limitations of this existence, but possessed superhuman powers." (Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection, p 15)

What Craig identifies as the Resurrection Hypothesis, therefore, is more aptly named the Restoration Hypothesis, and his argument for the resurrection -- "in the full Jewish sense of that term" -- can be construed as the following:

(i). The Restoration Hypothesis is true.
(ii). If the Restoration Hypothesis is true, then the Resurrection Hypothesis can be established.
(iii). Therefore, the Resurrection Hypothesis can be established.

Craig therefore objects to premise (2) of my argument with the above one -- he thinks it CAN be established, albeit indirectly, that Jesus transformed into a supernatural body. Before responding, I should say a little about Craig's second charge that my argument "misconstrue[s] the case for Jesus’ resurrection...as a deductive argument rather than as an inference to the best explanation." This is false. The term "established" in this context does not mean "shown to be true with logical certainty"; it is more charitably understood to mean "inductive establishment." I think Craig realizes that if the Resurrection Hypothesis cannot be properly inferred, via inference to the best explanation, then the resurrection cannot be established. Hence Craig's second complaint is wide off the mark.

Regarding the above argument, I addressed it in the other thread, and is therefore a pity that Don neglected to mention my responses in his question. My contention is with (i), the claim that Jesus rose from the dead supernaturally, or via supernatural intervention. Assuming Jesus really did rise from the dead, there are two distinct reasons why we would be unjustified in concluding that Jesus probably rose from the dead supernaturally, or via supernatural intervention.

First, the inference - which is unsupported by any independent evidence - violates one of the methodological principles of science we all accept. Whenever we encounter a seemingly unexplainable event, or even an event that contradicts our cherished scientific views, it is not proper to automatically conclude that the event is therefore a supernatural one (we do not conclude this even after years and years of being confounded by the mystery). Hence, the more appropriate response is to seriously consider the possibility that our cherished views might be fundamentally wrong. Have we done this in the case of Jesus? No, we have not.

Second, suppose we grant for the sake of argument that, for normal, everyday human beings, rising from the dead naturally is impossible. Does it then follow that beings who don't fit this description probably can't rise from the dead naturally? For instance, does this conclusion apply to non-humans, superhumans, or space-aliens? Of course not. The fact that normal human beings can't rise from the dead naturally does not mean those beings can't either. Jesus does not fit the description of "normal, everyday human being" -- in fact, we do not know if he was even human, and therefore we cannot conclude he rose from the dead supernaturally just because "normal, everyday human beings" (let's suppose) can't rise naturally. To conclude otherwise on the basis of the data we have is to commit the hasty generalization fallacy.

I'll mention one more problem with (i). Why suppose Jesus really died? It is entirely possible -- and prima facie plausible -- that Jesus was close to death but hadn't actually died, and spent those three days in the tomb regenerating. This possibility is perfectly consistent with the *alleged* observed events. One cannot rule it out as probably false for the same two reasons given above: 1. concluding that Jesus must have died violates a very stable methodological principle we all accept, and 2. we need to take into consideration the fact that Jesus was not a "normal, everyday human being", but a supernormal (possibly natural) being who might not have even been human.

Craig writes: "This conclusion is especially manifest if Jesus predicted his death and resurrection by Israel’s God...Third, this same point applies with respect to justifying Jesus’ claims to divinity...given the religio-historical context of Jesus’ own radical self-understanding and blasphemous personal claims, not to mention his activity as a miracle-worker, exorcist, and herald of the in-breaking of God’s Kingdom, God’s raising Jesus from the dead is most plausibly understood as God’s ratification of those claims."

Craig is referring to the Restoration Hypothesis in the first line, and I would simply ask: how does he know Jesus predicted his restoration "by Israel's God?" To predict his own restoration is one thing, but to predict his restoration via divine intervention is something quite different. To conclude that one naturally follows the other is like saying, "I predict Steve will drive me to Canada. I was driven to Canada. Therefore, my prediction that Steve drove me to Canada came true." Hence, Craig needs to provide evidence that if Jesus predicted his restoration via Israel's God, then his prediction, with respect to how he was restored, was accurate. With respect to Jesus' claims to divinity, Craig faces similar obstacles: how does he know Jesus was a "miracle-worker" (i.e. performing supernatural, as opposed to natural, events)? Does he not argue this on the basis of the Restoration Hypothesis? That is, since he attempts to establish Jesus' other "miracle" activities on the basis of the Restoration Hypothesis, he cannot use those activities as a basis for justifying Jesus' divinity without first showing that they occurred, and he cannot do this without first establishing the Restoration Hypothesis. And, as I said, even if he could show Jesus' other activities (e.g. healing the sick, etc) without showing the Restoration Hypothesis, how does he know they were supernatural (and not natural) events? I doubt he can show this, for the same two reasons I mentioned before.

13 comments:

Brad Haggard said...

This is an empty argument, IMHO. I went over this with someone on the RF forum a while back and he ended up resorting to Type IV alien civilizations to try to salvage the argument. I can hear traces of that in this response.

dvd said...

I agree with Brad. The argument is very unconvincing, most people I have seen think it weak and don't bother much with it at all. The very nature of it is extremely ad'hoc.

edson said...

Your argument is too weak Spencer. And I think that Dr. Craig used a bit too much of his intellectual resorces to respond to this sort of skepticism.

