Atheists are quick to ridicule the resurrection because of its miraculous nature; Christian apologists are quick to point out that an a priori rejection of the miraculous is unwarranted. Both sides are correct within their worldview. But they have failed to argue outside of their worldview.
Unless atheists can demonstrate that theism is irrationalthey are unlikely to convince many theists to reject the resurrection. Similarly, Christian apologists need to recognize that, until atheists are shown that theism is plausible, atheists will continue to regard the resurrection as a highly implausible event.
I think there are strong historical arguments for the resurrection (a l� Craig), but I also think there are good reasons to reject such arguments. I realize this may sound like a cop-out to some, but I think it is quite reasonable, especially when the issue of prior probability is taken into consideration.
Conclusion
According to Flew, not only does the resurrection fail to have any significance apart from its empirical truth, but the historicity of Jesus' resurrection is the only way to know Christianity is true.
But how do atheists and Christian apologists determine the historicity of Jesus' resurrection? Since they believe Jesus' resurrection body was a material body and that the resurrection was an event in space and time, they believe the resurrection was a "violation" of the laws of the nature. Atheists are quick to ridicule the resurrection because of its miraculous nature; Christian apologists are quick to point out that an a priori rejection of the miraculous is unwarranted. As we have seen, from the atheist point of view, just about any explanation would be more plausible than the resurrection, since the background probability would be so low. Conversely, for theists, the background probability of miracles is significant, if not high, and thus the resurrection is a plausible explanation.
Both sides are correct within their worldview. But they have failed to argue outside of their worldview. Atheists should not be so quick to ridicule the miraculous and use a Humean attack on miracles to refute the resurrection. Unless atheists can demonstrate that theism is irrational or that the historical evidence for a material resurrection is lacking, they are unlikely to convince many theists to reject the resurrection. Similarly, Christian apologists need to recognize that, until atheists are shown that theism is plausible, atheists will continue to regard the resurrection as a highly implausible event.
This leads to my final observation: both sides seem to think that it is irrational to reject their position. In other words, they think a strong apologetic can be made for their side. However, I don't think is possible. That is to say, I think it is rational to both accept and reject the resurrection. I think there are strong historical arguments for the resurrection (a l� Craig), but I also think there are good reasons to reject such arguments. I realize this may sound like a cop-out to some, but I think it is quite reasonable, especially when the issue of prior probability is taken into consideration.
Page 21
Go back to Page 1
These files, and many more are available at the Secular Web: http://www.infidels.org/. For more information send mail to [email protected]
- Go back to The Rock Temple
NOVO's Library