The Best Naturalistic Explanation for Christianity

[liamconnor]

I believe I posted something like this before and it got derailed; or rather, the issue was dodged.

A quick scenario: Let us suppose a man who is undecided on the issue of Jesus' resurrection (and for that matter, the existence of God). He wants to know in what direction the historical data points. If he is an honest thinker, does his homework, I believe the "best" naturalistic interpretation of the evidence he will find will include the following:

1) Jesus was crucified and buried in a tomb
2) The body of Jesus was stolen by a non-disciple sometime between Friday evening and Sunday morning; that is, during the Sabbath.
3) Sunday morn the tomb was discovered vacant by women disciples
4) Several days later, a large number of his disciples, individually and collectively suffered hallucinations which were consistent with each other: a) they were bodily and involved the delusion of "touch" b) they left the impression of a commission to preach a specific message which was consistent among them all
5) These disciples believed and preached that their master was raised by God, and that this event was the culmination of God's acts in history.
6) Paul persecuted the Jesus movement. He too suffered from an hallucination from which he believed he had encountered Jesus and received from him a similar vocation.

Are there better naturalistic explanations which have responsibly dealt with the data?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

What?!!?

In order to defend Christianity I have to ALSO believe in Islam?


That is it, DI. If someone can explain to me why this last reply of yours is relevant or even intelligent, I will listen. Till then.

So what are you saying here? In order for me to dismiss Christianity I must first "believe" in it?

I'm not asking you to believe in Islam. All I'm asking you to do is explain how it came to be without accusing the authors of Islam to be manufacturing a religion.

This is precisely what you are asking us to do with Christianity.

Moreover, we've already done that anyway. I've already offered an perfectly rational explanation as has Bust Nak in post #20.

The explanation that these people were either religious fanatics or political activists who were using religion for political reasons is a perfectly reasonable explanation. It's not only works here for Christianity but it also works equally well for Islam as well. So I've explained how BOTH of these religions came to be.

Clearly there were great motivations in those days to create religions that claim that the only way to God is through a belief and dedication to the religion that is making the claim to be the only way to God. And failure to comply will result in the damnation of those who refuse to join and support the religious cult.

This explanation works perfectly fine and no further explanations are required.

Also, take note that these religions were indeed used to slaughter people of other religions, and socially condemn those who refuse to support and believe these religious cults. They were clearly used for political reasons. No question about it. In fact, they are still being used for political reasons to this very day.

So Busk Nak and I have both met your challenge fully. We have both offered perfectly naturalistic explanation for both Christianity and Islam. They both came to be for basically the same reasons. Superstitions becoming religions that end up being used for political reasons.

How can you dismiss our perfectly naturalistic explanations? That's what you asked for, and that's what we have provided for you. Yet you still complain that you aren't satisfied.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 20 by Bust Nak]


I apologize for missing this! And I thank DI for alerting me to it. It is a respectable answer. It falls under the old “Conspiracy Theory�.

1) Jesus was crucified.

Agreed. What happened to the body? This is extremely important to any theory.

2) A relatively short time after, a few or maybe even just one of his disciples, suffered hallucinations and convinced the other members that their master was raised by God, and that this event was the culmination of God's acts in history, irrespectively of what actually happened to Jesus' body.

Okay, let’s work with this.

Who suffered the hallucination: Peter and James are mentioned in 1 Cor. along with five hundred (two of which are named in the closing remarks of Romans). The tradition states that some of the encounters were collectively. Even if only two suffered the same hallucination simultaneously, this is unprecedented according to psychologists.

What was the content of the hallucination: did Jesus say something to this one disciple, or was it more like a distant Sasquatch siting?

From one disciple claiming to see Jesus, we get a list of more than 500 within three or so years. They all conspired? To what end? What was their motive?

We should add that the Resurrection was to happen at the end of times; it was never expected that the Messiah would be killed, let alone be resurrected in isolation from all the other Jews. We are so used to hearing about this event that we forget how utterly foreign the idea was back then. That has to be taken into consideration.

For instance, other charismatic leaders had been killed, which clearly showed they were NOT the Messiah. Why did the majority of discpiles say, “Dude, you are deluded. Just accept it, we backed the wrong horse�? That is a far more likely scenario given what we know of Messianic expectations in the first century. Based on historically probability, that is what should’ve happened: one disciple suffers a delusion, the rest ridicule him and go back to their private lives—that is what happened in every other failed Jewish movement.

3) Collectively they developed a rough narrative, based on the work of Jesus when he was alive.

