Resurrection: Fact not Fiction

Introduction:  

Welcome back to the final video on the second part of the three part series on the resurrection. This is probably what you were all waiting for. If you haven’t checked out my previous videos on the resurrection or my previous blog posts, make sure you go check them out. The videos can be found in the resurrection playlist on my channel which you can access by clicking on here.

In this blog post, we will be discussing two important aspects of the resurrection hypothesis. Firstly, we will discuss the explanatory scope of the resurrection then we will discuss a few possibly objections.

Explanatory scope

Let us first address the explanatory scope of the resurrection hypothesis.   This is referring to the hypothesis’ ability to explain the eight historical facts that I have established in previous videos.  They can be found in the resurrection playlist and if you haven’t checked them out, make sure you do so after reading this blog.

A quick reminder, the facts are 1. Jesus existed 2. Jesus had an unprecedented sense of divinity 3.  Jesus was crucified  4. Jesus was buried 5. There was an empty tomb 6. There were post mortem appearances 7.  The disciples were willing to die for this belief 8.  The spread of Christianity.

Unlike the hypotheses which fail in their explanatory scope, the resurrection hypothesis explains each of these facts to exemplary and unparalleled detail.  

What the Jews expected Jesus to be on earth

Possible Rebuttals to Resurrection:

With that out of the way, we can turn to two important rebuttals that most people raise in regards to the resurrection hypothesis.  One from methodological naturalism and the other due to its insignificant probability, this is similar to the Humean objection against miracles.  

Methodological naturalism is basically the belief that when we take into account historical or scientific hypotheses, we should presuppose or focus on naturalistic/ non-theistic options.  However, a simple rebuttal to this would be that methodological naturalism is obviously question begging.  This is the idea that one is arguing in a circle and fails to respond to the question that they are meant to solve.  A good example of this would be the Bible is true because the Bible says it is.  In the same way, methodological naturalism appears guilty of a similar approach.  It presupposes or postulates a methodology which accepts God’s non-existence as an a priori axiom to argue that God does not and cannot exist.  

Hence, this objection fails.  

With this objection out of the way we can turn to the Humean objection to miracles.  This is the idea that the probability of a miracle is substantially low and hence cannot be accepted.  In response to this, one can suggest a few responses.  

Firstly, this argument only takes into account the prior probability of an event.  This is the probability of an event happening without taking into account extrinsic factors.  A good example of this would be the probability of you being robbed.  While the probability of you being robbed are intrinsically rather low, if you take into account extrinsic factors like where you are walking, what neighbourhood you are in, what time of day it is, is anyone around, are you alone, the chances of you being robbed can increase exponentially.  

Walking in a dark alleyway at night is more dangerous than in the light of day.

In the same way, if you take into account the extrinsic factors like the cosmological argument, moral argument, existence of God, other religious experiences, etc.  The prior probability of the argument can change significantly.  

Secondly, one can suggest that this objection is actually very circular.  This is raised by CS Lewis in his book Miracles.  Since the definition of a miracle is something which occurs very rarely, it is a question begging to argue that a miracle cannot happen because it occurs very rarely.  It would be like saying, things that are very rare cannot happen because things that are very rare cannot happen.  This is clearly circular and should not be accepted. Of course, the lack of probability can be used against other hypotheses like the stolen body hypothesis, the reason for this difference is down to the fact that grave robbery or theft does not have an analytically similar probability as a miracle.

To Conclude:

In conclusion, we can see that these two arguments fail to debunk or refute the resurrection hypothesis, leaving us with the resurrection as the best hypothesis for the eight facts that we have postulated previously.  

With this out of the way, I hope that you would be able to defend the resurrection of Christ with confidence and determination.  Furthermore, I would like to turn your focus to what I would be doing in the final section of this series, defending the resurrection of Christ using Non-Biblical sources.  So if you are interested in that or enjoyed this blog, make sure you subscribe to this blog, it means a lot to me and will help this grow.  Comment in the description below if you disagree with anything and I am looking forward to seeing you soon.  

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: