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.