In recent posts, we've been discussing the difficulties inherent in defining and recognizing the miraculous. The skeptic usually approaches the issue with the set presupposition that miracles, however defined, are not possible. What the believer concludes is a miracle is in fact the product of limited knowledge or ignorance. The skeptic's "god" - science - will someday show how the miracle we assumed occurred was actually no such thing at all.This is a difficult topic to tackle in the abstract. If a miracle is defined as a departure from the known laws of nature, then it is easy to assert that with enough additional knowledge, we will be able to see that the event in question wasn't actually a departure after all.
The problem with abstract discussions is that they sometimes cause us to lose focus on the issue at hand. The issue, as it relates to Christianity, is whether a particular miracle occurred. Did Jesus of Nazareth - the historical figure most scholars acknowledge lived and was crucified some two thousand years ago - emerge from his tomb in a resurrected and incorruptible body? Countless believers have staked their lives - their eternities - on the answer to that question.
The skeptic already has his answer: since a dead man always stays dead, it is exceedingly improbable that this account could be true. The "probabilities" favor some naturalistic explanation - he didn't die, this was a myth, a product of hallucinations, etc. But approaching the issue in this fashion demonstrates an a priori rejection of the evidence that one is supposed to be considering. And relying on probabilities in making the assessment of whether a past event occurred is generally fallacious. A past event either occurred or it didn't; the probability of a known past event is one.
Consider: if I play the lottery, my chances of selecting the correct sequence of numbers is exceedingly small, on the order of one in many millions. The probability of my winning is extremely low. If my lottery ticket corresponds to the posted lottery results, then I have beat the odds. The event has now moved from one in the future, for which probability assessment applies, to one in the past, for which assessing whether it occurred based on probability makes no sense. Once I see that the numbers match, the argument "this can't have happened because million to one shots don't occur" would be inane.
Yet the skeptic does this all the time. Because resurrections are improbable, we must keep looking for more probable solutions, regardless of what the actual evidence tells us. In fact, many don't consider the evidence at all, having concluded that improbable results cannot occur. To use the lottery analogy, they never bother to look at the lottery results or their tickets because they are sure that they can never win.
A probability assessment of a past event does have some value. First, it may tell us whether an intelligent agent was at work in causing the result. If I keep winning the lottery, it may mean that someone is tipping me off about the numbers or altering their selection. If life on earth is statistically a one in a trillion-trillion-trillion event, it may be that an intelligent source created it and that it did not arise by naturalistic means. And if a man who claims to be God doesn't stay dead, it may mean that he is who he said he is. However "unlikely," if the evidence is adequate to support that the event occurred, dismissing it from our minds as "not possible" is less than rational.
Second, probability assessments may allow us to draw inferences about the way people acted. How probable is it that 500 people all experienced the same hallucination of the risen Jesus? How probable is it that dozens of people who knew the truth insisted on falsely claiming that they had experienced the risen Jesus so that they too could be put to death? Assessments as to probable behavior allow us to evaluate the legitimacy and likelihood of the claimed behavior. But probabilities can't tell us whether a past event actually occurred. For that we need to evaluate the actual evidence, fairly and completely.
The case for the Resurrection is compelling. Perhaps it is the product of wishful thinking, but my study of the facts tells me otherwise. Because of what is at stake, each of us needs to consider the case on its merits. Enough has been written about it that this can easily be done. What we shouldn't do is close our minds to the possibility without ever having considered the evidence.
Posts
36 comments:
You lost me during the lottery analogy.
We can and have confirmed that people win the lottery on a regular basis, and from this we mentally extrapolate rough probabilities of alleged winners of the lottery in the past.
We cannot do this for resurrections.
Therefore, although the resurrection of Jesus was possible (I disagree that skeptics say it wasn't), we have no basis upon which to say it was probable.
The Apostle Paul once said in defence of the resurrection... Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?
Let’s face it if the biblical God exists the resurrection of Jesus is very credible.
I think it’s fair to say that if the historical & circumstantial evidence for a charismatic preacher recovering after nearly dying through crucifixion was presented in a similar way to the gospel accounts, but without anything miraculous the vast majority of us who have any interest in ancient history would probably accept it as historical.
