Great summary. I love that your analysis is generally even-handed, and also usually enlightening. I think Anselm and Cartesian make this website even better, because of the quality of the dialogue. But you are doing a very good job.
I'm not sure if Craig knows what the word "secularism" really means. A lot of people confuse "godless" and "secular", or perceive that they are synonyms? Secularism is the separation of church and state, right?
Then why do Craig and others have such a problem with it? Perhaps Craig defines secularism as a larger cultural trend above and beyond mere separation of church and state - less religion in public life and in our culture - that he perceives as a negative outcome for society. I think there is confusion over what exactly secularism is, and I wish people could quit getting their definitions tangled up.
I am curious - how strong exactly do you feel that the historical case for the Resurrection is? I presume that since you're an atheist, you feel that it has weaknesses. Could you write about your opinion of this?
I hope I am not asking too many questions, but could you also specify how Platinga deals with the Problem of Evil? Thanks.
Keep up the good work.
Anselm
· 9 months ago
I appreciate Teleprompter's kind words about my comments. I reiterate here what I said in my latest comment on the D'souza debate post below--this blog is the best atheist blog on the internet and is a credit to civil discourse. Luke should be commended.
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
Teleprompter,
Thanks. I hope my blog attracts more people like cartesian and Anselm, who have indeed provided some quality dialogue, which is ongoing.
As for the Resurrection, I haven't studied historical method as much as philosophical method, but I certainly have thoughts on the topic. Some of them are revealed in my interview with Mike Licona. I think the case for the Resurrection is much weaker than the strongest theistic philosophical arguments (perhaps, the Kalam and Modal Perfection arguments). The difficulty of the Resurrection arguments are that, unlike logical arguments, they involve literally thousands of facts that each require probabilistic reasoning. If we were to plug Kalam into Bayes' Theoreom and a Resurrection argument into Bayes' Theorem, the Resurrection argument - if reasonably "complete" - would be perhaps a thousand or ten thousand times more complex.
I think an important work on the subject will be published this year or next: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus Christ.
I'd love to cover ALL these topics in upcoming posts, but I have so many topics I suppose it will take years for me to get to some of them. My series on refuting Craig's arguments itself will probably end up as long as a book, which will take a long time. I don't get paid for any of this! :)
And Anselm,
Thanks again for the kind words. Bring your friends; I enjoy this kind of discussion.
Teleprompter
· 9 months ago
Lukeprog,
Thanks for the thoughts and the outreach from Wikipedia.
Don't misunderstand - I am very much looking forward to the rest of your WLC series.
I wonder if anyone has considered the possible contradiction between Platinga's notion that if evolution is true our senses may be unreliable (and so naturalism is self-defeated), and his emphasis on external justification (presumably from our senses)?
If God used evolution to make us into His image, then wouldn't our unreliable senses not be fully trusted to obtain external justification which is drawn from our senses (which Platinga claims to be unreliable)?
If our senses really are unreliable (and I think to a great extent, they are - which is a good observation from Platinga), wouldn't that apply to both naturalism and religion?
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
Teleprompter,
Plantinga says it's unlikely we would evolve reliable senses WITHOUT the intervention of God. Plantinga therefore claims that only under theism (and specifically, that God intervened in human evolution) do we have any reason to believe our senses are reliable. So, under theism external justification is valid, but under naturalism (atheism) it is not.
Elsewhere, Plantinga also argues that God has programmed us with a 6th sense, the sensus divinitatus, through which we have direct perception of God.
No contradiction in any of that, just lots of silliness. :)
Teleprompter
· 9 months ago
Silliness indeed.
The sensus divinatus apparently keeps being overridden by cultural norms and societal trends. Too bad.
And the contention that reliable senses cannot be evolved? I'm not even sure what to make of that claim. At surface, it seems like so much ignorance of evolution.
Then again, I still think our senses are not as reliable as they could be - especially as we are supposed to be preprogrammed to understand an exterior perception. Then again, if it were a 6th sense it wouldn't necessarily be as unreliable as the other five senses -- but still, there are a surplus of examples to rebut this sensus divinatus claim: to show how unreliable our perception of the "spiritual" really is.
