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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 27 by liamconnor]

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?

I have never said or implied that people stayed in their homes, isolated. What I think is that this new group, which called itself Christians, was so small at first, that no-one cared to investigate them, to try and prove them wrong. Yes, journeys could be taken, but what would be the point of someone travelling close to a thousand miles to investigate a new religion that has barely a few hundred followers? Especially in an age when religions and cults were all over the place?

The list was given once?

Re-read the passage again yourself. I said that Paul mentions this 500 number ONCE and only ONCE. In 1 Cor 15, he mentions a few names (Cephas, James, himself, the apostles) and most importantly, this 500 number (and of that crowd of 500, who are mentioned apart from the apostles, no names or locations are given). He may claim to have written/spoken about this before, but we don't have said documents, do we?

False. There have been no cases of collective hallucinations: two people hallucinating exactly the same thing, to the most minute detail.

How do you know this is a case of collective hallucination, correct down to the most minute detail? The Gospels were written decades after the fact.

[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�.

The word "conspiracy" implies the participant were actively propagating something they know to be false. My scenario doesn't fall into that category, as the people involve are genuine believers.

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

Doesn't matter what happened to the body, as it is not important to my scenario. It could be tossed in a mass grave as one would expect of a common criminal, or placed in a tomb as suggested by the narrative.

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).

It could be any of the 11 remaining disciple. All we need to accounted for is Peter and James being convinced.

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.

Doesn't need to be the same or simultaneous, just have to be Jesus related. That is if we are entertaining the idea of more than a single person having an hallucination. Alternatively, it doesn't have to be two separate instances of hallucinations that happens to be the same, but one mass hallucination, we have plenty of record for such things.

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

There are any number of possibility, all it needs to be, is convincing to the ones having said hallucination.

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?

That's easy to explain, some were merely mistaken, a minority had genuine hallucinations, 500 was an exaggeration in a game of "telephone." No need to invoke any conspiracy or ulterior motive. If you need a motive, it doesn't need to be any more complex than the desired to be believed, the desire to fit in.

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�?

Simple, because there were desperate to believe. See the existence of flat Earthers and creationists for what desperation can do. We are talking about individuals who dropped everything they did to follow one guy.

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.

Do you think the most devoted of said failed Jewish movements just gave up the moment their leader was dead? Let me suggest to you that the most devoted carry on believing and making excuse. What made Christianity different was Constantine the Great.

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?

Why do you think they had to lie? I've never suggested such a thing. The disciples truly believe they saw Jesus, as people still see Jesus today, without suffering from actual hallucinations.

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?

They was no conspiracy. He genuinely believed. He is either one of those who are mistaken, or one of those who had hallucinations.

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.

My theory doesn't require that at all. I have not implied such a thing. This is a perfect example of how easy it is to see what you want to see, without having any underlying psychological issue, it easily explain why a person can genuinely believe he has seen something without needing to explain it away as an hallucination.

That is unless you did have an hallucination of me saying they were dishonest.

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.

Sunstroke and/or exhaustion, Paul was in a stressed saturation when he had his visions.

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".

The mere existence of Scientologists converted from ex-Christians, should tell you otherwise.

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.

Science is how one goes about finding out what really happened. Historical inquiry needs to be a subset in the frame work of naturalism.

[Kenisaw]

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.

You must be joking. You want the best "naturalistic" explanation, and then in 5) you claim Paul "intimately" knew Jesus, via Jesus appearing to him after his death as a very unnaturalistic resurrected god? You've just violated your own conditions.

Your explanation requires a theft of a body, mass hallucinations, other separate hallucinations that fall in line with the previous hallucinations, a persecuter turned leader who is not persecuted himself, traveling hundreds of miles in the Bronze Age and finding hundreds of eyewitnesses to the hallucinations in a region with a million people.

My explanation is that Paul made it all up, and half the NT beads witness to the fact that he is the source of Christianity.

Which explanation is simpler? Case closed.

[PghPanther]

The best naturalistic explanation for all is simply this..

Embellished story telling through the confirmation bias of those whose desperation and/or vested interest to want this revelation it to be true.

Its nothing more than that.........no elaborate natural explanations are needed because they cannot be confirmed.

However, we know that embellishment to claims happen all the time for those who are followers of that.

It happens in Amway..........with UFO conventions........various cult followers of their leaders.........even sports stories among fans tend to exaggerate over time...........

....and so with ancient prescientific cultures on their claims as well.

So what is the big issue here?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 34 by PghPanther]

Imagine picking up a history book on Christian origins and reading your summary explanation!

Blanket statements (like yours) are easy and comfortable because they require almost zero intellectual energy and absolutely zero education in the particular field.

Since you have not dealt with any of the historical data, or anticipated the obvious problems that your blanket statement would yield, my hypothesis remains the "best" natural explanation, i.e. collective, widespread, uniform hallucination.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 33 by Kenisaw]

You must not be reading:

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.

I was clearly referring to James.

My explanation is that Paul made it all up, and half the NT beads witness to the fact that he is the source of Christianity.

Which explanation is simpler? Case closed.

Paul made what up? Why? How did it not get exposed? These are such easy questions it is alarming you don't anticipate them in your blanket statement. It is alarming that you throw out such an answer which not even the most liberal of historians would endorse. Bart Ehrman would laugh at such a suggestion.

So far, the best natural explanation remains: widespread, collective, uniform hallucination.


Case-closed, for now.

[Divine Insight]

Paul made what up? Why? How did it not get exposed? These are such easy questions it is alarming you don't anticipate them in your blanket statement. It is alarming that you throw out such an answer which not even the most liberal of historians would endorse. Bart Ehrman would laugh at such a suggestion.