I know I’ve said it before, but the problem isn’t that the evidence is lacking, but the worldview of the unbeliever is lacking in the sense that it cannot stand on its own pre-supposition in the real world.
The Apostle Paul also said quoting a Greek poet... 'For in him we live and move and have our being.'
This is so true on different levels; it is true on the natural level... that is we have our physical being through God. But we also live through him and in our daily living we by our actions show God has to exist for if we say He doesn’t we really are deceiving ourselves.
I can hear the atheist say “no way... it’s the Christian who is deceiving himself”.
But let’s examine this... morality, freedom, human dignity, reason, knowledge, our memory, love and the uniformity of nature are all things we pre-suppose or take for granted, But the unbeliever cannot account for them as these values don’t make sense if one cosmic accident (the cosmos itself) gave rise to another accident (us). And in relating to each other as one chemical accident to another how can we account for how we live and think... how we can say there is no God.
Can the atheist logically account for any of the values mentioned above? The Christian is able and has no problem accounting for all these things in a logical & rational way.
The apostle Paul was right on this, both in the natural and the reality of the abstract we engage in everyday... we really do live and move and have our being through God.
Going back to the resurrection and after laying a foundation for God’s necessary existence we should therefore come to the conclusion... Why any of us would think it incredible or even unbelievable that God raises the dead?
To Geoffrey I say, we not only have every reason to say that the resurrection is probable, but also there's no rational reason to believe otherwise.
@Eddie,
Perhaps God exists, (which, for the sake of argument, may account for the natural phenomena that you brought up) and yet does no miracles.
When Jim tells us about the power of circumstantial evidence in his homicide cases, he's talking about a situation for which he proposes a natural hypothesis for an unsolved, natural murder.
He uses the (natural) laws of logic and reason, and builds a case using evidence to convict a (natural) suspect of the (natural) crime.
When scientists claim to have discovered a new phenomenon that significantly and fundamentally changes our understanding of life, biology, physics, etc., they usually have to show scientific confirmation.
Perhaps it's this lack of scientific confirmation of any resurrection (and any other miracle-type, for that matter) from at any time, especially the present, rather than a denial of logic and reason, that keeps the skeptic from assenting to the resurrection hypothesis.
Perhaps it's the abundance of scientific confirmation of the natural phenomena that were mentioned in the post by Al, which lead to many other examples of various religions, paranormalities, pseudosciences, etc. They have many similarities and differences alike.
Perhaps it's the context of religious, oppressed Jewish fervor and zeal in the 1st century that could see nothing but the sure and near physical Redemption of Israel by her God.
Perhaps it's the near dismantling of certain understandings of the God of the Torah by modern biology, geology, and biblical scholarship.
Perhaps, indeed I believe it so, that we don't know exactly what happened 2,000 years ago on that fateful day.
Perhaps it's only faith, rather than attempts to co-opt our natural methods of historical inquiry, that can justify a belief that the resurrection was probable.
Geoffrey:
The point of the lottery example is that a rare event in the past either occurred or it didn't occur. Saying that the event was not very probable does not diminish the strength of the evidence which indicates it occurred. Showing that the odds of winning the lottery were 1 in several million would be meaningless if you held the winning ticket in your hand.
Your later comment to Eddie highlights my point. In the abstract, it's always easy to come up with probabilistic "explanations." The Jewish messianic fervor of the 1st century, for example, sounds like a problem. It adds to the probability - I imagine you would say - that they created a myth. But the deeper you dig, the less sense that makes. The Jews were waiting for a warrior king, not a meek broken "man" who taught us to forgive our enemies. We know enough about the history of that period to know this.
Moving from the abstract to the specific is where the evidence can take you to a faith that, while not 100 percent "proven," is a reasonable one.
Geoffrey,
“Perhaps it's only faith” you know in the book of Hebrews it says “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” The Christians faith is not a type of wishful thinking, but is intrinsically linked to the certainty of things not seen.
Our faith is also built upon the evidence of Creation which we can see giving witness to the Creator. It is built upon the foundation of an historical event that many eye –witnesses have seen... that is the ressurected Jesus. And not only is it on the eye-witnesses, but millions who have come to experience the risen Christ in their own lives through His Spirit. You may say this is subjective, but is a radically changed life for the better not further verification of the words of Jesus himself. “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
The evidence of things seen and unseen, the physical,the spiritual and the abstract realities we all take for granted albeit logical or illogically. The historical and our experiential here and now point to something more than a cold meaningless cosmos.