Once more, what motivated them to LIE. The data does not indicate that they were backing another’s vision, but that they were backing THEIR OWN vision. What had they to gain from such a lie?
James is one of the named recipients. The data does not show he was very fond of his brother’s activities. Why did he jump on board with this conspiracy?

4) These disciples believed and preached that their master was raised by God, and that this event was the culmination of God's acts in history.

BELIEVED?!!! They didn’t believe ALL of it. They claimed to have SEEN Jesus; and your theory requires that they knew they hadn’t, only one or two or three (and that itself is remarkable) and they jumped on board.

5) Paul persecuted the Jesus movement. He too suffered from an hallucination from which he believed he had encountered Jesus and received from him a similar vocation.

Uhhh….hallucinations stem from psychological factors. Blanket statements like these are not impressive. Such a blanket statement would receive an F- even from the most liberal of historical departments. We have no reason for why Paul should suffer an hallucination involving a charismatic deviant whose legacy was an affront to everything Paul stood for.



Conclusion: I remain unconvinced that anythning other than a wide range hallucination could convince the disciples of Jesus that he was risen, and that his death was not a setback in their god's plan, but was in fact intended. No Jew would've accepted such a radical altercation in Jewish theology on the grounds of "someone else's vision of a crucified master".

In a sense I agree with you on the matter of Paul; yet there is no satisfying reason as to why Paul would suffer such an unexpected hallucination. For someone uninterested in historical inquiry, this matters not. So long as ANY explanation is available (regardless of how many holes it has) blanket statements will do. It will not for me. NOr would it do for an intellectually honest person who was neutral and wished to know what really happened.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 21 by Divine Insight]

I thank you for alerting me to Bust Nak's theory. I had missed it.

[Kenisaw]

I believe I posted something like this before and it got derailed; or rather, the issue was dodged.

A quick scenario: Let us suppose a man who is undecided on the issue of Jesus' resurrection (and for that matter, the existence of God). He wants to know in what direction the historical data points. If he is an honest thinker, does his homework, I believe the "best" naturalistic interpretation of the evidence he will find will include the following:

1) Jesus was crucified and buried in a tomb
2) The body of Jesus was stolen by a non-disciple sometime between Friday evening and Sunday morning; that is, during the Sabbath.
3) Sunday morn the tomb was discovered vacant by women disciples
4) Several days later, a large number of his disciples, individually and collectively suffered hallucinations which were consistent with each other: a) they were bodily and involved the delusion of "touch" b) they left the impression of a commission to preach a specific message which was consistent among them all
5) These disciples believed and preached that their master was raised by God, and that this event was the culmination of God's acts in history.
6) Paul persecuted the Jesus movement. He too suffered from an hallucination from which he believed he had encountered Jesus and received from him a similar vocation.

Are there better naturalistic explanations which have responsibly dealt with the data?

My take:

There was a human named Jesus who caused trouble. He didn't like the Romans, he was tired about hearing how his people (the Jews) lived under the rule of various foreign powers, including the current Roman regime, and he acted out. Eventually the Romans got cheesed off and decided to try him and execute him. And this they did.

This would have been the end of the story.

Problem was, there were other Jews who caused trouble too. I'm sure there were Greeks and Assyrians and other peoples who also caused problems. And the followers of Jesus weren't going to stop just because their leader was dead. The Romans realized that getting rid of these trouble makers wasn't solving the problem. They needed a new solution, something that would stick with the masses. So they came up with an ingenious plan. They'd make this Jesus the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies, but instead of following the pattern the old Jewish god followed, they'd make him a kinder, gentler god, one that made sure that the tax money still flowed in by "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's"...

But to make this plan happen? Well, what better way then to have someone that persecuted these troublemakers suddenly "convert" on some road in the middle of nowhere and start preaching away. Someone educated with multiple lingual knowledge. So they grabbed Paul/Saul, and made him a secret agent man. They had him write letters and books and hit up town after town. They had him say he talked to all these other witnesses and saw things himself. And people started buying it.

After all, 14 of the 27 New Testament books have been traditionally attributed to Paul, and even today the scholarly consensus is that 12-13 of them were written by Paul or based on Pauline letters and works. A lot of the remainder of the NT draws from Pauline lines. And Paul is one of the few Christian figures in the Bible that there is sufficient evidence that supports his ACTUAL existence. We know there was a Paul.

Everything about the resurrection was made up, a part of the story concocted to make Jesus a prophecy fulfiller so that people would want to follow his "word"....which included paying their taxes.

[Divine Insight]

After all, 14 of the 27 New Testament books have been traditionally attributed to Paul, and even today the scholarly consensus is that 12-13 of them were written by Paul or based on Pauline letters and works. A lot of the remainder of the NT draws from Pauline lines. And Paul is one of the few Christian figures in the Bible that there is sufficient evidence that supports his ACTUAL existence. We know there was a Paul.

