Does the Resurrection Require Extraordinary
Evidence?
I recently was invited to a meeting where several Christians were
discussing the existence of God and the reasons they hold to
Christianity with a group of atheists and agnostics. Eventually, the
point about Jesus' resurrection was raised. When this issue was
brought up, one of the skeptics said, "this is an extraordinary
claim and it requires extraordinary evidence."
Now, I'm not sure how it follows that extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence. In fact, when you think about it,
most extraordinary advances in human knowledge came without
extraordinary evidence, but merely the supporting testimony of
others who were eyewitnesses to the achievement. When Admiral Peary
was the first to cross the North Pole or Sir Edmund Hillary scaled
Mt. Everest, these were reported in newspapers all around the globe,
but what was the evidence offered? Eyewitness testimony.
Now, granted, these kinds of achievements are somewhat different
from the claim of the resurrection because they're repeatable -
others have gone on to duplicate them. But my point is that when
they were accomplished the first time, no one asked for evidence
above and beyond the testimony of those who accompanied these men.
That type of evidence was sufficient.
Another difference, though, may be in the fact that one could
argue that while those achievements are remarkable, it is
nonetheless conceivable that someone could accomplish them.
All the facets for so doing (the strength, planning, etc.) already
exist within humanity. Something like the resurrection, however, is
on a vastly different plane - it's something never before seen in
history. Well, let's look at another investigation that would also
be on a vastly different plane, the search for intelligent life in
outer space.
The existence of life on other planets is a very controversial
topic. There exists good research by scientists who have looked at
the number of factors required for any life to exist have noted how
incredibly balanced all things must be for living things to survive.1
Therefore, they highly doubt that intelligent life could exist elsewhere in the
universe. However, there are other real scientists who are right now
engaged in the search of extraterrestrial life. The project is
called SETI and is funded largely by NASA and the National Science
Foundation.
If you ever saw the movie Contact, starring Jodie Foster, you
would be familiar with the SETI project. SETI stands for the Search
for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, and these scientists aren't just
looking for life, but intelligent life - aliens
who can communicate with us. If they were to claim that they've
found intelligent alien life, it would be an extraordinary claim.
So, how do they hope to prove that such life exists? Do they seek
some extraordinary evidence, such as a flying saucer or to display
the creature in front of the world? No, they simply point giant
radio dishes to the heavens and listen for signals. In the movie
Contact, the signal was something as banal as a set of blips in the
sequence of prime numbers. This is not "extraordinary
evidence". The scientists are simply looking for a signal that
cannot be considered random - signals that hold information and
therefore imply an intelligent mind. This is very standard evidence;
the same type archaeologists look for when trying to understand
ancient cultures.
The reason the SETI scientists are looking for
information-bearing signals in outer space is because the
explanation for the existence of that signal can only be intelligent
life. I guess one may surmise that a group of natural events could
happen simultaneously to generate a signal that produces the first
ten prime numbers or something like that, but that does not strike
me as a reasonable explanation. For one thing, it's too ad hoc. In
other words, it's so unlikely and contrived that it seems to be
forced and not the way we see the world really work.
When trying to understand the historic claim that the resurrection of
Jesus really happened, we must look to see if we have good evidence
for it. Much like the SETI project, if the only workable explanation
for that evidence points to a resurrection, then we are reasonable
in believing that the resurrection did occur. It's not required for
us to have "extraordinary evidence", but reliable evidence
where the resurrection fits all the facts better than any other. If a competing theory is
offered that also fits all the facts, then it should also be considered
and both explanations should be weighed to see which is more likely.
I believe that we have such facts in the historical accounts of
Jesus' resurrection. We have strong reasons to believe Jesus was
crucified and was buried, that His tomb was empty, skeptics James and
Paul were coverted, and the unwavering belief of the Apostles that they were
eyewitnesses to the risen Christ. According to Dr. Gary Habermas,
these are well-established historical facts accepted nearly
universally by both liberal and conservative scholars.2
The question then becomes, what is the best explanation to fit these
facts? Perhaps Jesus really did not rise from the dead - but then
how do you explain the empty tomb? How do you explain the conversion
of Paul from a zealous Jew and church persecutor to the biggest
proselytizer the Christian church had?
Just as SETI, these evidence we have is not extraordinary in
itself, but it is extraordinary in the fact that it leads to only
one conclusion - that a man really did rise from the dead 2000 years
ago and proved it by showing himself not only to His followers, but
to His persecutors as well. There is no other explanation that fits
the facts.
What do you think about this subject? Does something like the
resurrection need a different type of evidence than other events of
history? Let me know at newsletters@comereason.org. Until next time,
God bless.
.
|
