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?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

DI

Your explanations are broad and vague and lack "historical imagination". It boggles my mind that you cannot, or will not, look through your own theory and challenge it.

In my philosophy classes I was required to criticize the arguments of Plato, or Aristotle, or whomever. That was easy. The next task was where real critical thinking occurred: "how might they respond to your criticism?" That was precisely where I learned the difference between subjective and objective thinking.

Your arguments are void of the latter and it makes it very difficult to take you seriously as a mature thinker.

"Religious Fanatics". Who? Why? What? some basic questions.

[Divine Insight]

"Religious Fanatics". Who? Why? What? some basic questions.

Fine.

Please explain to me your natural explanation for how Islam came to be without suggesting that anyone was being a "Religious Fanatic" or making things up.

After you have done this, then I can have a better idea of how you believe these types of questions should be dealt with.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

These stories do not constitute reliable "data" of any kind.

DI.........i grow tired. Really, really tired. You and I need to come to some terms soon; otherwise I simply cannot read your replies.

Here is one more try:

We have documents pertaining to Christianity's origins (i.e. data).

An historian wants to explain its origins.

He will either give a naturalistic explanation, or a supernatural one.

Even within a naturalistic explanation, he (as an historian) cannot just throw in ANY EXPLANATION he wants. It has to be REASONABLE. He cannot say that ALIENS took the body and brainwashed the disciples, because we have no hints in the data (i.e. documents) that this occurred. He cannot be irrationally skeptical and accuse Paul of lying unless he accounts for 1) motive 2) success (why was the lie not detected?) and any number of questions. He cannot just say that the body was moved to Galilee without accounting for the obvious questions: 1) who took the body? 2) why didn't anyone protest against the alleged resurrection if they knew the corpse was buried in Galilee?

This is how COMMON SENSE works in historical inquiry.

You also need to be consistent. You have just said that the crucified were thrown into the garbage; earlier you said that the body of Jesus was brought to a tomb where it was doused in aloe and from there transported to Galilee. Which is it?

In short, you are flailing. All you "know" is that the dead don't rise; when an historical question is raised you throw out any, ANY answer. That is not how an historian operates, theist or atheist.

If you do not care about HISTORICAL INQUIRY and are satisfied with your skepticism, fine. But if you are going to engage in historical threads, then THINK LIKE AN HISTORIAN.

[liamconnor]

[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.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]


Naturalistic: 1. Imitating or producing the effect or appearance of nature. 2. Of or in accordance with the doctrines of naturalism.

Naturalism: Factual or realistic representation, especially: a. The practice of describing precisely the actual circumstances of human life in literature. b. The practice of reproducing subjects as precisely as possible in the visual arts.

In accordance with nature (or imitation thereof), factual, realistic, actual circumstances of human life in literature . . . Okay, let's continue.

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:

Where would an honest thinker who does his homework find authentic “historical data points�?

An honest thinker who does his homework would acknowledge that ALL of the information below comes from a single source – a book (anthology) compiled by churchmen with vested interest in promoting a certain religious perspective – and that NONE of it can be verified by disconnected sources of information.

As a thinking person he would realize that depending on a single unverifiable source is NOT assurance that reports are reliable, truthful, or accurate.

Jesus was crucified and buried in a tomb

A thinking person would consult other sources to verify the account. If corroboration is not available, it would be rational to consider the matter possible but not confirmed and/or provisionally accept awaiting further evidence.

The body of Jesus was stolen by a non-disciple sometime between Friday evening and Sunday morning; that is, during the Sabbath.

There is no way to know what happened to the body (or if it was actually missing). That is just part of the tale.

Sunday morn the tomb was discovered vacant by women disciples

So say tales told by religion promoters whose identity is unknown to or disputed by scholars and theologians. The writers, whoever they may have been, wrote decades or generations after the claimed event – and cannot be shown to have had personal knowledge.

Thus, a thinking person would recognize that the story may well be folklore, legend, myth rather than factual reporting of actual events.

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

Again, the thinking person would be aware that there is no assurance that tales told about what individuals did are truthful and accurate.

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.

The thinking person would realize they know very little about the lives and preaching of the storied twelve apostles / disciples.

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.

