MSBH vs. DBH
1. If H1 and H2 can potentially explain all the observed physical events they are intended to explain, and H1 is not initially less probable than H2, then, if H1 makes far less causal assumptions than H2, H1 is preferable to H2.
2. MSBH and DBH can potentially explain all the observed physical events they are intended to explain (e.g. resurrection, postmortem appearances, etc), and MSBH is not initially less probable than DBH.
3. MSBH makes far less causal assumptions than DBH to explain the observed physical events.
4. Therefore, MSBH is preferable to DBH.
MSBH = Jesus was a merely superpowerful being who rose from the dead.
DBH = Jesus was a divine being who rose from the dead.
In this post I will only attempt to defend (3). Why do I say MSBH makes far less causal assumptions than DBH to explain the physical events intended to be explained? Consider what William Lane Craig says about the resurrection event:
"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)
Clearly, then, DBH ascribes far more - infinitely more - causal powers to Jesus than MSBH, and therefore MSBH is the simpler of the two.
*Edit*
DBH makes far more causal assumptions primarily because of the following: according to this theory, after Jesus rose from the dead, he was: (a) no longer able to die; (b) no longer able to get injured; (c) no longer able to get sick; (d) no longer able to age; and (e) able to teleport without regard to spatial distances. These assumptions are unnecessary in order to account for the physical facts; and therefore, since MSBH does not ascribe these (infinite) properties to Jesus, it is far simpler.
2. MSBH and DBH can potentially explain all the observed physical events they are intended to explain (e.g. resurrection, postmortem appearances, etc), and MSBH is not initially less probable than DBH.
3. MSBH makes far less causal assumptions than DBH to explain the observed physical events.
4. Therefore, MSBH is preferable to DBH.
MSBH = Jesus was a merely superpowerful being who rose from the dead.
DBH = Jesus was a divine being who rose from the dead.
In this post I will only attempt to defend (3). Why do I say MSBH makes far less causal assumptions than DBH to explain the physical events intended to be explained? Consider what William Lane Craig says about the resurrection event:
"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)
Clearly, then, DBH ascribes far more - infinitely more - causal powers to Jesus than MSBH, and therefore MSBH is the simpler of the two.
*Edit*
DBH makes far more causal assumptions primarily because of the following: according to this theory, after Jesus rose from the dead, he was: (a) no longer able to die; (b) no longer able to get injured; (c) no longer able to get sick; (d) no longer able to age; and (e) able to teleport without regard to spatial distances. These assumptions are unnecessary in order to account for the physical facts; and therefore, since MSBH does not ascribe these (infinite) properties to Jesus, it is far simpler.
28 comments:
Hi Spencer, this was a very thought provoking post. First, a minor quibble: I feel that the following two statements are equivalent:
-We should not assume it is implausible that x.
-We should assume it is plausible that x.
Replacing many of such double negatives would make your argument far more readable without compromising the soundness of its logic.
Now, it seems to me that when one attempts to create a syllogism to validate or invalidate the truth about a historical event of high philosophical and theological importance using mathematical concepts like sets and functions, the result is almost invariably best described as a clusterfuck of epic proportions. If the argument does not collapse completely, then it seems to assert something trivial or nothing at all. A great example is Tom Wanchick's take on the Leibnizian cosmological argument which exbeliever handily disposed of in his last post 3 years ago on this blog. These kinds of arguments are used mostly by the faithful to attempt to force logic and faith to coexist. I feel that we skeptics mustn’t play this game. My chosen alternative will become apparent in a minute.