Has Platinga shown that we even have an effective sensus divinatus? Has he shown that we couldn't evolve generally reliable senses without divine intervention? It doesn't seem that he has.
By the way, I apologize for drawing this thread off topic. You don't have to respond to these comments any more if you think they are leading too much into the wilderness.
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
Yes, Plantinga argues for an accurate sensus divinitatus, and especially for his claim that we couldn't evolve reliable senses without divine intervention, but I'm not at all convinced by his arguments!
eheffa
· 9 months ago
I'm sorry if I misunderstand Craig, but without the anonymously authored Canonical & Gnostic Gospels, how would we have any meaningful "Resurrection Story"? There are after all, no other sources for this supposed history. There are no other credible third party sources that attest to this miraculous event.
I think the Historicists have a hard time establishing the historical existence of a real flesh & blood "Jesus of Nazareth" let alone, provide evidence for a "real Resurrection".
Craig may be sincere but his probability equations & attempts to estimate the probability of a real resurrection are really only so much hot air. (He comes across to me like one of those veggiematic salesmen at a state fair... all smooth practiced hype & style but no real substance.) As they say in scientific labs or when you do statistical analysis: "Garbage in - Garbage out". If the Gospels are not reliable, you have no resurrection story. The Gospels are not reliable history; therefore, the resurrection is not a reliable history either.
Craig, like CS Lewis, has remarkably strong rhetorical skills, but the presuppositions he depends on are not credible.
-evan
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
Yup, testimony is all we have as evidence for the miracles of Jesus. "Hearsay upon hearsay", as Tom Paine wrote. Not sufficient to demonstrate a magical resurrection, that's for sure!
But then, ancient testimony is all we have for a great deal of historical knowledge. Testimony is some kind of evidence, even if it's very poor evidence - especially for establishing the truth of a miracle.
anselm
· 9 months ago
I believe the point you are missing is that historians can regard different portions of the Gospels and Paul's letters as having greater or lesser reliability according to secular historiographical standards widely-accepted in the profession, e.g., multiple attestation the criterion of dissimilarity, the criterion of embarrassment, etc. That is why the majority of scholars accept the minimal facts Craig refers to in his debates (crucifixion/burial, empty tomb, appearances to disciples, etc), while rejecting other portions of the Gospels. Craig believes the resurrection can be shown to be the best explanation of the minimal facts already accepted by most skeptical scholars.
eheffa
· 9 months ago
I am no historian, but I have been an interested reader in this question.
When I was still a Christian, I set about to look for the historical evidence for the fundamentals of my faith with the determination that if the data was not supportive that I would have to revise my beliefs accordingly. I eventually concluded that unlike the Craig & others who cling tenaciously & (I think) disingenuously to any little data point they can, no matter how much distortion & assumption is involved, the Gospel story is a man-made fabrication. What were these "Gospel" writings? Are they meant to be biographical history or testimony? Can they be considered to be reliable accounts in any historical sense? Perhaps at best they have allowed a certain amount of embellishment of the words & deeds of one charismatic preacher amongst the many in that era & time, but they could also be allegorical fiction meant to illustrate or historicize the object of worship of one of the Logos Christ cults like that preached by the authors "Paul".
If the Gospel of Mark is Midrash; allegorical recycling of OT themes into modern settings, which by all appearances it is and the other Gospels are simply re-writes of the same ideas with their own political & religious objectives, then there are no "multiple attestations".
We really have no good data to establish the existence of a real historical Jesus and his supposed witnesses to this remarkable event.
When do the first third party references to these supposed primary sources (anonymous, undated works as they are) appear? Not until mid second century. There are not even any reliable third party references to "Christians" or their ilk until Pliny the Younger's reference in ~110 CE. (BTW: Isn't it interesting how much more solid our evidence for the existence of a person like Pliny the Younger is than for the supposed founder of the One True Faith?)(Tacitus' reference to Nero & the Christians may well be a later forgery.) Contemporary Historians of the time who took a keen interest in the Palestine region like Josephus or Philo of Alexandria are remarkably silent in mentioning this vibrant, disruptive & rapidly growing Christian sect let alone the person of Jesus Christ. ( The Testimonium Flavium is not credible.) The public persecutions by the established Jewish authorities as per the Book of Acts, simply fail to attract the attention of any historians of the time despite the tiny minutiae they are otherwise interested in...