First of all it is true that most christians do not base their faith on the case of historical resurrection of Jesus. Some were really hopeless people, some way few seconds away from death of incurable diseases, some met Jesus spiritually as in case of Paul. In fact every christian has at least his/her own miracle to cling on as an evidence of faith in Jesus. A case or historical resurrection of Jesus is just one of those wonders of God of Israel at the level of parting the Red Sea and falling Manna in the wilderness. It also serve as a precedent for future hope for a general resurrection of saints.

Secondly, to say that possibly Jesus couldn't have survived a nuclear bomb after resurrection is a ludicrous concept. It only highlights skeptics are not to be taken seriously. A resurrection of Jesus was only used by God as a means of giving a sense of hope and joy to the terror striken Jesus students. To get into the details of how this body was, what sort of cells and genes comprised the body and any other stuff just indicates how asinine this generation is after being blinded by science and shabby intellectualism. God forbid!

Spencer said...

Critics: will you address the specific points I made in my reply?

dvd said...

what is there to respond to? resurrections of such kind don't happen period/end of story. just by supposing that they might, or that it is possible seems desperate. its possible that people can read my thoughts, i suppose that could explain things! its also possible that the devil made him do it!

its not an argument that catches me, sorry if i am missing it.

Brad Haggard said...

RL, it is you again!

I just wonder why you argue something that you don't believe. You don't really believe Jesus rose from the dead, so why do you try to push this argument through?

Or do you have a candidate for your "Merely Super-powerful Being?

Spencer said...

Critics, I suppose I need to reiterate my request: please address the specific arguments I put forth in my reply.

dvd said...

RL,

the idea is self-refuting. forgive me for not really being all that energetic in responding, i usually don't when an argument is very weak, i mean do you spend your time on weak arguments? i certainly don't. so i have nothing to say. just that, your going to have to do better then offering some possibility which is very remote, or any old possibility in order to get your argument to work.

not sure why you don't see that. i mean i can come up with explanations that involve aliens that explain the mundane things in my life, does the fact that it is possible mean it is at all believable?

i don't even know if a resurrection of this kind would be naturally possible. no matter the alien.

but if there is a God, then yea, its possible, at least for me.

sorry man, not to be rude but that its for me, unless i see something that is worth responding to that is my last response.

Spencer said...

If my argument is "weak," then it should be a simple matter of pointing out where it goes wrong. In my reply, I give two main reasons (plus a third) why the inference to the supernatural is unwarranted. Why not address them?

Steven Carr said...

Craig is doing some interesting stuff.

He claims 'You’ll notice that in my own case, what I identify as the Resurrection Hypothesis is the statement “God raised Jesus from the dead.” That’s all I mean by “resurrection.”'

So by that standard , Lazarus was resurrected, and also the daughter of Jairus etc.

And yet, Craig also claims Jesus was not resurrected in the way that Lazarus was.

So where is his evidence that Jesus was *not* resurrected in the way that Lazarus was, when Craig states flat-out that all he can show is a raising from the dead, which also happened (allegedly) to lots of other people.

Craig says 'First, the Christian apologist needn’t be understood to be arguing for Jesus’ resurrection in the full, theological sense of the word.'

And then Craig says Jesus *was* resurrected in the full, theological sense of the word, without producing a single bit of evidence for that, other than calling claims for evidence 'a mere cavil'.

Oh, I forgot. Craig's argument for a *full* resurrection is that Jesus said he was divine, so it must be true.

Craig's argument is 'The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it'

Steven Carr said...

DVD
...but if there is a God, then yea, its possible, at least for me.

CARR
So the resurrection of Jesus is possible if there is a God.

But how do we know there is a God, who would raise Jesus?

Craig explains 'The miraculous act of God’s raising Jesus from the dead is plausibly taken to be God’s vindication of Jesus’ radical personal claims for which he was crucified as a blasphemer. In light of God’s raising Jesus, Jesus’ personal claims to divinity take on a new credibility. The resurrection is God’s imprimatur on those extraordinary claims.'

So the resurrection of Jesus is possible if there is a Christian God.

And we know there is a Christian God because Jesus was resurrected....

I wonder what outsiders would make of these clearly circular Christian arguments.

edson said...

Carr what is your point when you ask how do we know there is a God if Jesus was resurrected by God?

Or what exactly do you want to know as a key attribute that will signify as an evidence of God to you?

Please care to respond.

Spencer said...

Will anyone attempt to deal with the following arguments I put forth in my reply? Below are the two responses I mention in my reply which explain why inferring the supernatural explanation is unjustified.

Response 1

1. When we encounter a scientifically unexplained phenomenon, which we have not adequately studied scientifically, and which appears to contradict our current scientific theories, it would be unjustified to conclude that the phenomenon probably has a supernatural cause.
2. The phenomenon of Jesus rising from the dead is a scientifically unexplained phenomenon, which we have not adequately studied scientifically, and which appears to contradict our current scientific theories.
3. Therefore, it would be unjustified to conclude that the phenomenon of Jesus rising from the dead probably has a supernatural cause.

Response 2

1. The hasty generalization fallacy is committed when an inference is drawn about X on the basis of data-set Y, even though X does not fall within the scope or category of Y.
2. Apologists infer the impossibility of Jesus rising naturally from the dead on the basis of the fact (let's suppose) that normal, everyday human beings can't naturally rise from the dead.
3. Jesus does not fall within the scope or category of "normal, everyday human beings" -- he is a supernormal being, who may or may not have been human.
4. Therefore, apologists commit the hasty generalization fallacy when they infer the impossibility of Jesus rising naturally from the dead on the basis of the fact (let's suppose) that normal, everyday human beings can't naturally rise from the dead.