He comes down on the side of “no, lying is always wrong because the Church Says So” but it’s interesting that a lot of prominent religious/Catholic people are on the side of “well we’re holy and good and stopping MURDER. We’re lying FOR JESUS so it’s OK.”

Here’s the series:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/dawn-eden-is-right-darn-it
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/last-comments-on-lying-for-jesus
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/augustine-vs.-the-priscillianists/

Please keep checking back. I will continue our discussion and respond to you again, despite signing off, but not for at least a few days.

“The fact that they get reported doesn’t mean we should accept them.”

So you agree, then, that we shouldn’t be expected to accept the New Testament reports of Jesus’ resurrection at face value, any more than we should accept any other report of a resurrection at face value. Good.

“The reason the resurrection of Jesus is unique is because it exists within the context of him claiming divine power”

Two things here: what does uniqueness have to do with how true something is? I don’t see the connection. Lies can be unique too.

Second, the scenario you describe is not, in fact, unique. Consider Asclepius, Alcmene, Castor, Heracles, Melicertes, Romulus, etc. Jesus is by no means the first among these.

“The “data” is the historical events that need explaining: Crucifixion, appearances, belief in appearances, empty tomb.”

False. You’re jumping the gun. The data are not the events themselves. The data are the REPORTS of these events. We can’t simply assume, a priori, that these reports are accurate, as you seem to be doing here.

“These do not rely on the “general reliability” of the gospels.”

Of course they do. If the gospels were shown to be unreliable, then we’d be unable to have confidence in their historical reportage. It is crucial, then, that the reliability of the gospels be properly established.

As for the crucifixion, I don’t see how it can possibly be as “certain as an event can be”, no matter what Crossan thinks. Simply telling me that Crossan is confident in this belief is not an argument. There are other scholars who are just as confident that Jesus didn’t even exist, let alone that he was crucified.

Of course, crucifixions were common at that time, so it’s not a huge stretch of the imagination to accept that Jesus was crucified. But we don’t know that he was for certain.

“I am not claiming that the resurrection itself is historically established, I am saying that the above data are established, and that the resurrection is the best explanation of that data.”

Fair enough, but I disagree that the data are established. There is no independent information – not a single description outside the gospels – that attests to the empty tomb or the appearance of Jesus to his followers.

“You claimed in this conversation that there is no evidence for the supernatural, and I now know (from part one of your essay) that scientific evidence is the only evidence you are willing to accept”

For the record, I regard historical evidence as a subset of scientific evidence. It is not as compelling as other forms of scientific evidence, but it is admissible nonetheless. Indeed, many sciences are historical (geology is probably the best example).

If you’re talking about some sort of evidence that is not historical, and not scientific in some other sense, then I’m not sure what sort of evidence you’re talking about.

“So on this basis, it appears that no first century evidence could ever possibly convince you.”

Actually yes, first century evidence could convince me, under the right conditions. The historical method has among its characteristics the following, in case you need reminding (some biblical scholars take a very relaxed attitude to the historical method):

1. The method is fundamentally a probabilistic endeavor. No historian worth his salt would ever claim to be 100% certain about anything (Crossan should know better).

2. An event can only be said to have a high probability of having occurred if it is attested by multiple independent sources. Claims like the empty tomb and the appearance of the risen Jesus to his followers are conspicuously lacking in this area.

3. Extraordinary events, especially those which claim to suspend the laws of nature, require a much higher level of evidence than ordinary events (like a crucifixion). Inferring a resurrection from nothing more than apocryphal stories written decades after the event, simply doesn’t cut it.

“In this context, the first question is whether we have an open mind to the possibility of the supernatural. I argue that we should, because I do not accept naturalism.”

I do have an open mind to the supernatural. If someone could provide solid evidence of the supernatural, I would accept it.

This is nice and all. Is there anyone who seriously argues from anything other than your own assumptions that it is morally wrong to tell a tiny lie in polite conversation? I mean, this exercise is probably really helpful to you in ordering your own moral compass, but it’s not as though there isn’t a long history of philosophers, theologians, and lawyers addressing the same issues with similar results.