The criteria of embarrassment is bogus, when you, like Paul, glory in the "shame of the cross".
I am open to correction, (unlike Craig & his apologist kin who will believe even if the evidence ultimately fails them) but I see no good evidence to support the existence of this Jesus of Nazareth let alone his miraculous resurrection from the dead.
I think many Skeptical Scholars are all too ready to accept a wide range of unsupported Christian presuppositions when they consider these questions. The anonymous & undated Gospels are not historical sources. Take those away & what have you got?
...Not much...certainly not enough to make this case.
Cheers.
-evan
SH
· 9 months ago
I like your site, your posts and insights but on this topic, I'm lost on a couple of things, can you clarify further the following two points? 1. Biblical errancy doesn’t invalidate Christianity No, errors in the bible don't prove god doesn't exist but it does prove Christianity and it's doctrines are on very shaky ground. I'm not sure if I understand what "Christianity is false" mean. If the bible is not inerrant then the christian doctrines have no real basis, it's just man-made, that would make Christianity a false belief. Or do you mean something else? 2. The case for the Resurrection doesn’t depend on inerrancy or even the general reliability of the gospels. I know of no other sources beside the bible that gives an account of the resurrection, in fact Craig himself uses only the bible in his arguments. What other sources do we have? I like to know.
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
1. It is quite possible that God exists, he sent Jesus to atone for our sins, etc. and that all these books that were later collected (while others were rejected) by the early church are human creations that reflect many different theologies. In fact, if I ever became convinced of the truth of Christianity, this is almost certainly the view I would take, given the incredible number of contradictions and differing views of the many authors of the library we call the "Bible."
2. You don't need documents to be generally reliable to mine historical data from them with historical-critical methods, as Craig repeatedly explains in his talks and writings. This is true of many ancient sources, ancient and modern.
SH
· 9 months ago
Thank you for your quick reply.
1. It is quite possible god exists, and he made Muhammad his prophet. It is also possible that god exists, and he enables a Russell's teapot to revolve around the sun. Millions of things are logically possible, but where are the evidence? Are the evidence strong enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt? Biblical errancy may not invalidate Christianity, but it does make it unbelieveable. 2. Data mined from unreliable historical documents cannot be more reliable than the document itself. Compared to other historical figures, if Jesus has more data to support he is historical doesn't mean he IS historical, it just means he is more likely to exist than others. 30% compare to 15 and 20% is still 30%. Many evangelists, and Craig, use this trick all the time.
Thank you once again.
anselm
· 9 months ago
"Biblical errancy may not invalidate Christianity, but it does make it unbelieveable."
If an historical document must be error-free to have any credibility, then historiography is impossible and all ancient history becomes "unbelievable." Historians should then close up shop and go home. Surely you see that is absurd?
"Are the evidence strong enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt?"
Who said "beyond a reasonable doubt" was the correct standard of evidence? In a civil trial, the standard is "more likely than not."
"Data mined from unreliable historical documents cannot be more reliable than the document itself."
The "document" does not have a holistic "reliability" (according to the secular standards of historiography, as opposed to the theological doctrine of "inerrancy.") Different portions of the document can have varying reliability based on historical-critical analysis.
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
1. Oh, I agree! But Christianity is unbelievable for such a host of reasons, adding Biblical errancy hardly matters.
2. I guess I just disagree with your statement that data mined from historical documents can't be more reliable than the document itself, as does every historian I've ever read. Read up on historical method if you like.
