Faith, Fantasy, and Physics

 

Want to give your eyes a break? Click the link to have this article read to you. Responding to the Global Center for Religious Research's Objection to the Resurrection  “To anyone who studies abduction—the method of reasoning known as “inference to the best explanation”—this shouldn’t be surprising. Supernatural explanations never fare well against their competitors because, by their very nature, they don’t meet the criteria of adequacy. They invoke inexplicable extra supernatural assumptions that are contrary to the laws of science and are thus, by definition, non-simple, unconservative, and have little scope. Indeed, Ted Schick has argued that (given what explanations must do) “God did it” can never be an adequate explanation of anything, and I have argued that the same is true for “a miracle occurred.” Since the resurrection would have been a miracle caused by God, it is no wonder that it fails so monumentally at being a good explanation. Belief in the resurrection is therefore not only unscientific, but fundamentally irrational.”

Rebuffing and Rejecting the Resurrection: An Explanation of Cavin and Colombetti's Article (gcrr.org)

Summary of Modern Atheism's Stance on the Resurrection

David Kyle Johnson, writing for the Global Center for Religious Research, summarizes the “refutation” of Christ’s resurrection offered by Robert Cavin and Carlos Colombetti. They say that the regularity of physics renders the likelihood of the Resurrection highly improbable when compared to how likely it is that people are deceived or mistaken. If physics as we know it operates in perfectly predictable patterns, then something like a resurrection should not—maybe could not—be expected. On the other hand, people are known to lie for various reasons. Plus, people are known to be mistaken in numerous ways. If a proposal demands that we accept a violation in the laws of physics, then the better option is to reject that proposal as some kind of faulty information. As Johnson applies this to the Resurrection, he concludes that the claim that such a miracle occurred cannot outweigh the regularity in the laws of physics.

Famous atheist radio host Matt Dillahunty takes a similar approach in his debates. He is skeptical, so he doesn’t know what it is, but he is pretty sure of what it is not. He does not set up an explanation for what really did happen; rather, he says that we do not have good enough reasons to think that it is the biblical description of the Resurrection. Furthermore, he’ll set up a distinction between claims and evidence in a way that historical data, as long as it contains “extraordinary” claims, could never be sufficient to establish the truth of the claim. This means that unless there is a current observable, physical, scientific-like test for Jesus’s resurrection (or any other miracles), then we have no way to legitimately support its validity.

HOW DISCIPLES ON DEFENSE CAN RESPOND

Here is why these current atheistic objections to the Resurrection are unreasonable.

1.      1. The objections are ultimately based on circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning involves assuming to be true the thing you are trying to prove. In this case, they are assuming that resurrections never happen in order to conclude that resurrections never happen. Yes, background information will reveal that it is at least extremely rare, but rarity is far different from impossibility. This idea of circularity plays into other aspects of this atheistic position against the Resurrection.

2.      2. There is no “scientific” reason to claim unequivocally that physics dictates all that occurs.

This refutation might sound ironic, since Johnson positions himself to appear that he only cares about physics, aka the scientific possibility of the Resurrection. However, where does he get the idea that the only things we should believe are those which are allowable or provable by physics. One could make a list of very significant things that are not testable by physics—love, logic, justice, consciousness, etc. It is rather self-defeating also. He uses philosophy, not physics, to state that physics should be the standard for truth, knowledge, and acceptable belief.  

3.      3. They do not consider the possibility of such events against the backdrop of God’s existence.

It is very convenient to state the claim to a room full of atheists who will happily nod in agreement. However, a neutral observer would have to evaluate the events based on the possibility of God’s existence. To a Christian observer interprets this claim based on God’s existence, the creation of the world, a history of miracles, and an overall veracity of Scripture. Against that backdrop, it seems odd that atheists would find it hopelessly unreasonable to accept Christ’s resurrection.

4.      4. The two main alternative explanations fail: The disciples lied, or the witnesses were mistaken.

Contrary to what some atheists say, beliefs like this—popular concepts which carry huge personal and social influence—cannot be held in neutrality. People must conclude something. These atheists have concluded that it did not happen, but they typically don’t explain the surrounding events in light of their rejection. No records from that time suggests any consistency with lying disciples; everything points to a sudden and dramatic transformation. Being mistaken is an odd claim given the numerous people who claimed to see the risen Christ and given that Christian spread from the very place that it occurred.

5.      4. They wrongfully assume that testimony does not count toward the truth of something.

Modern atheism says that the only thing Christians offer as support for the Resurrection is a bunch of claims, not “evidence.” Nearly everything that has occurred in history is understood based on the records kept about it. Most is believed on fewer witnesses than the Resurrection. Atheists will acknowledge that the Resurrection is significantly more “extraordinary,” so the testimonies cannot be strong enough to overcome how extraordinary the claim is. This has been a convenient way for atheists to position themselves so that they may never be able to be shown the fact of the Resurrection. The main thing, though, is that ignores the fact that witnesses do lend credibility to a claim; eye-witnesses do count as evidence.

6.      5. Being unconvinced is different from an idea being universally unreasonable.

All that atheists like Dillahunty can say is that it feels unreasonable to them. Frankly, it would be insurmountably unreasonable if they presuppose that the natural world is all that exists. Well, he has a backdrop (naturalism) that is itself a weaker explanation of reality. It says almost nothing about whether it is reasonable for others to believe.