The rationality of the Resurrection

[The Tanager]

The thread this conversation naturally came out of (who knows how long ago) has recently gotten back on the direct original topic, so the Moderator advised us to get back on topic there. So, I figured I should make a new thread should Justin108 want to continue our discussion here and, of course, anyone else can join in.

I just explained to you why it is. Technically speaking, me telling you I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln this morning is a historic claim.

history
hst()ri/
noun
1.
the study of past events, particularly in human affairs.

"This morning" is a past event.

So again I ask, would you a priori assume it is less likely that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln than that I had breakfast with my girlfriend? Or are both scenarios equally likely?

Again, I agree with you if all we have is a claim. In your breakfast scenario (and others) all we have is your claim. No other evidence to consider. So, I should only look at prior probability. But as soon as you start adding in other pieces of evidence, other facts, then we look at the facts, not prior probability. We look at if Lincoln's tomb is empty or video evidence or whatever you want to claim is a fact. We decide what is a fact and then look at the various possible theories based on those facts.

"Stick to it"? I'm not hellbent on sticking to anything. All I want is sufficient evidence.

Have you ever seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Or maybe it's in The Life of Brian. Where the speaker is saying 'you' in a general sense and a person in the crowd keeps pointing to himself and taking it very specifically? I love those movies.

Anyway, this was a case of me using the general 'you.' You are judging the resurrection (at least by the critique you keep focusing on) by prior probability alone, when you have already agreed with me to consider the extra facts we've talked about. As soon as you start adding in other pieces of evidence, other facts, then we should look at the facts and not prior probability.

If you present me with sufficient evidence that you won the lottery, I would believe you. A priori probability does not mean that these events are impossible. I never suggested that.

I never thought you did.

All it means is that it is far less likely. And because of that, it requires more evidence than most other claims. The claim that I had breakfast with my girlfriend requires less evidence than the claim that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln. The claim that Julius Caesar was assassinated requires less evidence than the claim that Jesus came back from the dead.

I agree.

The details added to the resurrection account are insufficient to convince me that someone came back from the dead.

So in your mind, any evidence is enough evidence? Or do you recognize that some claims require more evidence than others? You provided evidence, but your evidence is insufficient. Are you familiar with the concept of insufficient evidence?

I never said or implied that any evidence is enough evidence. I'm saying don't just say the evidence is insufficient. I'm asking you to explain why, to show the line of reasoning. Rationally show how it falls short. All you have done to support that claim so far is to say that resurrections are improbable. That doesn't cut it. I explain further why I think that doesn't cut it in the next response...

If I said I had breakfast with my girlfriend instead, would you also doubt me if I provided no evidence? Do you demand evidence for every claim? Probably not. And that's my point. Some claims require evidence, while others do not. Some claims require a lot of evidence while others do not. That's what a priori probability means.

I wouldn't doubt you. I may doubt someone I knew was a pathological liar, but I definitely don't have any reason to believe you are one. I don't demand evidence for every claim. If that is your point than we are talking past each other. I haven't claimed every claim requires evidence.

Philosophically, a priori refers to a proposition being knowable independently of experience. And that is how it has seemed to me that you have been using a priori probability. The probability of an action in general without considering any historical evidence for a specific supposed instance of such an action.

I agree with you that the probability of a resurrection, taken generally, is very low. And so if we are just comparing probability of a resurrection versus someone lying or hallucinating, etc. then a resurrection is less probable.

But we aren't doint that here. We are talking a specific historical claim and we don't have to just rely on a priori probability. We have facts to take into consideration. It's now an a posteriori analysis. When a claim has evidence to take into consideration we should take that evidence into consideration. We should not analyze an a posteriori argument as though it were only an a priori argument. That is what it appears to me that you are doing. You are saying Jesus' specific supposed resurrection is not true because, generally, resurrections are not things that occur. That skips over the evidence, facts we are supposed to be considering.

If it turns out that Michael Jackson's grave was empty, would this fact be enough to support the theory that Michael Jackson came back from the dead and started killing people? We have the additional facts you asked for.

I didn't say that would be enough. And an empty tomb is not all the evidence I presented to tip the scales in favor of the "it's an actual resurrection"-theory.

What exactly do you mean by "explain away the resurrection"?

Why would Paul lying about the 500 prove the "it's an actual resurrection"-theory to be wrong?

