What to do with the Data?

[liamconnor]

Is there an 'easy' natural explanation for the origins of Christianity? I don't think so. Do we have any parallel in religion that incites online forums and debates and articles as pervasive as the topic of the resurrection?

Even skeptical scholars today are wary of passionately and exclusively defending one single natural explanation.. They typically tend not towards a concrete single explanation, but towards a more vague defense about comparative probabilities. That is, they don't explain the data: they just attack one explanation of it.

I think most here, if they think about it, will see it is true. After all, of the numerous members here only two, that I know of, have 'stuck to their guns'. Their explanations are: a) it is all a fabrication of Rome; b) Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea devised a complex scheme which required that Jesus manage to survive his crucifixion and deceive his disciples that he was alive.

These two have gotten no passionate supporters from their camp. No single member here has said, "Yes, this detailed explanation is an explanation that I think totally convincing."

Perhaps I am wrong. If there is anyone here (beyond the two implied) who thinks a very specific explanation covers it all, please voice your opinion.


Otherwise, I present what I think are the only positions facing an inquirer of the data--which is nothing more than that a group of Jews proclaimed that their crucified rabbis had been raised from the dead.


1) Devote oneself to a single natural explanation, to one that a person is completely persuaded by: no wishy-washiness. No, "maybe this happened, or maybe this". No. Do your research. Come to a Conclusion. Make it as descriptive as possible. No one respects a doctor who vacillates between a dozen possibilities, afterall. No, say, "I believe that x happened and nothing other than x, and here are all the details of x." Indeed, defend x against another natural explanation, y or z.


2) Maintain faith in the unknown. Sure, no natural explanation is, up to date, satisfying: that is, no one screams out "This is better than all other natural explanations; this puts them all to rest". But there must be one out there: after all, the event happened and there has to be a reason for it--if we could go back in time we could watch all of it happen and trace the origins. But we can't. So we wait for an explanation based on historical methodology.

[bluethread]

There are no definitive proofs of any event that occurred prior to one's own lifetime. Even then one can only add current scientific experimentation and one's own experience. Everything else is based on hearsay and reason, i.e. historical records, legal testimony and reasoning to construct a best guess theory. I believe in the great snow storm of 1968, because I experienced it personally. However, my children have to depend on printed accounts, video and audio recordings, my testimony and their judgement regarding the credibility of the information. Until someone invents a time machine, that is what we have to work with.