The heart of man hungers for truth, his desire to look into things that are beyond what his eyes can see, the questions he asks.. Why am I here? What does it all mean? Is there anything beyond this life? Do I really have intrinsic worth; Is there a real purpose to my life?
These questions are not the result of atoms moving over time, a chemical accident born of another accident. These questions are rooted in the truth we are made in the image of God; God has made it plain to us on so many levels we not evolved from a mindless process.
Indeed another scripture says “God has put eternity into the hearts of man”, and indeed eternity awaits us all.
You are right in one sense Geoffrey in that it is only faith, it is only when you take the step of faith when you act upon all that you know... that is the evidence that points to God and Christ & in putting your trust in Jesus will you then really know for as the Lord Himself said “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free”.
God knows your heart and all our hearts and maybe you are still searching for the truth and maybe God is searching for you.
@Al,
I agree, the probability of a known event is 1. However, the strength of evidence is relative to the prior probability of an event. I think you have a higher prior probability for the resurrection than I do, in which case the evidence is strong enough for you.
I, on the other hand, see no basis for such a prior probability. I have given my reasons.
The Christians were waiting for a warrior king, as well. This expectation can be seen throughout the NT. Paul explained Jesus' resurrection as the firstfruits of the great resurrection which was, like Jesus' return, coming soon, near the end.
I wonder if Jim has any examples of modern circumstantial cases that pointed to a miracle, any miracle, that was later confirmed scientifically by direct evidence, etc. If so, at least then we'd have a proof of concept. We'd know the method has worked at least once when dealing with supernatural claims.
Perhaps then skeptics would start to take seriously the validity of this method regarding ancient miracle claims.
@Eddie,
Thanks for your response.
It seems that miracles are rare events when compared to the regularity & uniformity of nature or how we see things unfolding in our daily lives.
There are many miracles in the bible recorded through its pages, but don’t forget the bible’s timeframe spans thousands of years.
It would also seem that God at particular times thinks it fit to authenticate His message with miracles through His Prophets and Apostles. Two of the greatest events in history was the giving of the Law at Sinai and the coming of the Messiah and the further confirmation and authentication of His Messiah-ship given by the Apostles. At these particular times in history miracles are common and this makes sense as God would want to authenticate such pivotal events. There are also times when hundreds of years go by when miracles don’t appear to happen in the bible.
I believe miracles still happen today, but even if a miracle can be shown through say a doctor’s report and I believe many cases of this type of healing or cure can be shown, the unbeliever can still account this to mere chance or invoke the unknown as His worldview will very often over-ride the possibility of a miracle.
Geoffrey:
I too would agree that the "probability" of a resurrection is extremely low. That's what makes it a miracle, as no other naturalistic explanation can account for it.
The difference between our views is that I don't first require the resurrection to be a high probability event, nor do I need to compare the resurrection to other claimed miracles.
I start with the acknowledgement that miracles are possible, and that a Creator can easily accomplish one, since he has such immense power at his disposal. Having no other, rational explanations for the apostles' accounts and behavior, I accept that what they claimed occurred did occur. There are multiple inter-related reasons to support this.
What I'm trying to get across is that no amount of evidence will move you from skepticism as long as you begin with the conclusion that miracles are not possible.
The fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life is supposed to be extremely low. The probability that it actually happened is 1.
The low probability of the resurrection may be useful in explaining it's significance and arguing for some cause that is out of the ordinary, but the probability that it actually happened is based on the reliability of the sources.
In my opinion, these are two different issues as the existence if intelligent life is a good indication that extremely improbable things actually happen.
Sorry to butt in on the conversation, but I figured since we are all talking about probability, we should use Bayesian inference, which is the tool that ties all of this together.
Bayesian inference is something we all do naturally. It's the root of abductive reasoning. It's that "gut feeling" that Jim has been talking about in the recent podcasts when dealing with circumstantial evidence. It's what makes a cumulative circumstantial case convincing. It's based on the idea that "if A then B" does not imply "if B then A", but "B" happening does help your confidence that "A" happened if you weight it with the correct probability.