SH
· 9 months ago
anselm> Haha, how could somebody mean something like that :). No, I don't mean to need historical evidence to be error free, I don't think there are, but just reliable enough to be believeable, that's all.
lukeprog> Without reading anything on historical method and without meaning any disrespect, data mined from historical documents needs to be corroborated with other data EXTERNAL to that document in order to strengthen it's reliability. If that's what you mean then we're really on the same page, if not I guess I'm still a little lost. :)
Thanks!
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
It certainly helps to have actual artifacts that can corroborate claims of testimony! Unfortunately, we have none re: Jesus, except for a few basic things like the existence of Pontius Pilate during that time.
But this does not mean that we can come to no historical conclusions at all based on otherwise unreliable documents. For example, if we have 10 absurdly mythical and untrustworthy (but original) documents written in 10 totally different parts of the world with no conceivable contact between the authors, and they all record that on a certain day the sun went black, that is fairly compelling evidence that the sun went black that day, even if we have no external sources and even though our documents are incredible unreliable.
SH
· 9 months ago
OK, so we're talking about the same thing from different angles. Lay people tend to talk about what's believeable, historians like to talk about what is possible, even though they don't believe it. Takes a while to clear that up.
Case closed for me, thanks!
scribbler
· 9 months ago
What is Craig wrong about?
kilopapa
· 9 months ago
Luke said..."the case for the Resurrection is a historical one that can be made without appeals to Christian doctrine." I think this misses something important. What is the nature of the resurrection of the early Christians? Richard Carrier,among others, has made a strong case that the resurrection in Pauls epistles is not the resuscitation of a mortal body that the later Gosples describe but visionary experiences similar to Pauls road to Demascus conversion story found in Acts and alluded to by Paul himself . Visionary experiences from a superstitious, ancient culture is a very different event than a corpse that walks out of a tomb and sits down to dinner and drinks with a few friends. How can you determine the "nature" of the resurrection without appealing to the Christian writings of that time?
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
Christian writings are the only evidence we have about the resurrection, so even Richard Carrier appeals to them to say that historically it is likely that the resurrection was of such-and-such a nature. I'm not saying the case for a historical resurrection succeeds - I'm saying that a historical case does not necessarily depend on thoroughly reliable documents.
All Comments
I'm not sure if Craig knows what the word "secularism" really means. A lot of people confuse "godless" and "secular", or perceive that they are synonyms? Secularism is the separation of church and state, right?
Then why do Craig and others have such a problem with it? Perhaps Craig defines secularism as a larger cultural trend above and beyond mere separation of church and state - less religion in public life and in our culture - that he perceives as a negative outcome for society. I think there is confusion over what exactly secularism is, and I wish people could quit getting their definitions tangled up.
I am curious - how strong exactly do you feel that the historical case for the Resurrection is? I presume that since you're an atheist, you feel that it has weaknesses. Could you write about your opinion of this?
I hope I am not asking too many questions, but could you also specify how Platinga deals with the Problem of Evil? Thanks.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks. I hope my blog attracts more people like cartesian and Anselm, who have indeed provided some quality dialogue, which is ongoing.
As for the Resurrection, I haven't studied historical method as much as philosophical method, but I certainly have thoughts on the topic. Some of them are revealed in my interview with Mike Licona. I think the case for the Resurrection is much weaker than the strongest theistic philosophical arguments (perhaps, the Kalam and Modal Perfection arguments). The difficulty of the Resurrection arguments are that, unlike logical arguments, they involve literally thousands of facts that each require probabilistic reasoning. If we were to plug Kalam into Bayes' Theoreom and a Resurrection argument into Bayes' Theorem, the Resurrection argument - if reasonably "complete" - would be perhaps a thousand or ten thousand times more complex.
I think an important work on the subject will be published this year or next: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus Christ.
As for Plantinga, Wikipedia has you covered.
I'd love to cover ALL these topics in upcoming posts, but I have so many topics I suppose it will take years for me to get to some of them. My series on refuting Craig's arguments itself will probably end up as long as a book, which will take a long time. I don't get paid for any of this! :)
And Anselm,
Thanks again for the kind words. Bring your friends; I enjoy this kind of discussion.
Thanks for the thoughts and the outreach from Wikipedia.
