"'...if we could show that there was in fact a Jesus Christ who did in fact rise from his tomb, he may have been in a coma, not dead.'"
-Poul Anderson, The Day Of Their Return IN Anderson, Captain Flandry: Defender Of The Terran Empire (Riverdale, NY, 2010), pp. 74-238 AT 16, p. 199.
Ivar Frederiksen is surprised at such sophisticated conversation from an isolated, impoverished desert dweller, then realizes that:
no one with access to electronic communications is isolated;
this individual possibly studied at the University of Nova Roma;
living apart in a special style does not make anyone either ignorant or stupid.
I agree with the Commander. If I hear that someone has died, then see him alive, I conclude not that he has risen from the dead but that the report of his death was mistaken. David Hume argued that, in our experience, people often err or lie but never rise from the dead; therefore, it is always more probable that a report of a resurrection is false. Someone who lost consciousness after three hours of impalement, then was placed in a tomb, might have revived in the tomb. But did the tomb burial occur? See Evidence For The Resurrection.
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Except, of course, that Christians believe Christ TRULY died on the Cross, was truly buried, and truly rose from the dead. David Hume was refusing to at least consider the possibility that was what happened. And the least we can conclude from evidence given by the Shroud of Turin is that something very strange happened with the body of Christ.
Sean
Sean,
Hume considered the possibility but concluded that it was less probable than fraud or error.
Paul.
That's an extrapolation of Occam's Razor: avoid the multiplication of hypotheses. The simpler of two explanations which accounts for the same set of facts is to be preferred.
Another basic principle is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".
If a boy tells his mother he saw their neighbor, Mrs Smith, on the street, there is no reason to doubt him. If he says he saw the Queen, he is very probably mistaken.
Kaor, Paul!
Except Christianity bases its faith on the Resurrection of Christ. Given that, everything else can be accepted. And the Shroud of Turin and the miraculous cures recorded at Lourdes is also evidence. Both point towards events which the skeptical POV cannot answer.
Sean
Sean,
Granted that apparent miracles are prima facie evidence for supernatural interventions. However, you alternate between presentations of evidence and mere statements of faith. Hume's argument is that, in our experience, men often err or lie but are never resurrected. Therefore, fraud or error are always more likely explanations of an alleged historical resurrection. It is more likely that the boy is mistaken than that he saw the Queen on the street. It is more likely that an unidentified flying object is an atmospheric phenomenon than that that it is an extraterrestrial spaceship that has crossed an interstellar distance and that is merely flying by Earth rather than landing and making contact.
IF we accept the Resurrection, then other things may follow from it but it is that acceptance that is being questioned.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I find that "questioning" of the Resurrection of Christ difficult to take seriously when skeptics seem so unable to come to grips with things like the cures at Lourdes reluctantly admitted by the Lourdes Medical Board as having no known scientific explanation. A board often staffed by extreme skeptics and atheists.
Anderson's story "A Chapter of Revelation" is applicable to such a discussion. I recall it being mentioned that a subtle miracle like either the Resurrection or transubstantiation had become un understandable by a spiritually impoverished age. So much so that only something crude and huge like stopping the rotation of the Earth, without damage, for 24 hours could "get thru" to mankind. Similarly, I think that is one reason God sometimes grants miracles at Lourdes--as a means of getting thru to men that there is more to life and existence than blind chance and nothingness.
Sean
Sean,
But cures at Lourdes don't prove the Resurrection. "No known scientific explanation" just means that we don't know yet. That is true of many phenomena.
I gave my assessment of "Evidence For The Resurrection" on the Religion and Philosophy blog.
Paul.
Sean,
An Evangelical told me that the cures at Lourdes were diabolical, to mislead people. There are some very nasty forms of Christianity.
Paul.
Sean,
We are obliged to "question" the Resurrection. It would be wrong to accept such a claim without question.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Oh, I agree, some Evangelical Protestants or even types of Protestants sects are very unpleasant, putting it mildly. But of course you would agree some Evangelical Protestants are kind and decent persons.
Truth to say, I can't help but wonder if some Protestants are ENVIOUS of the Catholic Church, from fairly minor things like stately and dignified rites to cures at shrines like Lourdes. If God shows His power and beneficence alike at Lourdes, that seems to undercut Protestant claims.
But if at least a hundred or more cures has been grudgingly certified as having no known cause at CATHOLIC shrines like Lourdes, administered by a Church which believes in Christ's resurrection, that seems to indicate the same Power which raised Christ is to be found at Lourdes or other shrines.
You can, of course, question the Resurrection, but if the preponderance of argument and evidence at least possibly favors it, then it's reasonable to at least consider accepting the answers proposed by Christianity.
Sean
Sean,
It is reasonable to consider. I practice a path but never claim that it alone is the last word on ultimate matters.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Good, "consider" is the most people like me can ask for.
Sean
Post a Comment