Here is an example from your post: One of the assumptions in argument 1 is that the virgin birth is assumed to be true. Immediately, we have assumed our self into an improbable reality that may not be true reality. But even assuming a virgin birth, I can come up with ideas all day long that demonstrate that it is possible for there to be a virgin birth and not have a super-normal baby. Here's one: Joseph had a wank, wiped his hands on a rag which Mary mistakenly cleaned her genital area with, after which she did a headstand to get some exercise. The resulting virgin birth baby would be a normal human... However, your real assumption was "the virgin birth STORY" which would assume that angels from God spoke in dreams, the holy spirit came upon Mary etc etc, which assumes so much to be reality that the resurrection is a moot point! At this point we already assume God and angels etc exist! The other assumptions cause the argument to collapse on so many levels just like this one does, but let us assume that they do not, and the argument is fully irrefutable and known to describe our reality. Then what do we have in the end? Here it is: (have to split into 2 comments)
"We should not suppose there exist NO relevant differences between Jesus and the rest of humanity which could explain why Jesus, but not the rest of humanity, was able to rise naturally from the dead." In other words, if Jesus were super-human (which is a whole other continuum of possibilities), he could rise naturally from the grave (without god's help). This has as much weight as the conclusion that if space aliens are assumed to have the power of teleportation, then it isn't implausible that they could enter our souls in the form of thetons. What we're saying here is with the right assumptions, I can logically prove anything I can imagine. But what is the point? It does not assert anything of importance. In the cosmological argument I mentioned, the result is that the universe had a cause. Ok great, but that in no way rules out the idea that the creator was a giant giggling breast that spewed reality from its pulsating nipple.
My point here is that these pseudo mathematical logic games are for the creationist to set up, and for us skeptics to deconstruct. The skeptic does not need to produce them.
For the mathematically inclined, an absolutely beautiful analogy of this debate is Bertrand Russsel's and Alfred Whitehead's brainchild, Principia Mathematica, being dismantled by Goedel's incompleteness theorems. The gigantic and hideously complex Principia Mathematica, which intended to be a complete and consistent system, is undone with the simple and elegant incompleteness theorems. Skeptics do well to be like little Goedels, deconstructing religion with simple truth.
(The analogy gets even better... even though the core foundations of principia mathematica collapse, the bulk of the work has provided a wonderful foundation for analysis, just like the church, and the gigantic structure of religion in the world, provides a foundation for community and morality. Even debunked, we build upon its foundation.)
sorry... I was trying to comment on your previous post...
It seems to me you are breaking a butterfly on a wheel here.
People make up wild stories. These stories become legends. Some folks believe the legend.
What's more likely, a made up wild story or a superhero Jesus?
Unbeguiled wrote:
-------------
It seems to me you are breaking a butterfly on a wheel here.
People make up wild stories. These stories become legends. Some folks believe the legend.
What's more likely, a made up w
---------------
You are completely missing the point.
Spencer,
I'm not missing the point.
I agree with you that MSBH is the simpler explanation. But we can manufacture an infinite number of simpler explanations. Carrier does this does sort of thing with his swoon hypothesis or stolen body hypothesis.
But my point is just to suggest that all these complicated ideas, while more parsimonious than the orthodox view, are still unnecessarily elaborate.
I understand that you are not defending the MSBH as a plausible theory, just a more plausible theory than DBH. But why make it so elaborate?
Spencer,
I'm not sure what's with all the criticism (not that that can't be constructive.) As a former Christian, I see the value in your approach here.
In a sense, this argument meets Christians closer to where their at by working within the realm of some of their "control beliefs" as John calls them. They assume that history cannot be well explained without the resurrection. Instead of delving into the web of all the assumptions involved in that understanding of early Christian history, you accept some of the major assumptions for a moment and show that even so their presumed explanation for those events is not the most probable. You're giving someone a way to imagine things might be different than they assume without questioning too many of his/her assumptions for it to be inaccessible - that's brilliant in its understanding of how the mind works in my book. Worldview's are most likely to evolve gradually.
This argument also seems pretty darn simple and straightforward to me and that in a good way - just enough to get the job done.
Its definately worth putting out there and its true in its basic assertion (about the more probably of these two explanations.)
Cheers.
Thanks DJ, for your compliments and remarks. I'm glad you found my argument worthwhile and interesting.
Unbeguiled wrote:
-------
I understand that you are not defending the MSBH as a plausible theory, just a more plausible theory than DBH. But why make it so elaborate?
