Richard Swinburne argues there is good reason to believe that if God exists, He would reveal Himself through a divine miracle at some point in human history. Assuming God exists, He might intervene in human history, and reveal His true purpose. Indeed, Swinburne goes on to argue that miracles might be especially useful for the purpose of authenticating a divine messenger or prophet.
Theists can plausibly argue that if God exists, the prior probability of the resurrection is high. Critics of the resurrection (or any other miracle) would do well to consider this point, for it implies that Humean attacks on miracles miss the point. If a theist is going to reject the resurrection, they will need historical grounds for doing so.
Skeptics should not focus their arguments against the miraculous nature of the resurrection. By ignoring the background probability of miracles in general, and the resurrection in particular, their arguments are likely to fall on deaf ears.
Background Probability and Theists
But what if God does exist? What is the background probability of a miraculous event, like the resurrection, if God exists? I think that the theist can plausibly argue that the background probability is much improved, if not high, under such conditions. Given that God exists, there are good reasons to believe He will intervene.
First, if there is a God who is creator of the universe and the laws that govern it, then it seems reasonable to believe that He would be able to temporarily suspend the laws of nature. If God could create the universe ex nihilo, then surely a mere resurrection or levitation would pale in comparison. Indeed, in terms of its relative difficulty, one would think that the raising of Jesus from the dead would pale in comparison.
Second, as philosopher of religion Richard Swinburne argues (p. 551), there is good reason to believe that if God exists, He would reveal Himself through a divine miracle at some point in human history. People are capable of knowing that God exists, but obviously not all men come to believe in God. It seems plausible that, given some people's failure to recognize the existence of God (assuming He exists), He might intervene in human history, and reveal His true purpose. Indeed, Swinburne goes on to argue (p. 544-52) that miracles might be especially useful for the purpose of authenticating a divine messenger or prophet.
For these two reasons alone, then, I think theists can plausibly argue that if God exists, the prior probability of the resurrection is high. Critics of the resurrection (or any other miracle, for that matter) would do well to consider this point, for it implies that Humean attacks on miracles miss the point. If one believes in God, one believes that certain types of miracles have a significant prior probability, i.e. they are what one would reasonably expect. Therefore, if a theist is going to reject the resurrection, they will need historical grounds for doing so.
With respect to the contemporary debate between Christians and skeptics over the resurrection, then, this implies that skeptics should not focus their arguments against the miraculous nature of the resurrection. By ignoring the background probability of miracles in general, and the resurrection in particular, their arguments are likely to fall on deaf ears.
Page 7
Go to Page 8
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