Everything about the resurrection was made up, a part of the story concocted to make Jesus a prophecy fulfiller so that people would want to follow his "word"....which included paying their taxes.

Very good theory.

After all it is highly suspicious that someone who had persecuted Christians would suddenly claim to be a strong believer to the point of even writing letters to Christian Church telling them how they should behave unless he had a strong motive to do so.

Mover, if we accept that Paul really did have a vision of Jesus who inspired Paul to do this then question would become, "Why in the world would Jesus choose to reveal himself to someone who was persecuting Christians instead of someone who was a devote Christian already?"

The very idea that Jesus would actually choose Paul for this work seems highly questionable to me even if I were going to consider believing in a supernatural Jesus who could show himself to people.

And why didn't this Jesus show himself to anyone else throughout history, like maybe Mother Teresa for example? How about Pope Francis? Why Paul?

Kenisaw's explanation sounds far more believable to me that the standard Christian explanation that Jesus actually did reveal himself to Paul and asked Paul to create Pauline Christianity.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 22 by liamconnor]

Uhhh….hallucinations stem from psychological factors. Blanket statements like these are not impressive. Such a blanket statement would receive an F- even from the most liberal of historical departments.

They can also stem from illness. I once suffered from hallucinations during a bad case of flu/pneumonia about fifteen years ago.

We have no reason for why Paul should suffer an hallucination involving a charismatic deviant whose legacy was an affront to everything Paul stood for.

You're saying this like psychology and the mind are perfectly understood topics. They're not.

ven if only two suffered the same hallucination simultaneously, this is unprecedented according to psychologists.

There have been many cases throughout history where entire groups of people are convinced of some fantastical claim. We saw it in the earliest Muslims, we saw it with the Mormons, we saw it with the Heaven's Gaters, the Branch Davidians, modern faith healers.
It may not, strictly speaking, have been a shared hallucination, but what probably happened is that the one person had it, then was able to convince others that they too had had it. You'd be surprised just how persuasive people can be, even to the point of convincing others they saw things they actually hadn't.

we get a list of more than 500 within three or so years.

No we don't. We get Paul saying, ONCE, that Jesus appeared to a crowd of 500, some of whom were reputedly still alive at the time of writing, but no names or a location are mentioned. If I recall correctly, this was mentioned in a letter sent some 800-900 miles away from Jerusalem, so it would be highly unlikely in those days that anyone would have read this letter, and undertaken the journey to investigate.

Once more, what motivated them to LIE. The data does not indicate that they were backing another’s vision, but that they were backing THEIR OWN vision. What had they to gain from such a lie?

There's all sorts of motivations we can hypothesize. It is NOT as you are attempting to put it, as a false dichotomy of either they willingly lied, or they told the truth.
It could be no-one had an actual vision or hallucination but spread tales that they had to achieve some end. Perhaps some of those who believed Jesus had risen believed he was to overthrow the Romans. Perhaps some honestly believed in a spiritual Kingdom ruled by Jesus.

James is one of the named recipients. The data does not show he was very fond of his brother’s activities. Why did he jump on board with this conspiracy?

Perhaps after his brother's execution, he felt guilty and felt like he had to carry on his brother's work?

and your theory requires that they knew they hadn’t, only one or two or three (and that itself is remarkable) and they jumped on board.

As I explained earlier, it's quite common throughout history for one or two or three people to convince a whole crowd of others of something fantastical.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 26 by rikuoamero]

Quote:
Uhhh….hallucinations stem from psychological factors. Blanket statements like these are not impressive. Such a blanket statement would receive an F- even from the most liberal of historical departments.

They can also stem from illness. I once suffered from hallucinations during a bad case of flu/pneumonia about fifteen years ago.

Irrelevant to the point. We are discussing the Best Natural explanation. I maintain it involves wide spread, collective, uniform hallucination.

Quote:
We have no reason for why Paul should suffer an hallucination involving a charismatic deviant whose legacy was an affront to everything Paul stood for.

You're saying this like psychology and the mind are perfectly understood topics. They're not.

Does not help your case. I said we have no reason....you are not giving a reason. Ergo, between the two of us, it remains a mystery.

Quote:
ven if only two suffered the same hallucination simultaneously, this is unprecedented according to psychologists.

There have been many cases throughout history where entire groups of people are convinced of some fantastical claim. We saw it in the earliest Muslims, we saw it with the Mormons, we saw it with the Heaven's Gaters, the Branch Davidians, modern faith healers.

False. There have been no cases of collective hallucinations: two people hallucinating exactly the same thing, to the most minute detail. This would be the first and only recorded incident. Widespread, collective, uniform hallucination remains the BEST natural explanation.

It may not, strictly speaking, have been a shared hallucination, but what probably happened is that the one person had it, then was able to convince others that they too had had it. You'd be surprised just how persuasive people can be, even to the point of convincing others they saw things they actually hadn't.

What “probably� happened? Based on what evidence do you derive this “probability�? It is more plausible that if one disciple came and told a few others that he had seen the risen Lord, they would’ve at the very least asked, “Show me.� And if the other could not, they would have called B.S. Your "probability" rests on the assumption that the ancients were gullible idiots willing to believe anything. This is shown false by Thomas' reaction in John. People back then wanted evidence as much as we did. To suggest otherwise is simply chronological snobbery and based on zero evidence.

The Best natural explanation remains: widespread, collective, uniform hallucination.

Quote:
we get a list of more than 500 within three or so years.

No we don't. We get Paul saying, ONCE, that Jesus appeared to a crowd of 500, some of whom were reputedly still alive at the time of writing, but no names or a location are mentioned. If I recall correctly, this was mentioned in a letter sent some 800-900 miles away from Jerusalem, so it would be highly unlikely in those days that anyone would have read this letter, and undertaken the journey to investigate.

No names are mentioned? Check the passage again.

The list was given once? Check the passage: Paul claims he gave it to them before. To doubt he did raises more problems than it solves and therefore, according to Occam's razor, should be abandoned.

This kind of reasoning is nothing more than UNREASONABLE SKEPTICISM and is not valid. What in the letter indicates a lie? Or are your simply hiding under the slim "shadow of doubt" which is UNREASONABLE SKEPTICISM?

800-900 miles is irrelevant if travel is possible, and it was. Paul himself visited Corinth. Paul names Peter. The Corinthians themselves knew Peter (read the letter!) personally as well as Apollo. You have this strange idea that people back then just sat in their homes isolated: how did trade occur? how did news travel?

The notion that Paul fabricated the list is about as asinine as historical theories can get. Bart Ehrman would laugh you down.

Quote:
Once more, what motivated them to LIE. The data does not indicate that they were backing another’s vision, but that they were backing THEIR OWN vision. What had they to gain from such a lie?

There's all sorts of motivations we can hypothesize. It is NOT as you are attempting to put it, as a false dichotomy of either they willingly lied, or they told the truth.
It could be no-one had an actual vision or hallucination but spread tales that they had to achieve some end. Perhaps some of those who believed Jesus had risen believed he was to overthrow the Romans. Perhaps some honestly believed in a spiritual Kingdom ruled by Jesus.

What end? You're spinning: are you maintaining hallucinations? Or when you say "perhaps some of those who believed Jesus had risen..." on what basis did they believe this? I am not interested in vague explanations. No intellectually honest person is.

Nothing you have said disproves or even harms my thesis: the best natural explanation for the origins of Christianity involve wide-spread collective hallucination.

Quote:
James is one of the named recipients. The data does not show he was very fond of his brother’s activities. Why did he jump on board with this conspiracy?

Perhaps after his brother's execution, he felt guilty and felt like he had to carry on his brother's work?

“Perhaps he was a goat�. I am interested in informed hypotheses that work with the data. The Best natural explanation is that James too suffered an hallucination.

Quote:
and your theory requires that they knew they hadn’t, only one or two or three (and that itself is remarkable) and they jumped on board.

As I explained earlier, it's quite common throughout history for one or two or three people to convince a whole crowd of others of something fantastical.

It is not common for:

A few to convince a majority that THEY THEMSELVES saw the fantastical (once more, the data does not indicate that a number of people were claiming OTHERS had seen Jesus, they were claiming THEY had seen Jesus).

Again. Best natural explanation--wide spread collective hallucination. nothing else will do.

[liamconnor]

I feel the need to remind everyone that in this thread the question is not whether Jesus was raised. The question is, what is the "BEST" natural explanation for Christianity's origins.


Thus far I maintain

1) Jesus was crucified and placed in a tomb: no plausible reason has been given as to why we should doubt this.

2) a non-disciple stole Jesus' body. That a disciple stole the body raises more problems than it solves and therefore, by Occam's law, should be set aside until we get really, REALLY desperate.

3) That women visited the tomb on Sunday morn and found it empty. The notion that this was fabricated in an age when female testimony was held as invalid places the burden of proof on the other side.