The example Jim used on the podcast recently is that, if you see someone walking in and they're wearing a raincoat, and the raincoat is wet, you can reasonably assume that it's raining outside. Note that you're not 100% certain. On the other hand, if you know it's raining outside, and you see someone walking in, you can know for certain they'll be wet (leaving aside various other occurrences such as they used an umbrella and ditched it right before walking in).
If "A" then "B" in this case is: if it's raining outside, and someone's standing outside without shelter, they are wet. The converse is not true: if someone is wet, it does not necessarily imply it's raining outside. But in the context of seeing them just walk into a store with a wet raincoat on, it's a reasonable assumption.
You can also think of Bayesian inference like this. The probability that something happened, given the evidence for it, is related to the probability that the event can explain the evidence. If we use the resurrection as the prime example, then the probability the resurrection happened given the evidence for it (the fact that Jesus was crucified, the fact that the apostles testified he was raised, the fact that they went to their death claiming this is true, the conversion of Paul and James, the empty tomb, etc.) is equal to the probability that, were Jesus raised, it would explain the evidence just outlined above, times the prior probability that Jesus was resurrected, divided by the prior probability that the evidence happened. If R is the event that Jesus was resurrected, and E is the evidence, the equation looks like:
P(R|E) = P(E|R)*P(R)/P(E)
So what's prior probability? It's the probability that something happened without any context. That is, without knowing any of the evidence for it. Geoffrey said the strength of evidence is relative to the prior probability of an event. But as we can see, the "prior" is the probability of an event before you take any of the evidence into account.
Al said the probability of an event after it happened is 1. But you should only make that assertion if you're sure it happened. Since we're talking about an historical event that we are not sure happened (we were not direct witnesses of it), we should consider something called "posterior probability", which is the probability something happened after you take the evidence for (or against) it into account. This is the left hand side of the equation (i.e., what's the probability that Jesus was raised given the evidence for it).
Anyway, without making this comment way, way too long such that no one read it, there is a systematic way of going about this that in fact takes into account the priors, and in particular, the prior that you think miracles happen. And if you consider all of the evidence, I think you'll find that the case for the resurrection is actually quite strong.
@Al,
I do not think miracles are impossible, and I do not first require the resurrection be of a high probability.
It's possible that a miracle happened and yet we're not justified in claiming that it did.
As I said before, "proof of concept" would at least give us justification for using circumstantial evidence to attempt to prove a miracle.
Without it, I think we're jumping beyond the limits of the evidence and into the realm of faith.
Hi Geoffrey,
Just looking at your last comment... I believe nearly everyone believes in miracles. The atheist and agnostic has to account for everything, either God created everything or nothing created everything either way it really is a miracle.
To get even more specific God created life or nothing created life.. Again I think everyone believes in miracles of one kind or another.
I think you are asking the wrong question for what is "proof of concept"... we have a Creation or Universe to account for, we have life in its various forms that is so mind blowing in its complexity we really do have a miracle on our hands!
As scripture says in Roms. 1“Everyone is without excuse” not to believe in the Creator. And if the Creator exists (which He does)& to repeat the Apostles Paul’s statement. “Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?”
As Jim said in an article recently... “When is enough really enough?
@Eddie,
1. Atheists and agnostics do not have to account for everything.
2. I do not claim that nothing created everything.
3. The "Proof of concept" I'm talking about has nothing to do with cosmology or biological complexity. It has to do with whether or not it's valid to attempt to prove beyond reasonable doubt a miracle using circumstantial evidence.
Geoffrey,
My point is that all of us don't have many options about why everything exists and the reason for the way it exists.
We can really only call it a miracle even if the unbeliever won't, the apostle Paul is right in insisting that "Everyone is without excuse"
My follow-up point is and taking into account my first point too is that circumstantial evidence is a valid way to come to a sure conclusion if there is enough evidence. If it points to a miracle why should we still say if we can't tell if a miracle has occurred? For if the biblical God exists (and He does) there is really no logical reason to exclude the miracle.
The real "Proof of concept" is both that God has to exists because of Creation (amongst other things) and circumstantial evidence itself overwhelmingly points to the resurrection.
So really when is enough proof
or evidence really enough?
@Eddie,
I'll say it again, "Perhaps God exists, (which, for the sake of argument, may account for the natural phenomena that you brought up) and yet does no miracles."
How do you know that circumstantial evidence is enough to prove a miracle?
Geoffrey, as I said already there is no logical reason to say the miracle of the ressurection did not occur if the circumstantial evidence is strong enough.. if circumstanial evidence is strong enough to convict a murderer for example, then why is circumstanial evidence questioned as a good means to establish the ressurection?.
It seems a pre-suppostion that excludes or questions God's exsistence is the stumbling block in your arguement.
@Eddie,
There's no logical reason to say that circumstantial evidence doesn't work to prove natural conclusions.
It's possible that it does work for supernatural conclusions, too.
However, how do you know it does work to prove supernatural conclusions? (We KNOW it works for natural conclusions)
This burden is yours, my friend.
Geoffrey,
You’re missing my point, why would circumstantial evidence not work for the supernatural as well as the natural. If God exists both the supernatural and the natural exist.
The events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus include supernatural events apart from the resurrection itself with eye-witness testimony, e.g. His Ascension, The miracle fish catch on the sea of Galilee in the interval between the resurrection and the miraculous baptism of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost in Jerusalem, the transformation of the Apostles and there witness to the resurrection with God working miracles through them.
If God wants to glorify His Son to humanity, He will and has given a great amount of circumstantial evidence not just for the resurrection, but through the many miraculous events surrounding it.
You really are circumventing the obvious conclusion of all this evidence, for looking at all the circumstantial evidence for the resurrection and then to question the use of circumstantial evidence does not make sense.
If God raised Jesus from the dead we would expect such a great amount of natural and supernatural circumstantial evidence and that’s exactly what we see.
This is not a burden, but a delight to me as I thank God for His wonderful work in the resurrection of His Son so clearly proclaimed to the world.
@Eddie,
I haven't missed your point, I'm asking you to back it up.
By "burden" I meant to invoke your duty as the one stating positive claims.
Please, prove your claim that circumstantial evidence can be used to prove miracles.
That is my request.
Geoffrey,
The circumstantial evidence both natural and supernatural surrounding the resurrection is valid.
Or would you simply dismiss this evidence as irrelevant? And if not then it still stands as circumstantial evidence.
I could pick other illustrations of circumstantial evidence proving miracles, but to be honest the resurrection is to me the best example of circumstantial evidence to prove the miraculous work of God.
I know what you meant by “burden” and I respond by saying defending the resurrection is a delight as I can’t see how anyone could rationally say I need another example to prove circumstantial evidence works for miracles.
It’s also a delight to me as the more I think about the resurrection and all that surrounds it the more I appreciate and am thankful to the One who rose from the dead for our justification...
Sorry to butt in again, since it seems this conversation is taking place mostly between Eddie and Geoffrey, but it seems like the argument can be cleared up by taking the Bayesian inference approach I was advocating earlier.
It seems to me that if you use this tool in reasoning, there's actually no difference between direct and circumstantial evidence, only differences in how strong a piece of evidence argues for a position. Direct evidence argues very strongly for a position; circumstantial not quite as strongly. There's also no difference between a miracle or a natural cause. The only question is how strongly does the evidence support a particular event?
That's the good thing about Bayesian inference. It doesn't matter what kind of data you are talking about (it could be eyewitness testimony, DNA evidence, historical evidence, quantitative measurements of something, etc) as long as you can estimate the probability, and often, all you have to do is estimate the probability to an order of magnitude. It also doesn't matter what kind of event, or "model" you are testing. It just has to be able to account for the data (or not, if it's a bad model, and then you reject it).
In the case of the resurrection, I showed that the right equation is:
P(R|E) = P(E|R)*P(R)/P(E)
If we can assign good probabilities to these terms, then it doesn't matter that the evidence is "circumstantial" or "direct", whether the event in question is a "miracle" or "natural". All that matters is whether the evidence supports the model, especially to the exclusion of the competing model (which is that the resurrection did not happen). This is the correct, quantitative way to think about it.
So, what's P(R) (the prior that Jesus was resurrected)? Since it's a miracle, you can say it's very, very low (by the way, this is very conservative. I could argue that this prior is actually quite high, maybe as high as 0.333). Let's say there's no other case for any other resurrection in the history of the earth. Then this prior is about one out of a trillion (about how many humans have ever lived).
OK, so what's the prior that the evidence happened? Well, what kind of evidence are we talking about? For now, let's only take the well-documented fact that Peter, Paul, and James went willingly to their death without recanting their faith, all the while claiming to be eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection. This prior (as any other) can be split into two parts. How well does the resurrection explain their behavior, and how well does "not the resurrection" explain their behavior? In other words:
P(E) = P(E|R)*P(R) + P(E|~R)*P(~R).
We've already seen P(R) is very low, so P(~R) = 1 almost. If in fact, Jesus was resurrected, it does explain the evidence very well, so P(E|R) is high, let's say 0.5.
So what's P(E|~R)? What are the chances that a man would willingly die for something he knew to be a lie? I would say very, very low. Maybe even as low as one out of a million. Think of it this way. Ohio State football fills up 100,000 people in that stadium. How many of them would willingly die for something they knew to be a lie? I would say zero. How many times would you have to fill up that stadium before you found someone like that? I would say more than ten times. No one gives up their life for something they know to be a lie.
But three men (more, actually, but we're considering only three here) did just that. Thus, P(E|~R) is super-low, more like one in a billion billion (i.e., a million cubed).
Anyway, you can plug all of these numbers in and see that P(R|E) is very, very close to one. In other words, when you take the evidence for the resurrection properly into account, it's very, very likely, even though miracles like the resurrection are improbable.
No need to be sorry Greg, and feel free to jump in anytime.
The probability of a resurrection is very low even approaching nil if God does not exist.
However if the biblical God does exist He would also have the power to raise someone from the dead if He so choose to. And if the evidence surrounding the resurrection clearly points to Jesus been raised from the dead. Then Jesus has been raised.
You have been making use of a type of formal logic and we know logic is binding on all of us to be able to reason correctly with each other.
But as I’ve stated in other blogs, the unbeliever is standing on the Christian worldview to make his case using logic, reason etc...
For if we are evolved through a mindless process how we can really know things. How can we agree that there are correct ways of reasoning that everyone should agree on?
I don’t want to go too far off topic, but all of us take for granted or pre-suppose reason, knowledge, our memory, uniformity of nature... which is really in contradiction to the atheist worldview, but consistent with the Christian worldview.
Furthermore Creation itself bears witness to its Creator and mankind bears witness to God as image bearers of God otherwise morality doesn’t make sense.
Therefore God has to exist, but to say He doesn’t one must delude himself because he continues to live as though God does exist.
Therefore there is no logical and rational reason to doubt the resurrection oof Jesus especially with so much great evidence for it.
Eddie,
"The probability of a resurrection is very low even approaching nil if God does not exist. However if the biblical God does exist He would also have the power to raise someone from the dead if He so choose to. And if the evidence surrounding the resurrection clearly points to Jesus been raised from the dead. Then Jesus has been raised."
I totally hear ya. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. That's why I said P(R) might actually be more like 0.333. The reason why I say this is because you can split that prior up just like I split up P(E):
P(R) = P(R|G)*P(G) + P(R|~G)*P(~G),
where P(G) is the probability that the God of the bible exists. In this case, P(R|G) = 1 and P(R|~G) is that one-in-a-trilllion number I was talking about, "approaching nil" as you said. In this case, you essentially find that the prior probability of the resurrection happening is equal to the prior that the God of the bible exists. The best estimate I have for that is to take the fraction of the world's population that believes in Christianity, which is essentially a third.
If you use this as your prior for the resurrection happening, then there is no question: it happened, because there is so much evidence for it.
"I don’t want to go too far off topic, but all of us take for granted or pre-suppose reason, knowledge, our memory, uniformity of nature... which is really in contradiction to the atheist worldview, but consistent with the Christian worldview."
I completely agree. Why would there even exist things such as logic, mathematics, physical laws, and other abstractions if the physical universe was all there is? Why would the universe be coherent at all if it were random and meaningless? How could we trust our own thoughts if they came from a process that was thoughtless?
But I agree, this is quite off-topic. Maybe a PCM blogger will post some thoughts about this?
@Eddie,
"The circumstantial evidence both natural and supernatural surrounding the resurrection is valid. "
So nonchalantly do you claim it, Eddie, as if it's so obvious.
Sorry, but since you, after several requests, have not proven it, I am assuming you are not able to, and that you take it on faith.
@Greg,
The death of 3 ancient people proves a miracle to near 100% certainty?
I'd be looking for calculation errors, if I were you.
For example, who's claiming the disciples lied, and that they were killed specifically for that lie? Jews (Jesus-believers and non-Jesus-believers) were being killed by the thousands. It was a common occurrence.
However, the death of 3 in particular prove a miracle to near 100% certainty?
I got some land in Florida for sale... :)
Geoffrey,
Haha, I understand your incredulity. After all, it seems like quite a leap to go from three people dying to the certainty of a miracle.
So let's examine the caveats to what I was saying. First, you said that I should check my calculations. I assure you, my calculations are sound, but what I may want to step back and take a look at are the probability numbers I've come up with. You can definitely dispute them. In particular, what's the prior probability of a miracle? What's the prior probability that the God of the bible exists? And what is the probability that someone would die for something they knew to be a lie? If I am waaaay wrong on some of those, it definitely will change my conclusions.
But also keep in mind that I considered only a very, very small slice of the historical evidence for the resurrection. There's also the 500+ other eyewitnesses to the event, the conversion of Paul, the conversion of James, and the empty tomb, just to name a few. I didn't consider any of these evidences in the P(E) term.
You can also dispute that these three men even died for their beliefs. That is another historical event that is under question. But, if you'd like to be long and involved enough about it, you can do Bayesian inference on that too. And keep in mind that the vast majority of critical scholars believe these men did in fact die for their beliefs. (That fact also potentially also answers your most recent question to Eddie, about whether the circumstantial evidence is valid, if I understand your question to him.)
Also, I am not talking about just any three people, and I am not talking about just any old way of dying. Yes, you are right that many Jews and Christians were being killed. But these three (and more) in particular claimed to be eyewitnesses of Jesus's resurrection, and would know if they were not telling the truth about that matter. They went to their deaths specifically because of this claim. If they knew they were making it up, they would not have died for it.
So you asked, "who's claiming the disciples lied, and that they were killed specifically for that lie?" I am not claiming that, nor am I saying you are claiming that, but the term P(E|~R) is asking that question. That's the alternative model, which goes into the calculation of the prior P(E). What's the probability that these disciples would be claiming they saw the risen Jesus and died for that claim given that he did not rise? My assertion is that probability would be very, very low. If you do not agree, I am definitely open to hearing what you think that probability would be.
So I guess you disagree that the prior P(R) = 0.333 (or even one in a trillion) and P(E|~R) = 1 in a billion billion. What would you estimate these to be?
But finally, this is not a question about whether or not miracles happen. As you can see, you can assign a low probability to a miracle and still see that it is highly probable given enough evidence. Also, proof of concept isn't necessary: Bayesian inference is a powerful tool that can take into account diverse types of data, even if there are no other examples of an event happening. It's all about how strong is your case after you consider the evidence, properly weighted by the prior probabilities.
Ok Geoffrey,
Since you are insisting that the resurrection is unknowable with the evidence we possess, aren’t you also cutting yourself from the possibility of knowing true life through Christ if you are wrong?
Are you really content to go through life in a state of uncertainty?, instead of stepping out in faith on the knowledge you have asking Jesus to be your saviour.
Should you insist on your own standard for certainty or do you think it's not wiser to come to God on His terms allowing the possibility that He exist?
Greg,
Just thinking about the Bayesian inference you have been talking about. And also listening to Jim make some good points on this in the last podcast; it is now starting to stir my curiosity to know more.
Can you provide a good web-link
that goes into this in more detail?
I don't normally go into laws of logic for two reasons...
1. I think we can lose people in technical arguments and jargon.
2. I struggle to understand some forms of formal logic myself.
However I do think it is a valid argument in the defence of the Christian worldview.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks Eddie
Eddie,
Sorry that I don't really have any good weblinks for you that generally teach formal laws of logic and probability. I did find one that discusses some simple aspects of Bayesian inference (see below).
I agree that using formal arguments like that can confuse and get people lost in the technicalities. But I was just trying to present the evidence in an alternative, more formalized way, for those of us who like to think that way...like me!