Copies of copies of copies of writings by Paul/Saul and by Luke (whoever he was) claim that Paul/Saul persecuted people of the Jesus Movement – and that Paul/Saul had a “vision� in which he “met� the deceased Jesus (and supposedly saw “heaven�)

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

I submit that the best “naturalistic explanations� (in keeping with nature) is that after Jesus was executed (assuming he was) his followers told stories that were told and retold countless times before being recorded in writing (original documents are not available). Since oral tradition and folklore are known to be prone to exaggeration and embellishment – and since the events cannot be corroborated by disconnected information sources – it is prudent to consider the tales as questionable at best.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 15 by Zzyzx]

I though you and I have already come to an understanding: you don't care about historical methodology.

My OPs are about historical methodology.

I really don't understand why you continue to contribute to these threads. I fully grant that according to your criteria we can't know anything about Jesus. I simply think your criteria is ridiculous--designed by you to relieve you of assessing the historical data. A plethora of historians across the spectrum of theological persuasion will agree with me. You are Z contra mundum in the mundum of history. You are in the minority.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 7 by liamconnor]

The naturalistic explanation I have presented involves widespread hallucination.

Do you think that is a good/plausible explanation or not?

Yes. I say this because this isn't the only time it has happened.
1) The Three and the Eight Witnesses signed their names to documents swearing that they, respectively, saw an angel or Joseph Smith handling the golden plates when he was translating them into the Book of Mormon. Yet you yourself do not believe them. That must be because you believe this group of people to be mistaken in some way.
2) This fellow, Menachem Mendel Schneerson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_ ... Schneerson was an influential Jewish rabbi. After his death, he was claimed to be the Messiah, and to still be present. Indeed, at religious gatherings of his followers, he is claimed by these followers to still be sitting in his chair - not unlike Jesus's followers who claimed he had risen from the dead and still existed. Despite the fact that both you and I could go see this chair today, his followers will happily say to you he is still there.

[rikuoamero]

[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.

Not believe...account for it the exact same way you are attempting to account for Christianity. If you are consistent, you will end up agreeing with the Muslims when they saw Muhammed did all sorts of wonderful and miraculous things.
I say this because you would be using the one account (the Quran) just like you are using the Bible, and because you don't even allow for the possibility that the person(s) who wrote the Quran/Bible might have been telling porkies.

[Zzyzx]

.

I though you and I have already come to an understanding: you don't care about historical methodology.

My OPs are about historical methodology.

Then they do not belong in the Christianity and Apologetics sub-forum. Perhaps General Chat would be more appropriate.

1. We are debating Christianity, pro and con, for and against, not debating with the assumption that Christianity is true. Please realize that people on the forum are from all worldview backgrounds and do not necessarily share the same assumptions.

2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true. However, using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate.

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

5. Please avoid "preaching" and using the forum as simply a way to blast people with the gospel message. This is a debating forum, not a convenient place to overtly proselytize.

6. Realize that most participants here are strong debaters and have a vast knowledge of Christianity and the Bible (including non-theists). If you make any claims, be ready to support your claims with evidence if asked. Non-Biblical evidence would go far among non-theists.

7. For debates purely on theology with the assumption that the Bible is an authoritative source, please consider posting in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum.

Bold added

I really don't understand why you continue to contribute to these threads.

What you do not understand about others is of no consequence in debate.

Honorable debate focuses on issues NOT persons.

I fully grant that according to your criteria we can't know anything about Jesus.

More accurately stated, “We can know little or nothing about Jesus except what is told in stories about him by followers decades or generations after he died. There is no known way to determine if the stories are truthful and accurate.�

I simply think your criteria is ridiculous--

Opinion noted. What you or anyone thinks of my criteria is NOT a matter for debate.

designed by you to relieve you of assessing the historical data.

What historical DATA is to be assessed? Ancient myths, legends, folklore? Unverifiable stories told by religion promoters? Is that what constitutes “historical data�?

A plethora of historians across the spectrum of theological persuasion will agree with me.

Does the “plethora of historians across the spectrum of theological persuasion� agree that long-dead bodies come back to life? That virgins give birth? That the Earth stopped rotating? That a star stopped over a given location? That donkeys and snakes converse in human language?

You are Z contra mundum in the mundum of history.

Correction: I do not defy or oppose everyone – primarily those who attempt to claim knowledge of supernatural events – and those who claim that the Bible is authentic and accurate historical accounts of events.

You are in the minority.

That does not trouble me in the least. I do not follow the herd.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

I have a simpler explanation.

1) Jesus was crucified.
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.
3) Collectively they developed a rough narrative, based on the work of Jesus when he was alive.
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.
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.
6) The rough narrative above was then developed further in the years and decade after the crucifixion, as the Jesus movement grew.