I get the impression you’re not satisfied with any moral system yet devised. You like Mill’s utilitarianism but only to a point, you’re snippy with Kant, and of course the whole blog is largely about how dumb you think a theological basis for morality is. Yet, you feel the need for a system, more that just saying “follow your moral intuition”. And you seem to think that it’s a reasonable thing to actually construct such a system.

So you have some principles that you think form a strong foundation, and you’ve shown how they can be intelligently applied to explain what is moral in some select circumstances, and how it corresponds with what most people’s intuition tells them.

This enterprise is interesting to me for a number of reasons; would you mind if I question your starting principles at this point?

Start with this: what do you mean by “happiness”? Do you mean physical pleasure? Material well-being? A life well lived, viewed in retrospect? Something else? You seem to be pretty vague about it.

And “sadness”? Or, elsewhere, “suffering”? What do these mean?

And then, having these two goods in mind, increasing happiness and decreasing sadness, how do you determine the exchange rate between the two (the “weighing”)? If an action increases the happiness of someone but also increases their sadness or suffering, is it moral or immoral, and how do you determine that in individual situations?

And then, how do we handle the more complicated but more common situation of a possible action increasing the happiness of one or more person but simultaneously decreasing the happiness, or increases the sadness or suffering of one or more other people? Do we just add up the happiness credits and subtract the sadness debits and deem an action with a positive net balance “moral”? Or is there some more complicated, non-linear formula? Or, is it all just guesswork and rules of thumb?

At a deeper level: what do you mean when you say “moral”? If it just comes down to “following your moral intuition, and doing what is right”, then one has to ask: why bother talking about it?

And at a deeper level: why should someone do what is right, or moral? Just because an action will increase happiness among many…if it involves any decrease in my own happiness, or increase in my sadness…why should I do it? Maybe the simple knowledge that everyone would be better off doesn’t compel me…why should I, or anyone, take these words like “moral” and “right” as anything but background noise, or perhaps propaganda from people who want me to act in a way that is convenient for them?

You can refer me to your previous posts, but I’ve read them and don’t see where you make these meanings clear. Touched on some of them, yes, but not made clear, though excuse me if I’ve missed something.

BTW, I’m in no hurry for a response. On the other hand, it might increase the sum total of all human happiness if you did compose a response when at some point you have the time.

Resurrections do get reported, as in Keener’s book titled Miracles, you can read the first chapter here. The fact that they get reported doesn’t mean we should accept them, it just means that it is an event which is claimed to have happened (I raised this in response to your confident claim that resurrections “NEVER HAPPEN”. What makes you so confident?). Whether or not the resurrection of Jesus is unique is unrelated to the question of whether resurrections happen all the time or are reported all the time. The reason the resurrection of Jesus is unique is because it exists within the context of him claiming divine power, in the context of Israel’s story, and because of the evidence for it- as I asked you earlier, provide me with other examples where the following factors exist: 1. People were in a position to KNOW the truth of their claim, 2. They died for it’s truth and 3. It is extremely difficult to find a plausible natural explanation which makes sense of the historical data.

To define supernatural, I find wikipedia’s definition to be simple and accurate.

Supernatural:

“The supernatural (Medieval Latin: supernātūrālis: supra “above” + naturalis “nature”, first used: 1520–30 AD)[1][2] is that which is not subject to the laws of nature.”

Law of nature:

“a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present.”

Again allow me to clarify my argument for you, as you’ve misconstrued it at two crucial points. The “data” is the historical events that need explaining: Crucifixion, appearances, belief in appearances, empty tomb. These do not rely on the “general reliability” of the gospels. As one example, take Jesus Seminar scholar JD Crossan. He is on the fringe of NT scholarship, and he argues that Jesus never actually said most of the sayings attributed to him. But he will tell you that the crucifixion is as historically certain as an event can be. This takes me to your second misunderstanding- I am not claiming that the resurrection itself is historically established, I am saying that the above data are established, and that the resurrection is the best explanation of that data.