Your opinion is noted. I disagree. I do not need to rely on someone coming back from the dead in order to fathom the start of a new religion. Religion does not require supernatural origins.

I wasn't making a claim about any new religion starting, but a specific one. Religions start for different reasons.

Christianity took Jews that were strictly monotheistic and who looked forward to a coming political Messiah that would set things right, free them from Rome and that at the end of time would bring back the resurrection of the righteous (among other things) and then...after Jesus dies...this group claims the resurrection happened now to Jesus, that they have seen him, that the Messiah is a crucified-and-risen Messiah, who is God and Israel is not going to be set free from Rome, but the resurrection for them will still be at the end of time (among other things). And these disciples boldly proclaimed this message, despite persecution and were willing to be persecuted and killed for their belief that Jesus did rise from the dead.

That these were hallucinations or the disciples were liars or that Jesus didn't really die, etc. don't explain the start of this specific religion. I've already stated why and you haven't responded to those specific points. So, there is no burden for me to say anything more on those right now.

Your response has been to take an a posteriori argument and judge it by [a]a priori[/i] standards: general probability alone, ignoring evidence that should be taken into consideration. That seems irrational to me. I'd love to hear the reasoning out of why you think it's not.

Conjecture

If you disagree, do you have examples of people dying for what they know to be a lie? I'm open to hearing your support for believing some people would die for something they know is a lie. Not those hundreds of years later thinking it is true, but those who actually devised the lie. And let's not get into the "it's your burden" thing. We should both back up our view. We've definitely come across historical figures recanting a lie when it gets too hot for them to handle. Why would someone die for a lie? I'm willing to talk this out.

Do I have to investigate in depth every single claim ever made in order to avoid being called lazy? Did you investigate every historic claim ever made that you can call me lazy? Did you investigate every religious claim ever made? Or are you just being a self-righteous hypocrite?

You are seriously misreading my posts. I never claimed you (specific or general sense) had to investigate in depth every single claim ever made. I claimed that IF you (general sense) reject a theory because you just don't care to investigate the claims then you are doing so irrationally (blind faith and laziness). That's not calling you lazy unless you feel you fit into that category. I wasn't judging you (specific sense). You are investigating the claim under question with me.

How much time have you spent investigating the claims of Islam? Of Hinduism? Buddhism? Taoism? Scientology? Mormonism? Hellenism? Can you tell me the exact origin of every hero in Hellenism? Can you name every god in Hinduism?

I have been interested in such things ever since I became a Christian the summer before starting college. I'm writing a dissertation on an aspect of Hindu thought as it relates to the Problem of Evil. I have touched upon the various one's you've mentioned (and others) but certainly I haven't exhausted such searches. You can only do so much. When made aware of an important claim, I do try my best to fully analyze it. I will always (I hope) seek to grow in such knowledge and I feel I'm always open to change my mind. This journey in dialoguing with beliefs that aren't mine has been a tremendously beneficial journey to me in so many ways.

Contrary to what you might think, Christianity does not hold some kind of unique privilege where we are forced to contemplate it above all other religions.

I agree. I think many religious (and secular) worldviews are worth our contemplation. Take them as they come.

I have said this countless times already. One does not need to come up with a substitute explanation in order to doubt a given explanation.

And the last time you said it, I agreed. I then tried to clarify the point I was actually making. You can doubt Genghis Khan's resurrection for sufficient or insufficient reasons. Even if you doubt it for insufficient reasons, you could be right in your belief. I'm interested in doubting things for sufficient reasons. Should someone want to argue that Genghis Khan came back from the dead and told me what difference it would make (if true)...and I thought that difference a good enough difference, I would want to rationally doubt it, not to doubt it for insufficient reasons.

[The Tanager]

I didn't ask you to assess the evidence I gave. I acknowledge I gave no evidence for my claims. I am asking what evidence would convince you. I am not asking whether the evidence I presented is enough. So if I made the claim that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln, what evidence would I need to present in order to convince you of my claim?

And I'm saying I don't have any preconceived idea of what would be enough evidence. And since I don't, I would be irrational to use that as a support for any conclusion. You agree you don't know what that phrase specifically would entail, but yet you use it as support for your conclusion.

Present any evidence you want and I will base my view off the evidence present. I will NOT base my view only off prior probability (if you give any further evidence). I will NOT base my view off of a mere claim that "that's not enough evidence." If I don't think the evidence is enough I will state why I don't think it's enough. I will state which alternative theory makes more sense of the evidence and I will state why I think it makes more sense of the evidence. I will not simply respond that "I've considered your evidence, and it's just not enough."