Don't misunderstand - I am very much looking forward to the rest of your WLC series.
I wonder if anyone has considered the possible contradiction between Platinga's notion that if evolution is true our senses may be unreliable (and so naturalism is self-defeated), and his emphasis on external justification (presumably from our senses)?
If God used evolution to make us into His image, then wouldn't our unreliable senses not be fully trusted to obtain external justification which is drawn from our senses (which Platinga claims to be unreliable)?
If our senses really are unreliable (and I think to a great extent, they are - which is a good observation from Platinga), wouldn't that apply to both naturalism and religion?
Plantinga says it's unlikely we would evolve reliable senses WITHOUT the intervention of God. Plantinga therefore claims that only under theism (and specifically, that God intervened in human evolution) do we have any reason to believe our senses are reliable. So, under theism external justification is valid, but under naturalism (atheism) it is not.
Elsewhere, Plantinga also argues that God has programmed us with a 6th sense, the sensus divinitatus, through which we have direct perception of God.
No contradiction in any of that, just lots of silliness. :)
The sensus divinatus apparently keeps being overridden by cultural norms and societal trends. Too bad.
And the contention that reliable senses cannot be evolved? I'm not even sure what to make of that claim. At surface, it seems like so much ignorance of evolution.
Then again, I still think our senses are not as reliable as they could be - especially as we are supposed to be preprogrammed to understand an exterior perception. Then again, if it were a 6th sense it wouldn't necessarily be as unreliable as the other five senses -- but still, there are a surplus of examples to rebut this sensus divinatus claim: to show how unreliable our perception of the "spiritual" really is.
Has Platinga shown that we even have an effective sensus divinatus? Has he shown that we couldn't evolve generally reliable senses without divine intervention? It doesn't seem that he has.
By the way, I apologize for drawing this thread off topic. You don't have to respond to these comments any more if you think they are leading too much into the wilderness.
I think the Historicists have a hard time establishing the historical existence of a real flesh & blood "Jesus of Nazareth" let alone, provide evidence for a "real Resurrection".
Craig may be sincere but his probability equations & attempts to estimate the probability of a real resurrection are really only so much hot air. (He comes across to me like one of those veggiematic salesmen at a state fair... all smooth practiced hype & style but no real substance.) As they say in scientific labs or when you do statistical analysis: "Garbage in - Garbage out". If the Gospels are not reliable, you have no resurrection story. The Gospels are not reliable history; therefore, the resurrection is not a reliable history either.
Craig, like CS Lewis, has remarkably strong rhetorical skills, but the presuppositions he depends on are not credible.
-evan
But then, ancient testimony is all we have for a great deal of historical knowledge. Testimony is some kind of evidence, even if it's very poor evidence - especially for establishing the truth of a miracle.
When I was still a Christian, I set about to look for the historical evidence for the fundamentals of my faith with the determination that if the data was not supportive that I would have to revise my beliefs accordingly. I eventually concluded that unlike the Craig & others who cling tenaciously & (I think) disingenuously to any little data point they can, no matter how much distortion & assumption is involved, the Gospel story is a man-made fabrication. What were these "Gospel" writings? Are they meant to be biographical history or testimony? Can they be considered to be reliable accounts in any historical sense? Perhaps at best they have allowed a certain amount of embellishment of the words & deeds of one charismatic preacher amongst the many in that era & time, but they could also be allegorical fiction meant to illustrate or historicize the object of worship of one of the Logos Christ cults like that preached by the authors "Paul".
If the Gospel of Mark is Midrash; allegorical recycling of OT themes into modern settings, which by all appearances it is and the other Gospels are simply re-writes of the same ideas with their own political & religious objectives, then there are no "multiple attestations".
We really have no good data to establish the existence of a real historical Jesus and his supposed witnesses to this remarkable event.
