I got this question and dashed off a
hasty-and-probably-porous (as in 'filled with holes')
reply...smile... but some of the ideas are probably worth
mentioning--even though I cannot defend them in detail here.
Hello!
First of all, thanks for taking your
time writing all the stuff on your website. Currently I am a
young agnostic and thus analyzing arguments from both sides.
Your works are my number 1 source when it comes to Bible
itself :) Anyhow, I'd like to ask 2 questions:
I've been reading some books of
Richard Carrier recently (who is very anti-resurrection) and
he raised an objection that we cannot possibly take God
seriously, since there existed much better ways to confirm the
resurrection, other than what we have currently, like painting
"Jesus lives" on the moon's surface or writing the Gospel in
the stars at night. Indeed there seems to be some logic to it.
William Lane Craig once responded to this argument by saying
that God values or reliationship with him more than just
acknowledgement of his existence, but this doesn't seem to
refute Carrier's argument that well. After all, if God created
a fool-proof method that would confirm his existence to
everyone then everyone could focus their entire energy on
knowing him better. Of course I am no expert, but what do you
think?
I wrote a brief response, basically on
the sub-topic of confirmation of the resurrection, and not on
confirmation of the existence of God, so it is not a direct
answer to the question. But here it is:
.....................
............................
Thanks for your email, friend—and for
your honest and good questions—keep
asking/thinking/evaluating!
And, if you will accept a ‘short
answer’ version for the above, I will dash one off—you
probably already KNOW that it normally takes years to get the
detailed responses I like (and that most people need) done…
so, you may find issues with these short answers, but perhaps
they will give you something EARLIER (smile) to start with…
You reference Richard Carrier's writings, and although I
respect, enjoy, and learn from his writings, I have not
delved into whichever one(s) you are referring to. So this
little article should not be understood as some kind of
response or answer to Richard's work on the subject, but
merely some comments occasioned
by the two images mentioned (i.e. writing on the moon
or in the sky).
So, with that caveat—see my brief
comments below…
A couple of things come to mind here:
First, I had
some remarks on this issue at http://christianthinktank.com/sh6end.html (which
might be more helpful than these in the email). I make some
comments about why God would prefer to use
‘spectacular/supernatural’ means of evidence on only a small
group (i.e. the disciples), and then use normal interpersonal
means to ‘spread that’. (This is not the same as Craig’s
argument, but still involves the notion of what God might WANT
TO accomplish through the knowledge of the resurrections). I
also go into the 'why does God not give us more proof?' at http://christianthinktank.com/adam01.html .
Secondly, I just
read a parable/story from the gospels (for another Tank
article I am working on) in which Jesus made an interesting
statement:
““There
was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen
and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate
lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who
longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich
man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores.
22 The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to
be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. 23
In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and
saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. 24 He
called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send
Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my
tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’ 25 But Abraham
said, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you
received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil
things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in
agony. 26 Besides all this, between you and us a great
chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass
from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from
there to us.’ 27 He said, ‘Then, father, I beg you to send
him to my father’s house—28 for I have five brothers—that
he may warn them, so that they will not also come into
this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham replied, ‘They
have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to
them.’ 30 He said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if someone
goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He
said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the
prophets, neither will they be convinced even if
someone rises from the dead.’”
Jesus makes the statement that
‘extra-ordinary evidence’ (proof of the resurrection) would be
ineffective if the response to ‘ordinary evidence’ (Moses and
the Prophets) had been one of positive rejection. This, I
might add, is NOT a case of agnosticism per
se, but rather of positive rejection (“not
listen to”). The story is a vivid one with both Greek and
Hebrew colorful images, but the point at the end is still
clear—and I have seen it in action a number of times myself.
Jesus’ statement would mostly be limited to those who had
access to scriptural revelation, rather than to simple
‘general’ revelation in nature and in conscience. But I
certainly believe that supernatural confirmation of the
resurrection would not be accepted by everyone. Even Richard
himself would possibly (and maybe even 'justifiably') say that
we would have no reason to believe that GOD ‘wrote’ that—and
that just because we could not come up with a better
explanation of how ‘Jesus lives’ had been written on the Moon,
that we would not be justified thereby in believing that God
did it (since that might be even more improbable—a problem of
infinite regress). If I were him, I could simply plead
‘insufficient data’ or ‘alien tampering’ or something OTHER
than the theistic explanation. (Of course, I would do the
same. If the message “I did NOT raise Jesus from the dead,
people” was written on the Moon every night, I would be
‘strongly inclined’ to attribute it to malicious spiritual
beings or aliens trying to mess with my mind. So, the door
swings both ways—sigh/smile).
Third. I don’t
think I can easily agree with a statement that there ‘ clearly
existed much better ways to confirm the resurrection’, nor
with the assumption that God would somehow be obligated to use
such methods anyway. Writing the gospel in the stars or ‘Jesus
lives’ on the moon (in over 2000 human languages—talk about
graffiti!) would not reach the illiterate (the vast, vast
majority of people in the ancient and modern world!)—and if
the illiterate depended on someone who COULD read to tell them
what it said, then we are right back to trusting the testimony
of others (like the NT model!). See what I mean? It is not
obvious to me that the way God chose to do this—have a diverse
group of common, non-religious people hang out with Jesus for
3 years (and therefore be able to recognize Him and relate to
Him from a previous relationship) and then experience Him in
multiple settings and in multiple events (all common,
tangible, non-visionary)—is not
the best way (or an 'adequately good way') to ‘anchor’ this
evidence, before spreading this knowledge to others with
shared culture. It is not at all clear to me what a ‘better
way’ would look like, nor how to ‘measure’ that it was truly
‘better’—given what God was/is trying to accomplish in the
knowledge of that resurrection.
And the assumption that God would be
‘obligated’ to use an allegedly ‘better’ method is
philosophically flawed in itself. This type of argument (“A
true God would be required to do X”) has failed in the Logical
Problem of Evil (“An all-good and all-powerful God would not
allow evil to exist”)—e.g., see my summary under Observation
One, under Methodological Criterion One in http://christianthinktank.com/gr5part1.html .
Additionally, it faces the
philosophical problem of ‘supererogation’ – from Swinburne's Is There a God?:
“To
fail
to fulfil your obligations is always an overall bad act, but
obligations are limited. God can easily, and in virtue of his
perfect goodness will easily, fulfil all his obligations. But
there is no limit to the possible acts of supererogatory
goodness which a person can do except any limit arising from
his or her powers. We humans have limited powers; and can do
only a few limited supererogatory good acts. I can give my
savings to one charity, but then I will be unable to give
anything to another charity. If I devote my life to caring for
one group of children in England, I shall be unable to care
for another group of children in a distant land. Gods powers,
however, are unlimited. But even God, we have seen, cannot do
the logically impossible. And
it is logically impossible to do every possible
supererogatory good act. It is good that God
should create persons, including human persons. But, however
many he creates, it would be even better if he created more
(perhaps well spaced out in an infinitely large universe). Given that human life is in
general a good thing, the more of it the better. God
cannot create the best of all possible worlds, for there
can be no such world—any world can be improved by adding
more persons to it, and no doubt in plenty of other ways
as well. So what does God's perfect goodness
amount to? Not that he does all possible good acts—that is not
logically possible. Presumably that he fulfils his
obligations, does no bad acts, and performs very many good
acts. “
So, philosophically speaking, the
‘obligation’ assumed in certain versions/understandings of
this position (like the one ascribed to Richard in the email)
needs more work, before it can be taken as binding... [Of
course, someone may have already done this, but I am only
responding to the surface-statement in your email.]
Fourth, there is
something to be said about the ‘event-nature’ of the
revelation, over against an always-on message. We humans tend
to block out ‘background’ data, if we are exposed to it
constantly. It is commonplace to not be able to remember the
billboards you see every day on the drive to work, after the
first few weeks of the commute. Writing something on the Moon
would quickly fade from our attention—except for the
few. (This comment, of course, would only apply to
constant messages—like the two you mentioned of Carrier’s—and
not to other types of episodic or event-timed messages, I
suppose). But you get the idea—if the message does not come
‘wrapped’ in something ‘deep’ and ‘incisive’ and ‘thought
provoking’, it will cease to be even noticed…
And, lastly
(for now—this short brief note), there is an element of
‘incongruity’ between something so ‘weird’ or ‘impersonal’ and
the noble-yet-humble heart of God. Let me try to evoke my
'feeling' or 'sense' here by an extreme example: if God
created those cheap blinking neon lights on every building at
night all over the world—saying ‘Jesus lives’—I am not sure
what kind of ‘idea of God’ that might create in my head. There
(for me at least) would be such a clash between the gentle and
quiet heart of God and the garish, artificial, flashy medium
that I would get the wrong idea of what God was like. Or if
God miraculously sent a text message "Jesus was Raised from
the Dead" to every smartphone on the planet each morning, I am
not sure how that would condition my initial 'image' of such a
deity--nor if it would even entice me to seek Him out.
If, on the other hand, I heard of the
resurrection through a person whose life had been transformed
through an encounter with the Risen Jesus (even if mediated
through many intermediate encounters—like we have to
experience today) into a life of gentleness, quietness, and
love—then THAT would be congruent and THAT might help me form
a better ‘starter image’ of God.
I added
this additional comment a day or two after writing the above:
Just a few more comments…
I wanted to
recognize that my BRIEF comments I made earlier are not
without vulnerabilities. They were just some early thoughts on
the matter. I can easily argue Richard’s position against
mine—especially on the basis of coverage (e.g. something
written on the moon or the sky would be seen by many more
people than something spread by word of mouth or written
page), but it still would not be easy to defend it as ‘clearly
better’--that would require much more definition and defense.
The problem with anything written like that, of course, is
with the content
and context of the
words. How in the world would someone who looked at the moon
know what/who “Jesus” referred to, or what the significance of
“Lives” would be (e.g. they would have to know many, many
facts about the Jesus story before that would have any impact:
that Jesus was dead once, that he came back to life, that this
had some importance for the viewer, what to do next, etc). We would need a much
larger moon, which would have an adverse effect on the tides
(LOL)...So, even though the way God apparently CHOSE to do it
can be attacked on many grounds, I remain skeptical that such
an alternative scenario would fare any better.
But the most obvious alternative (to
ME) is one that is suggested to just about EVERYBODY
(Christian or not) from reading the biblical accounts: Why
did Jesus not at least show Himself to His enemies before
ascending to heaven (rather than just to His
friends/disciples)??? [Other than the case of
Saul/Paul, of course]
In fact, the apostle Peter makes this
exact point in one of his sermons:
“As
for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news
of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all),
37 you yourselves know what happened throughout all
Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John
proclaimed: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth
with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing
good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for
God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses of all that
he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem.
They put him to death by hanging him on a tree,
40 but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear,
41 not to all the people but to us who had been
chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and
drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he
commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that
he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living
and the dead. 43 To him all the prophets bear witness
that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of
sins through his name.” (Ac 10:36–43).
But this exclusivity
was about qualification of the witnesses, and
doesn’t really bear on the question of ‘evidence’ though:
“V.
39
points out that Peter (and by implication the other apostles)
was witness to what he accomplished in Judea and Jerusalem,
and so could personally vouch for the truth of these remarks
about Jesus. V. 39b echoes Deut. 21:23—“cursed be everyone who
hangs upon a tree.” Even Jesus’ death is seen as a fulfillment
of Scripture, and thus as a part of God’s divine plan for
human salvation. This seemingly horrible conclusion to Jesus’
life was reversed by God, for “this very one God raised on the
third day” and permitted to be seen, not by everyone, but, as
v. 41 puts it, by those who were his chosen witnesses.