[Justin108]

I didn't ask you to assess the evidence I gave. I acknowledge I gave no evidence for my claims. I am asking what evidence would convince you. I am not asking whether the evidence I presented is enough. So if I made the claim that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln, what evidence would I need to present in order to convince you of my claim?

And I'm saying I don't have any preconceived idea of what would be enough evidence.

Ok so then you cannot ask me what would be enough evidence to believe in the resurrection.

Present any evidence you want and I will base my view off the evidence present. I will NOT base my view only off prior probability (if you give any further evidence). I will NOT base my view off of a mere claim that "that's not enough evidence."

Suppose as supporting evidence, I point out that Abraham Lincoln's grave is empty. Now without saying "that's not enough evidence" and without appealing to prior probability, explain to me why you would not believe my claim?

[The Tanager]

Ok so then you cannot ask me what would be enough evidence to believe in the resurrection.

Not at all. The difference is that you are using the point "that's not enough" to reject a view. I'm not using that point to reject your view. If you use that as the reason to reject a view then you need to justify that. I don't, but you do. So, you need to justify why it's not enough.

Suppose as supporting evidence, I point out that Abraham Lincoln's grave is empty. Now without saying "that's not enough evidence" and without appealing to prior probability, explain to me why you would not believe my claim?

So then we look at various explanations. Honest Abe rose from the dead, Honest Abe never actually died, Honest Abe is an alien illusion, Honest Abe's corpse was stolen and you are lying, I-don't-know-what-but-not-resurrection, etc. And if all I have to go on is the claim and the empty tomb, none of those theories is ruled out. The alien illusion takes a hit because of simplicity, but the other views are equal in simplicity.

Of what is left then we SHOULD appeal to prior probability to break the tie. The theft/lie theory is the most probable kind of event, so without further evidence that is the best explanation.

I never resorted to saying a vague "that's not enough" even though I can't explain what that standard is that it falls short of. And I only resorted to prior probability when there was no evidence to distinguish between the various possible theories.

So, why not the same with the resurrection? Because I offered more than the empty tomb and the mere claim of resurrection. The 'more' which I offered changes the scene of what is the best explanation, at least if what I argued in defense of that is true (and you didn't counter my thoughts there at all). Therefore, we cannot resort to prior probability in this scenario when we could if the only evidence was a claim of resurrection and an empty tomb.

[Justin108]

Suppose as supporting evidence, I point out that Abraham Lincoln's grave is empty. Now without saying "that's not enough evidence" and without appealing to prior probability, explain to me why you would not believe my claim?

Of what is left then we SHOULD appeal to prior probability to break the tie.

Please note the underlined section in my request and try again. Without appealing to prior probability, explain to me why you would not believe my claim?

Of what is left then we SHOULD appeal to prior probability to break the tie.

So it's okay to appeal to prior probability in order to break a tie? Are you making these rules up as you go? Because this whole time, you've been telling me to not use prior probability after looking at the evidence. But now all of a sudden, there's a hidden clause where it's ok to look at prior probability as long as it's used to break a tie. Tell me, when exactly do two theories become a tie?

Suppose, along with the empty tomb, I pointed to a homeless man who witnessed Abraham Lincoln leaving the cemetery. Now I have two pieces of evidence pointing to Abraham Lincoln's resurrection. Since there are now two pieces of evidence, this theory is no longer tied with the grave robber theory, liar theory, or any of the other theories you offered. Now that the theories are no longer tied, without appealing to prior probability and without moving the goalpost again, explain to me why you would not believe my claim?

[The Tanager]

Please note the underlined section in my request and try again. Without appealing to prior probability, explain to me why you would not believe my claim?

I noted it the first time and I'm not going to try again because of the following issue...

So it's okay to appeal to prior probability in order to break a tie? Are you making these rules up as you go? Because this whole time, you've been telling me to not use prior probability after looking at the evidence. But now all of a sudden, there's a hidden clause where it's ok to look at prior probability as long as it's used to break a tie. Tell me, when exactly do two theories become a tie?

No, I've been telling you that if the evidence clearly points towards a theory and doesn't fit the alternatives that we should not fault the good theory based on prior probability because actual evidence is better than prior probability, which does not determine truth. I'm not writing a treatise on when to use prior probability and when not to. So, if you bring up a new scenario (evidence points equally to multiple scenarios) then I'm rational to talk about prior probability in relation to that new scenario and it may have a different relation.