----------
Perhaps we have different notions of what's "elaborate." How is MSBH "elaborate?"
Jesus was a merely superpowerful being who rose from the dead.
That's elaborate. Whereas people making up legendary stories is mundane.
We could speculate that Jesus was restored to life by aliens, and that would be more plausible than the Christian story. But why make it so elaborate?
History is lousy with folks making up kooky stories that people believe. Mormonism, Heaven's Gate, Joan of Arc . . . the list is endless.
Unbeguiled wrote:
------------
That's elaborate. Whereas people making up legendary stories is mundane.
We could speculate that Jesus was restored to life by aliens, and that would be more plausible than the Christian story. But why make it so elaborate?
History is lousy with folks making up kooky stories that people believe. Mormonism, Heaven's Gate, Joan of Arc . . . the list is endless.
--------------
This confirms my initial suspicion that you are missing the point: I am assuming the physical events for the sake of argument because - and this is important - IMO, this is a better, easier approach to arguing against Christianity.
If you want to argue that Jesus was a myth, or that the physical events are simply legendary accounts, then by all means, knock yourself out. That method has been tried before, numerous times. I'm trying something new.
Wow, Spencer. I've had that same objection in the back of my mind for a while [for example, when Vicot Reppert posted on his blog about Christians who also believed in magic, I thought of this objection to Christianity]...but I blew it off for now and didn't think anyone would take it seriously. I'm not so sure it's a knock-out, though.
Hi philosophyfan,
Check out my "edit" in the post for more details on just why MSBH is far simpler.
IMO, this is a better, easier approach to arguing against Christianity.
Fair enough. So you grant that Jesus was shambling about for a spell. In that case, the swoon theory is an order of magnitude more parsimonious than your Superhero idea. We know people faint. But superpowers only appear in comic books
I can't help it:
"makes far less causal assumptions"
should be
"makes far fewer causal assumptions".
Eric,
Do you avoid the "20 items or less" aisle at the grocery store?
Spencer, I like this argument, but the point of tension I could see being created is how meaningfully different the terms "superpowerful" and "divine" really are. Obviously with "superpowerful" you are not talking about feats of strength - so what I can only assume is that it would be some power to conquer death. Conquering death is typically a non-human trait, and typically we would consider it something "unnatural" - or possibly "supernatural". And once you get there, what's the distinction between "supernatural" and "divine"? I know that we could probably produce some fine line between them, but if I were still a Christian, I think I would think that you were just playing word games.
At any rate, I still do like your approach - it's new and interesting, if nothing else. Keep it up!
Hi Jeff,
MSBH is the naturalistic alternative of DBH, and therefore it must assume that the phenomenon of Jesus rising from the dead is naturally possible.
"Superpowerful" could refer to feats of strength (we can suppose Jesus was very strong, in various ways), but the real distinction between the two terms is that "merely superpowerful" does not entail (a)-(e) (see the "edit" portion of my post), whereas "Divinely powerful" does.
I like the argument in the sense that it forces the issue: would you know "supernatural" if it bit you in the ass? I don't think so.
I'm not so sure this forces that argument. My Christian philosophy prof. always used to make that point about the supernatural being hard/(impossible?) to identify, though.
In any case, I was thinking the argument might be strong if: there was some powerful method we've seen used before by other people to rise from the dead. Then, of course, if it was method (vs "power), used to raise from the dead, then we ought to be able to do it too or at least prove Jesus might have had such a message.
But getting from Jesus to infinite God does not seem...neccessary to Christianity's truthfulness. Also, IMO, natural events can be deemed far too unlikely if never observed before even without knowing the science involved.
Philosophyfan,
The claim that Jesus had a supernatural body after he rose from the dead - one with properties of (a)-(e) - is an important part of Christian theology. MSBH *denies* (a)-(e), that Jesus was not "no longer able to die, etc..." Hence MSBH is completely incompatible with Christian theology.