Are you kidding?

Think about Islam and Muhammad writing the Qur'an and then flying off on a winged horse to heaven.

How did that not get exposed as just being baloney?

I don't think your arguments hold water.

Whatever excuse you come up with for Christianity must necessarily also hold for Islam.

You don't seem to even realize this.

Dismissing them both as nothing more than made up superstitious tales works equally well for both of them. So by explaining them as merely superstitious tales solves all problems leaving nothing unexplained.

You seem to be so focused on the religion of your choice that you have lost sight of the world at large.

How to you explain Islam?

You refuse to touch that question with a ten foot pole. If you claim that it's nothing but superstitious tales, then we're DONE. That very same explanation can just as easily apply to Christianity.

[Zzyzx]

.
What is the best naturalistic explanation for Paul Bunyan cutting so many trees?

1. He always ate a big breakfast
2. His ax was extra sharp
3. Logging regulations were lax back then
4. The trees he cut were small

Take your choice trying to show that he was not supernatural. In other words, I'll tell a story and you try to explain how it could happen naturally.



Or, might the best "naturalistic" explanation for tales of Paul Bunyan and of Jesus be that the stories are myth, legend, folklore -- perhaps with a kernel of truth somewhere but vastly exaggerated?

[Divine Insight]

Or, might the best "naturalistic" explanation for tales of Paul Bunyan and of Jesus be that the stories are myth, legend, folklore -- perhaps with a kernel of truth somewhere but vastly exaggerated?

That would be too easy. We'd be done with nothing more to debate. So in the spirit of debate let's take a look at your list.

What is the best naturalistic explanation for Paul Bunyan cutting so many trees?

1. He always ate a big breakfast
2. His ax was extra sharp
3. Logging regulations were lax back then
4. The trees he cut were small

I think #'s 2,3, and 4 are rational explanations. Number 1 probably not so much. If he ate a big breakfast that might actually slow him down.

Another possibility is that he was the inventor of the first chainsaw. He designed it to have the physical appearance of a large ax so others would not see the source of his magic. It was solar powered with an electric motor and made no noise so no one could hear it running.

Actually if we want to think of this in a historical context we can note that the first chainsaw ever invented was actually hand-operated with a crank like a hand-operated egg beater. A photo of the first chainsaw is shown below"



It was originally invented by a doctor in 1830 which was around the time when Paul Bunyan would have lived. This original chainsaw was designed to cut human bones during a medical operation. It's possible that Paul Bunyan met this doctor and copied this design. Being hand-cranked would also account for the silence of the chainsaw. You can also see from the photo that it wouldn't be all that difficult to redesign the path of the chain to make it appear as a large ax. This one already appears to almost look like a knife.

I think from this historical evidence we can safely conclude that Paul Bunyan was real and that his ax was actually a hand-powered chainsaw designed to look like an ax.

Mystery solved.

[Kenisaw]

liamconnor writes:

You must not be reading:

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.

I was clearly referring to James.

I apologize, I didn't realize you changed topics in the middle of a paragraph. It is standard practice in the English language to mention your topic at the beginning of a paragraph, and discuss that topic only. Your first sentence was that "The biggest puzzle of all is Paul's conversion." I knew you made comments about James, and then you write this: "Then suddenly, in 1 Cor., Gal, and Acts, he is not only a follower but a great leader of the movement." Since that comment can also apply to Paul, and the topic of the paragraph was Paul, common sense indicates that you were again talking about Paul. If you weren't that is fine, but I ask that you write clearer in the future.

My explanation is that Paul made it all up, and half the NT beads witness to the fact that he is the source of Christianity.

Which explanation is simpler? Case closed.

Paul made what up? Why? How did it not get exposed? These are such easy questions it is alarming you don't anticipate them in your blanket statement. It is alarming that you throw out such an answer which not even the most liberal of historians would endorse. Bart Ehrman would laugh at such a suggestion.

The answer to all three questions can be found in my original post. They are easy questions, and already addressed.

I'm curious how you personally know what Bart Ehrman would think of my suggestion. Has someone else made it previously and he commented on it? We already know Bart thinks the resurrection is made up nonsense. From How Jesus Became God: "“the whole story was in fact a legend, that is, the burial and discovery of an empty tomb were tales that later Christians invented to persuade others that the resurrection indeed happened.� AND “There are very serious reasons to doubt that Jesus was buried decently and that his tomb was discovered to be empty ... Faith is not historical knowledge, and historical knowledge is not faith.� Bart also agrees that Paul is the start of Christian documentation: "“The first Christian author we have is the Apostle Paul�. Bart also makes a statement in Jesus Before The Gospels that indicates that collective memory (like 500 witnesses for example) is easily morphed into a usable format for the present: “Collective memory, is essentially a reconstruction of the past that adapts the image of historical facts to the beliefs and spiritual needs of the present.�

It only makes sense that the Romans would want the Jews to believe in a quiet, peaceful god that says go ahead and pay your taxes. They certainly weren't going to think the emperor was a god, and they needed the Jews to have a focus of their own. As Bart states: “The time when Christianity arose, with its exalted claims about Jesus, was the same time when the emperor cult had started to move into full swing, with its exalted claims about the emperor. Christians were calling Jesus God directly on the heels of the Romans calling the emperor God.�

Bart Erhman seems to have little disagreement with my naturalistic explanation for Christianity, and he hasn't even read it yet...

So far, the best natural explanation remains: widespread, collective, uniform hallucination.

Case-closed, for now.

Obviously not. Widespread, collective, uniform hallucination that has to take place at multiple times in multiple locations? How anyone would think that makes more sense than a few people writing up a work of fiction is beyond me...