It's not making the rules up as I go. It's not a hidden clause. It's being rational in new scenarios.

Suppose, along with the empty tomb, I pointed to a homeless man who witnessed Abraham Lincoln leaving the cemetery. Now I have two pieces of evidence pointing to Abraham Lincoln's resurrection. Since there are now two pieces of evidence, this theory is no longer tied with the grave robber theory, liar theory, or any of the other theories you offered. Now that the theories are no longer tied, without appealing to prior probability and without moving the goalpost again, explain to me why you would not believe my claim?

So, you still only have claims by people (you, a homeless guy) of resurrection and an empty tomb. That's not as complete as the case for Jesus' resurrection. You could both be lying and all the other theories still remain. And I've already responded to that. You are still irrational in rejecting the resurrection based on prior probability or "that's not enough, even though I admit it's too hard to say what is enough and how this fails" or fallaciously accusing me of moving the goalpost.

Like I promised before when you chose to use that as a response again, I'm done with the conversation because you aren't trying to truly understand me or the position and rationally respond to me/it. You truly had many, many good things to say (and I thank you for those) but this tactic is just beneath a philosopher, a lover of truth. Perhaps we will talk on some other matter in the future.

[Justin108]

So it's okay to appeal to prior probability in order to break a tie? Are you making these rules up as you go? Because this whole time, you've been telling me to not use prior probability after looking at the evidence. But now all of a sudden, there's a hidden clause where it's ok to look at prior probability as long as it's used to break a tie. Tell me, when exactly do two theories become a tie?

No, I've been telling you that if the evidence clearly points towards a theory and doesn't fit the alternatives that we should not fault the good theory based on prior probability because actual evidence is better than prior probability

That's your opinion. But the prior probability of an actual resurrection is far too little to be considered as probable, even after considering the evidence. Regardless of how good of a theory you think it is, it doesn't change the fact that a resurrection is highly unlikely. Despite what you may think, the evidence presented is not enough to dismiss the fact that it is highly improbable that a resurrection occurred.

I'm not writing a treatise on when to use prior probability and when not to.

It seems that way since you seem to, on a dime, decide when it is and is not okay to use prior probability.

Suppose, along with the empty tomb, I pointed to a homeless man who witnessed Abraham Lincoln leaving the cemetery. Now I have two pieces of evidence pointing to Abraham Lincoln's resurrection. Since there are now two pieces of evidence, this theory is no longer tied with the grave robber theory, liar theory, or any of the other theories you offered. Now that the theories are no longer tied, without appealing to prior probability and without moving the goalpost again, explain to me why you would not believe my claim?

So, you still only have claims by people (you, a homeless guy) of resurrection and an empty tomb. That's not as complete as the case for Jesus' resurrection.

So basically you're saying "there's not enough evidence"?

You could both be lying and all the other theories still remain.

And all the people claiming to have seen a risen Jesus could also be lying.

You are still irrational in rejecting the resurrection based on prior probability

I'm sorry to tell you this but you don't decide when it is and is not rational to rely on prior probability. If you can rely on prior probability to dismiss my claim that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln, then I can use prior probability to dismiss your claim that Jesus came back from the dead.

and how this fails" or fallaciously accusing me of moving the goalpost.

You are moving the goalpost. First you said that one cannot rely on prior probability after evidence has been presented, then suddenly it's ok to look at prior probability as long as there's some kind of a tie. This "tie breaker" clause came out of nowhere. That would be moving the goalpost.

[dio9]

The resurrection is actually irrational as we know it. Religion itself is irrational . Religion and sacred scripture are poetic. The resurrection is a poetic event.

[The Tanager]

The resurrection is actually irrational as we know it. Religion itself is irrational . Religion and sacred scripture are poetic. The resurrection is a poetic event.

Could you explain further why you think so?

[dio9]

[Replying to post 28 by The Tanager]

The whole old testament is poetic why should the New be different. The question should be not is the resurrection rational but what is the meaning of the resurrection.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 28 by The Tanager]

The whole old testament is poetic why should the New be different. The question should be not is the resurrection rational but what is the meaning of the resurrection.

What reasons do you have saying that? There is poetry in the Old Testament, but there are non-poetic texts as well. And what exactly do you mean by "poetic"?

What would you say the meaning of the resurrection is?