As for Bayesian inference, you really just need to know a couple of things. First, you need to know the definition of conditional probability:
P(A|B) = P(A & B)/P(B)
Second, you need to know that the probability of an event plus the probability of "not that event" is equal to one.
After knowing those two things, all you really need to do is practice with a few examples (see p 13-17 here), and you'll get a feel for it. Wikipedia also has a good explanation.
It's really just asking the question how well does the model explain the data? And the answer is related to how likely is the data to have happened if the model were true?
Good luck!
Greg,
Thanks a million, I've downloaded this and I'll give it a bit of study.
I think it's kinda neat to able to articulate a good logical argument in mathematical form.
Eddie
@Greg,
Yes, I meant your calculations of the probabilities that you inserted into Bayes' Theorem.
Paul CLAIMS there were 500 witnesses, but this doesn't make them real.
Neither I, nor scholars, will dispute that the disciples believed the resurrection. People will die for crazy beliefs. But the point about their martyrdom seems weak unless they were given the choice to "recant the resurrection of Jesus or die." Do the majority of scholars believe THAT?
Lots of Jews were dying "for their beliefs." This weakens the uniqueness of the disciples martyrdom, even if they DID face a "recant-or-die" situation.
"these three ... claimed to be eyewitnesses of Jesus's resurrection, and would know if they were not telling the truth about that matter."
Yes, Paul and Peter believed they saw Jesus. What about James? He doesn't claim to be an eyewitness. Paul claims he was, but that makes it hearsay. Same with the gospels.
Visions and memory-contamination, in the context of oppression and messianic fervor, is a good enough explanation for me. People have mistaken beliefs all the time.
That point about them "making it up" is a straw man. Who are you arguing against?
"the term P(E|~R) is asking that question." I don't know of ANYBODY who disbelieves the resurrection that claims the disciples "lied and made it up." Even if one of them DID lie, people come to truly believe their own lies. It would not be THAT big of a deal.
"What's the probability that these disciples would be claiming they saw the risen Jesus and died for that claim given that he did not rise?"
I'm not convinced that they were given a "recant-or-die" choice. Also, I think the fact that many Jews were being killed significantly increases the probability that the disciples would die, even if they were put in a recant-or-die situation, because if they recanted they would have had a good chance of being killed ANYWAY.
Also, Licona's point about a "context charged with religious significance" (I'm pretty sure you know whom I'm talking about) seems to INCREASE the probability that people would develop mistaken beliefs, and even die for them, due to their compromised mental dispositions. Persecutions, zealots, oppression, civil wars among Jews, etc. This was NOT an environment for clear thinking.
The disciples thought Jesus was coming back soon, and that therefore the world would end. Other Jews thought the Messiah was coming soon, too. This messianic fervor increased the Jewish willingness to be martyred.
I think you're on to something about "proof of concept." Bayes can perhaps help us see the probability that Jesus came back to life. However, I think it doesn't speak to the cause of it. Perhaps that is the limit of probabilistic analyses, because probabilities about God doing this or that are unknown, IMO.
I think that the background information of all our scientific confirmation of cognitive biases, mistaken reasoning, hallucinations, memory contamination, disconfirmation of alleged prophecy, scribal embellishments, later authorship of the (anonymous) gospels, few eyewitnesses (we know of many ALLEGED eyewitnesses, i.e. those told to us by third-parties) the mistaken belief that Jesus/Messiah was coming back soon and that the world was ending, affects our input-probabilities.
I'm not sure about the empty tomb. Apologists always say it's a fact. It's based on hearsay, too. Much of the evidence is, which DECREASES the probability that it's legit (as you know, Bayes' can take this into account, though).
I wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing some key criticisms. A Bayesian expert would probably have a better idea.
Thoughts?
@Eddie,
True life is to seek truth. I've already got it.
@Eddie,
... "It" being a truth-seeking way of life.
Geoffrey,
I'm sorry that this blog comment thread has become an ancient dinosaur by now, but I've been swamped with the first week of classes where I teach. (It always settles down a bit after that.)
With all of the deep criticisms you raised, I don't think the comment page on this blog post is the best forum to discuss. I wonder if you'd be interested in discussing further over email? If you click on my name at the top of the comments, you can find my email address and send me an email. I'm interested in seeing how deep this goes.
Take care,
Greg
Post a Comment