Since your last post, I discovered your website and I have spent some time reading through your critical essay on religious belief (not all, just parts). You claimed in this conversation that there is no evidence for the supernatural, and I now know (from part one of your essay) that scientific evidence is the only evidence you are willing to accept (Sub heading “Critical thinking and faith”, quote “Therefore, no miraculous religious claim from the monotheistic traditions has any chance of being shown to be true (or false)”). So on this basis, it appears that no first century evidence could ever possibly convince you. Thus, I don’t see why you are bothering yourself with having this conversation! If this is your view, you should’ve clearly stated this from the start, instead of only subtly implying it and instead troubling yourself with responding to my arguments.

In this context, the first question is whether we have an open mind to the possibility of the supernatural. I argue that we should, because I do not accept naturalism. If you accept naturalism first, before considering the historical evidence, then clearly the evidentiary burden will be higher in your eyes because your philosophical presuppositions differ to mine. So firstly, you are a naturalist but secondly, not only are you a naturalist, but your essay makes it clear that your mind is closed to all types of evidence except one. Historical events are once off and therefore unprovable by the scientific method, as you seem to be aware. So we can’t expect scientific evidence for them!

Your mind is closed, a priori, to all forms of historical evidence and to any explanation that is not directly provable by the scientific method. My mind is, firstly, open to actually considering historical evidence and secondly, my mind is open to considering various types of explanations for that evidence. It seems to me that you could’ve been more upfront from the very beginning, with admitting that you are not interested in the historical evidence, because your mind is closed to considering the evidence.

Because your mind is closed, and my mind is open, I don’t see us ever reaching any kind of reasonable disagreement here. That in itself isn’t a tragedy, because increasing mutual understanding and learning is still possible. But this discussion seems to have gotten to a point of diminishing returns whereby this isn’t happening.

Thanks for the conversation, it’s been illuminating.

Regarding reports of resurrections, I’m confused about your stance: either resurrections happen all the time, in which case Jesus’ resurrection is just one among many, and is therefore nothing unique or special to Christianity. Or, Jesus’ resurrection is among the one or two that have actually happened throughout history, meaning that it *is* something unique to Christianity. But in this case, you have to conveniently discount all other reports of resurrections and only accept the account of Jesus’ resurrection, which seems tremendously biased. So which is it?

Also, you haven’t said whether you believe that the mass resurrections mentioned by the author of Matthew actually occurred. Do you think they did?

“If you were a first century Jew, you wouldn’t have those tools at your disposal!”

That’s the exact point I’m trying to make. First century culture simply didn’t have the ability to determine if a person really came back to life from the dead. How did they know that Jesus was actually dead for three days rather than in a coma? How did they know that the sightings of Jesus were not simply hallucinations? These questions involve knowledge of human biology that wasn’t accessible to people at that time. They therefore did not have the appropriate tools to judge the veracity of the resurrection story. They simply had to accept it on the hearsay of the oral tradition.

“The “purpose” question is similar to the authorship question in that it isn’t relevant to the data surrounding the resurrection and how to explain it.”

Are you honestly trying to say that the reliability of the gospel accounts has nothing to do with who wrote them, when they were written, and what the motivation of the authors were? Seriously?

“”The reason the data is considered well established by the experts is because it meets the standards and criteria used to evaluate history.”

I’m sorry, but the resurrection of Jesus is not considered “well-established” by the experts.

“What is it about the supernatural that you find to inherently difficult to believe?”

Two things: The supernatural, as NFQ’s comment hints at, is poorly defined. What does it actually mean? How do I know that something supernatural isn’t simply imaginary? In short, the entire concept is incoherent. Related to this is the fact the supernatural explanations don’t really explain anything at all, they simply put a placeholder instead of an explanation. (The “soul” is a perfect example: don’t know how consciousness is generated by the brain – easy, just call it the “soul” and move on!)