4) That shortly after a large number of disciples suffered hallucinations in which Jesus appeared to them, conversed with them, and commissioned them. In some cases this encounter involved a large number of witnesses (1 Cor. 15). The protest that all we have is Paul's word on this lacks historical imagination and is a product of irrational skepticism. That Paul's list was not fabricated is testified to by many an atheist historian of the period, including Bart Ehrman.

5) The biggest puzzle of all is Paul's conversion. We have no reason as to why he should suffer an hallucination which went against everything he had stood for. It remains one of the great historical mysteries. Jesus' brother James is second to this mystery. All the data (when handled with common sense) points to his discontent with his brother. Then suddenly, in 1 Cor., Gal, and Acts, he is not only a follower but a great leader of the movement. Hallucination is easier in this case to account for since he at least knew Jesus intimately.

[Divine Insight]

I feel the need to remind everyone that in this thread the question is not whether Jesus was raised. The question is, what is the "BEST" natural explanation for Christianity's origins.

The "BEST" natural explanation is that the stories are fabricated and highly exaggerated rumors that evolved to become more complex over time. And we even see this being played out as the Gospels are written over the course of several decades, building upon previous rumors. Mark, Matthew, and Luke are basically the same rumor being re-told by three different authors, each one adding their own new rumors. Mark was even later updated to include some of the newer rumors that were added to the story much later.

Thus far I maintain

Thus far all you have done is demand that a bunch of unproven rumors be explained as if they had actually happened.

If they had actually happened then they would be true.

What are we going to do when we get to the part where God speaks from a cloud proclaiming that Jesus is his Son?

We either accept that this actually happened, or that it's a total fabrication.

I think the very "BEST" natural explanation is that it's a total fabrication.

There are extreme problems with trying to keep this religion afloat.

If we accept that God can easily speak to us from the clouds, and we accept that Jesus can easily appear to people like Paul, then there is absolutely no excuse for God and Jesus not to be appearing to each and every one of us. Especially to those of us who had requested as much. There is absolutely no excuse for Jesus to not have revealed himself to Mother Teresa to be sure.

The FACT that these deities don't reveal themselves pretty much seals the deal that these ancient fables are nothing more than overzealous rumors, created by either religious fanatics, or political activists who wanted to use religion to gain power and status. Or even more likely a little bit of both.

The motivations for telling religious lies are endless. We even see people desperately trying to defend or preach religions for as little motivation as a need for personal attention. That could have been Paul's entire motivation right there.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 28 by liamconnor]

1) Jesus was crucified and placed in a tomb: no plausible reason has been given as to why we should doubt this.

No-one here cares about this point - the execution and being placed in a tomb are not controversial, they don't violate any physical laws.

a non-disciple stole Jesus' body. That a disciple stole the body raises more problems than it solves and therefore, by Occam's law, should be set aside until we get really, REALLY desperate.

Why? Even in your own Gospels, it states that the last person to have the body was Joseph of Arimathea, who WAS a disciple of Jesus. If you're going to doubt that he was a disciple, or that someone else stole the body, then this means you're either doubting the Gospels you believe and defend so strongly (at which point, there's a certain H word I think applies to you) or you're going outside the Gospels, which is what I think you've been chastising the rest of us for doing (and again, this H word I'm thinking of).

That women visited the tomb on Sunday morn and found it empty. The notion that this was fabricated in an age when female testimony was held as invalid places the burden of proof on the other side.

The account of the women going to the tomb is suspect, in my opinion, because in the account, the women know that there is a great big rock covering the tomb, and they wonder to themselves where they'll find some men to roll it back. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, they would have known about the guards who were protecting the tomb.

The protest that all we have is Paul's word on this lacks historical imagination

Well...we do...I'm not aware of any other documents from any other authors that verify what Paul says in 1 Cor 15. I thought this was a thing historians were supposed to do, a thing called verification of multiple sources? So if one figure makes a claim about a large group of people, and no-one else mentions it, then that claim is not verified.
In 1 Cor 15, Paul says Jesus appeared to a large crowd of 500. He names no names for that crowd, gives no location or time, and if it had been true, that crowd of 500 would have told others, and someone somewhere along the line would have written it down. The silence that we do have is deafening.

The biggest puzzle of all is Paul's conversion. We have no reason as to why he should suffer an hallucination which went against everything he had stood for.

It's been mentioned to you before. He suffered an illness, possibly dehydration, which is doubly dangerous in a hot climate like where Jerusalem is. The account he gives (either his own or the one in Acts, I can't remember which right now) states he was carried to the home of a Christian who prayed over him. It's entirely plausible that in his delirium, Paul heard these prayers and this caused a radical change in his beliefs.