When do the first third party references to these supposed primary sources (anonymous, undated works as they are) appear? Not until mid second century. There are not even any reliable third party references to "Christians" or their ilk until Pliny the Younger's reference in ~110 CE. (BTW: Isn't it interesting how much more solid our evidence for the existence of a person like Pliny the Younger is than for the supposed founder of the One True Faith?)(Tacitus' reference to Nero & the Christians may well be a later forgery.) Contemporary Historians of the time who took a keen interest in the Palestine region like Josephus or Philo of Alexandria are remarkably silent in mentioning this vibrant, disruptive & rapidly growing Christian sect let alone the person of Jesus Christ. ( The Testimonium Flavium is not credible.) The public persecutions by the established Jewish authorities as per the Book of Acts, simply fail to attract the attention of any historians of the time despite the tiny minutiae they are otherwise interested in...
The criteria of embarrassment is bogus, when you, like Paul, glory in the "shame of the cross".
I am open to correction, (unlike Craig & his apologist kin who will believe even if the evidence ultimately fails them) but I see no good evidence to support the existence of this Jesus of Nazareth let alone his miraculous resurrection from the dead.
I think many Skeptical Scholars are all too ready to accept a wide range of unsupported Christian presuppositions when they consider these questions. The anonymous & undated Gospels are not historical sources. Take those away & what have you got?
...Not much...certainly not enough to make this case.
Cheers.
-evan
1. Biblical errancy doesn’t invalidate Christianity
No, errors in the bible don't prove god doesn't exist but it does prove Christianity and it's doctrines are on very shaky ground. I'm not sure if I understand what "Christianity is false" mean. If the bible is not inerrant then the christian doctrines have no real basis, it's just man-made, that would make Christianity a false belief. Or do you mean something else?
2. The case for the Resurrection doesn’t depend on inerrancy or even the general reliability of the gospels.
I know of no other sources beside the bible that gives an account of the resurrection, in fact Craig himself uses only the bible in his arguments. What other sources do we have? I like to know.
2. You don't need documents to be generally reliable to mine historical data from them with historical-critical methods, as Craig repeatedly explains in his talks and writings. This is true of many ancient sources, ancient and modern.
1. It is quite possible god exists, and he made Muhammad his prophet. It is also possible that god exists, and he enables a Russell's teapot to revolve around the sun. Millions of things are logically possible, but where are the evidence? Are the evidence strong enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt? Biblical errancy may not invalidate Christianity, but it does make it unbelieveable.
2. Data mined from unreliable historical documents cannot be more reliable than the document itself. Compared to other historical figures, if Jesus has more data to support he is historical doesn't mean he IS historical, it just means he is more likely to exist than others. 30% compare to 15 and 20% is still 30%. Many evangelists, and Craig, use this trick all the time.
Thank you once again.
If an historical document must be error-free to have any credibility, then historiography is impossible and all ancient history becomes "unbelievable." Historians should then close up shop and go home. Surely you see that is absurd?
"Are the evidence strong enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt?"
Who said "beyond a reasonable doubt" was the correct standard of evidence? In a civil trial, the standard is "more likely than not."
"Data mined from unreliable historical documents cannot be more reliable than the document itself."
The "document" does not have a holistic "reliability" (according to the secular standards of historiography, as opposed to the theological doctrine of "inerrancy.") Different portions of the document can have varying reliability based on historical-critical analysis.
2. I guess I just disagree with your statement that data mined from historical documents can't be more reliable than the document itself, as does every historian I've ever read. Read up on historical method if you like.
Haha, how could somebody mean something like that :). No, I don't mean to need historical evidence to be error free, I don't think there are, but just reliable enough to be believeable, that's all.
lukeprog>
Without reading anything on historical method and without meaning any disrespect, data mined from historical documents needs to be corroborated with other data EXTERNAL to that document in order to strengthen it's reliability. If that's what you mean then we're really on the same page, if not I guess I'm still a little lost. :)
Thanks!
But this does not mean that we can come to no historical conclusions at all based on otherwise unreliable documents. For example, if we have 10 absurdly mythical and untrustworthy (but original) documents written in 10 totally different parts of the world with no conceivable contact between the authors, and they all record that on a certain day the sun went black, that is fairly compelling evidence that the sun went black that day, even if we have no external sources and even though our documents are incredible unreliable.
Case closed for me, thanks!