Peter here is emphasizing his and the Twelve’s
qualifications for proclaiming such a message (cf. Acts
1:21–22). To be one of the Twelve one must have witnessed
Jesus’ ministry from the baptism through the resurrection
appearances; in other words, one must have comprehensively
followed and seen Jesus’ ministry. The proof
that Jesus was really alive beyond death was that he even ate
and drank with his followers after the resurrection.”
[Witherington III, B. (1998). The Acts of the Apostles : A
socio-rhetorical commentary (358). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co.]
When I think about this, I realize that
this COULD have been an ‘evidence’ problem IF JESUS HAD NOT
DONE ANY PUBLIC MIRACLES BEFORE His resurrection. If I
went around proclaiming that some deceased friend of mine (say
a local farmer or computer consultant) had risen from the dead
and only appeared to ME, I would not be that credible.
But if this farmer/consultant had done
scores of miracles and healed 100s (if not 1000s) of local
people, then my claim might be taken seriously by my fellow
residents. And, if there were a group of us who saw him (and
had dinner with him), it might be even more admissible.
So, what this might mean (from the way
Peter stated this) is that by only revealing the GREATEST
Miracle to the apostolic band (while the general
populace—including enemies—had seen His divine power in
constant action for 3 years), Jesus explicitly REJECTED the
Jewish religious leadership of the day, and ‘reversed the
status’ of those two groups. Those who were SUPPOSED to
witness to the power and goodness of Israel’s God (the
Sanhedrin) rejected that responsibility, and so the
religiously-marginalized (the common-folk apostles) were
exalted by God to take their place as witnesses to God’s
redemptive act. The resurrection had been predicted, of
course—even to the enemies some—and His statement at His trial
that He was coming again as Judge of the world would imply
such a thing anyway.
So, I think that the mix of many-public-miracles (in
front of friends, enemies, and the undecided) and a small-group-only
resurrection miracle is defensible. [It is interesting that
the enemies never seemed to deny the miracles of Jesus or His
followers, according to the only records we have (both
biblical and extra-biblical):
So
the
chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and
said, “What are we to do? For
this man performs many signs. 48 If we let him go on
like this, everyone will believe in him, and the
Romans will come and take away both our place and our
nation.” 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high
priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all.
50 Nor do you understand that it is better for you that
one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation
should perish.”
(Jn 11:47–50).
When
the large crowd of the Jews learned that Jesus was there,
they came, not only on account of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised
from the dead. 10 So the chief priests made plans to put
Lazarus to death as well, 11 because on
account of him many of the Jews were going away and
believing in Jesus. (Jn 12:9–11).
13 Now
when
they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that
they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And
they recognized that they had been with Jesus. 14 But
seeing the man who was healed standing beside them, they had
nothing to say in opposition. 15 But when they had
commanded them to leave the council, they conferred with one
another, 16 saying, “What shall we do with these men? For that a notable sign has
been performed through them is evident to all the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it.
17 But in order that it may spread no further
among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to
anyone in this name.” (Ac
4:13–17).
Now
he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had
gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled.
15 But some of them
said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of
demons,” 16 while others, to test him, kept
seeking from him a sign from heaven. 17 But he, knowing
their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against
itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls.
18 And if Satan also is divided against himself, how
will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons
by Beelzebul. 19 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul,
by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be
your judges. 20 But if it is by the finger of God that
I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
(Lk 11:14–20).
So, miraculous data does not always
have the evidential force it probably SHOULD have (although
miracles CAN be ambiguous in origin, I admit).
Anyway, I did want to add those remarks
to the previous reply ... Thanks—later--glenn