The apologist wants to explain not only that Jesus rose from the dead, but his postmortem appearances, which is where those (infinite) causal assumptions come into play. If we can explain those appearances without reference to divinity or supernaturalism, and also without committing to (a)-(e), then MSBH is FAR simpler, and hence better.
Spencer wrote: "Superpowerful" could refer to feats of strength (we can suppose Jesus was very strong, in various ways), but the real distinction between the two terms is that "merely superpowerful" does not entail (a)-(e) (see the "edit" portion of my post), whereas "Divinely powerful" does.
Spencer,
Could we simply this by saying, should Jesus have actually been resuscitated, such a resuscitation would not necessarily have required infinite ability (omnipotence)?
To use an analogy, It would be fallacious to claim the shooting of a man from a great distance with a high-powered rifle could ONLY be explained by an assassin who was an expert marksman with ANY ballistic weapon (including powder muskets, a M-M-198 howitzer [long range artillery], etc), who cannot be defeated in ALL forms of hand to hand combat and is unmatched when using ANY possible instrument and technique that could kill a person.
Scott wrote:
-----------
Could we simply this by saying, should Jesus have actually been resuscitated, such a resuscitation would not necessarily have required infinite ability (omnipotence)?
-------------
Precisely right. However, the issue here isn't about whether omnipotence is required to raise Jesus (though that might be part of it) -- the issue is about whether it's necessary to assume that *after* Jesus rose from the dead, he acquired an immortal/indestructible (hence supernatural) body. What the apologist wants to explain is not only Jesus' resurrection, but also his postmortem appearances.
you wrote:
-------------
To use an analogy, It would be fallacious to claim the shooting of a man from a great distance with a high-powered rifle could ONLY be explained by an assassin who was an expert marksman with ANY ballistic weapon (including powder muskets, a M-M-198 howitzer [long range artillery], etc), who cannot be defeated in ALL forms of hand to hand combat and is unmatched when using ANY possible instrument and technique that could kill a person.
------------
Quite right. Or (similarly): it's fallacious to assume that a knife-hand strike to the neck was probably done by the most masterful of kung fu experts if someone with moderate ability can accomplish the same.
I think the following might be a closer analogy. Suppose a boxer has been knocked out cold in the ring, and after three days he fully recovers. But he didn't *just* fully recover -- he also acquired incredible dancing and singing abilities.
Let's call this hypothesis B1.
Let hypothesis B2 be the following: like in B1, the boxer fully recovers after having been knocked out cold, but he acquired no new abilities. Clearly, B2 is preferable to B1.
I also think there is another respect in which MSBH is far simpler. According to DBH, prior to the resurrection, before Jesus acquired his supernatural body, he was not infinitely powerful. However, he was connected to a being -- God -- who is infinitely powerful.
Suppose on MSBH, prior to the resurrection, Jesus was connected to advanced aliens. Despite how advanced these aliens might have been, they were *not* infinitely powerful, and therefore MSBH ascribes far fewer causal assumptions to those connected with Jesus than DBH.
So: MSBH is simpler because (a) it ascribes far fewer causal powers to Jesus than necessary to account for what he did, and (b) it ascribes far fewer causal powers to those connected with Jesus to account for their participation in what he did.
Right,
After his death, we can ask would omnipotence be required for Jesus to be resuscitated.
Once resuscitated, we can ask if omnipotence would be the necessary result of such resuscitation.
"Hence MSBH is completely incompatible with Christian theology"
Heck, though. I'd throw out the theology and still take coming-back-from-the-dead (not simply a NDE but 3 full days from total punishment) as evidence of divine intervention if there
is no plausible mechanism to explain it.
Philosophyfan wrote:
--------
Heck, though. I'd throw out the theology and still take coming-back-from-the-dead (not simply a NDE but 3 full days from total punishment) as evidence of divine intervention if there
is no plausible mechanism to explain it.
------------
This is the problem: how do you know there could be no plausible mechanism anywhere in the universe to explain such an event?
Post a Comment