Second, there is no evidence for anything supernatural. Notice how, as scientific understanding has deepened, all sorts of phenomena once thought to be supernatural (like epileptic seizures, for instance, and hallucinations) are now well understood as natural phenomena. The realm of supernatural explanations is steadily and inexorably shrinking, indicating that it is simply a misunderstanding of nature on our part that gave rise to supernatural thinking in the first place.

I asked for the basis on which you “know” that resurrections “NEVER HAPPEN”. I never claimed you weren’t sensible or anything like that. You suggest that resurrections never get reported. Well, actually they do- Craig Keener’s new book contains examples of eye witness accounts of modern day resurrections. This question is very relevant to the discussion.

I am not confusing the authors with the disciples. On the topic of authorship, there could be arguments in either direction but it isn’t relevant here. Scholars accept the evidence for crucifixion, appearances, and the vast majority scholars accept the empty tomb, regardless of their beliefs on authorship. These data are well established and do not rely on any theory of authorship.

I’m thoroughly confused by you saying that you’d “launch a full forensic investigation”. If you were a first century Jew, you wouldn’t have those tools at your disposal! We cannot make the mistake of imposing our 21st century ideals on 1st century writings.

This discussion has been fascinating, but strawmen serve no purpose at all. Where have I claimed that “everyone involved in the Jesus story was a paragon of honesty, objectiveness and diligent historical note-taking” or anything like that?

The “main goal” of the gospel writers might have been history, or it might have been theology. In actual fact, I believe it was a mix of the two.But that is not relevant here. The “purpose” question is similar to the authorship question in that it isn’t relevant to the data surrounding the resurrection and how to explain it.The historical data is well established, and doesn’t rely on any particular theory of what the author’s intentions were. The reason the data is considered well established by the experts is because it meets the standards and criteria used to evaluate history.

How we interpret the data is a separate issue, more of a philosophical one. It is clear from your dismissal of the whole idea of resurrection that you are a priori opposed to any supernatural explanations. It is inevitable that our philosophical presuppositions will come to bear on our interpretation of historical data. So that’s something worth discussing- what is it about the supernatural that you find to inherently difficult to believe?

I’m not sensible to think that resurrections never happen? Care to name a few, and supply the forensic evidence? Or do resurrections just happen quietly, and don’t ever get reported?

Second, don’t confuse the disciples with the people who wrote the gospels. They’re not the same people.

Third, the fact that the gospel writers were around in the same *century* as Jesus does not give them some special pipeline to firsthand knowledge of Jesus, that is pure wishful thinking. Scholars generally agree that the gospel authors likely never met Jesus – their writings are simply too late. Do you dispute this?

If I thought I saw a man come to life, I wouldn’t be proclaiming his message. I would be launching a full forensic investigation into what I saw, to make sure I hadn’t been fooled by some sort of conjuring trick, or perhaps an hallucination. (Indeed, the fact that Jesus’ resurrection story persists today is partly because no proper scientific investigation could be done at the time, and because it’s too late for it to be done now.)

Moreover, I’m not in the habit of proclaiming messages simply because they come from people who can do impressive party tricks. I proclaim messages if they make sense and can be corroborated by the evidence.

You keep suggesting that it is “extremely difficult” to find a natural explanation for the resurrection. It may be difficult to find the evidence for a specific, detailed, natural explanation, but that’s only because we have no firsthand accounts of Jesus’ life. Instead, we have much later stories infused with all sorts of theological devices (unless you really think Jesus was born of a virgin – I suppose you do).

As I’ve already indicated, it’s perfectly easy to come up with *generally plausible* natural explanations. These include rumor and legend and outright fabrication, yet you seem bent on insisting that everyone involved in the Jesus story was a paragon of honesty, objectiveness and diligent historical note-taking. This, once again, is pure wishful thinking. The gospel writers’ main goal was to preach their theology, not to write an impartial, factually accurate historical account of Jesus’ life.