Introductory Chapter on the Resurrection
Sample Chapter on my Forthcoming Book on the Resurrection
This is the introductory chapter for my forthcoming book Resurrection: Extraordinary Evidence for an Extraordinary Claim. The final version has received a few tweaks since then. But I hope this gives a taste of what I plan to cover.
**************************************************************************
Any author of a new book on the resurrection must justify why another? This book focuses on the most popular atheist response to Jesus’ resurrection, ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.’ Most Christian responses bypass Carl Sagan’s slogan. This can often lead to deadlock between atheists and Christians. I aim to address Sagan and David Hume head-on and argue evidence for the resurrection meets their criteria.
Another motivation is my background in psychology. The most popular naturalistic explanations are based on psychological phenomena (e.g., bereavement hallucinations, “mass hysteria”, cognitive dissonance, the unreliability of memory). Christians have often unnecessarily conceded this ground to sceptics. In contrast, I shall argue psychological data challenges these naturalistic explanations.
Naturalism and Christianity
A long history, and deeply engrained assumptions, can make it difficult for Christians and naturalists to understand each other. Continued debate on the resurrection testifies to the impact of Christianity on our world. As historian, Tom Holland, points out: ‘To live in a Western country is to live in a society still utterly saturated by Christian concepts and assumptions . . . its trace elements are to be found everywhere in the West.’
Growing up in a non-religious family, Christian concepts were both familiar and alien to me. I took it for granted the triumph of Christianity led to ‘an age of superstition and credulity.’ I was unaware of repeating a familiar narrative of Western history; forged in earlier culture wars. Charles Taylor, a Canadian philosopher, called them “subtraction stories.” James KA Smith summarises:
Once upon a time, as these subtraction stories rehearse it, we believed in spirits and fairies and gods and demons. But as we become rational, and especially as we marshalled naturalist explanations for what we used to attribute to spirits and forces, the world became progressively disenchanted. Religion and belief withered with scientific exorcism of superstition.
My path to Christianity began by reading Luke’s gospel, given by my flatmate at that time, who also wrote the foreword to this book! We both became Christians at University College London, the ‘Godless Institution of Gower Street’, founded in 1826 as an atheist alternative to Oxford and Cambridge. Like many of us, the contrasting stories of Christianity and naturalism have shaped me:
…our age is haunted. On the one hand, we live under a brass heaven, ensconced in immanence. We live in the twilight of both gods and idols. But their ghosts have refused to depart, and every once in a while we might be surprised to find ourselves tempted by belief. . .most of us live in this cross-pressured space, where both our agnosticism and our devotion are mutually haunting. (James KA Smith)
A naturalist illustration of miracle claims
I will use an example by Arif Ahmed, a philosophy professor at the University of Cambridge, to illustrate how testimonies about miracles are viewed through a subtraction lens. Imagine you are measuring the temperature of water in a bucket:
● You have five thermometers
● Each independently states the temperature is 10C (50F)
● The water feels a little cold to the touch
We all agree the water is 10C. How about if all five thermometers independently testify the water is 30C (86F)? You might expect the water to feel a little warmer but be willing to give the thermometers the benefit of the doubt. But what if these readings are 600C (1112F), yet the water is not boiling, and in a liquid state?
- We know water boils at temperatures over 100C
- No one has ever observed water not boiling at that temperature
- We have observed thermometers that malfunction
The more plausible hypothesis is that all five thermometers are not working properly. We believe with substantial justification there are important regularities in our universe (in this case, the boiling point of water). Evidence from five thermometers is insufficient to overturn our belief in these regularities.
Worldview and evidence
Ahmed applies similar reasoning to Jesus’ resurrection. We know dead people do not rise from the dead, we also know people lie and are often mistaken. So when a group of people claim to see a resurrected man, we can conclude they were either mistaken or lying.
If that is all the information we have, then Ahmed is correct. The key question is not whether there are laws of nature (reflected in the dying process, the states of matter, the boiling point of water). Christians and naturalists agree our universe displays profound regularities which make science possible.
The question is whether we can take these resurrection accounts out of their original context and place them into subtraction stories from seventeenth to nineteenth century Europe. From this perspective, Jesus’ resurrection is one of many tales from a bygone era, where people needed religion to explain reality. We now have science which shows dead people do not rise from the dead. Therefore, in Ahmed’s words, the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection ‘is not worth a second look.’
This subtraction story is probably the dominant alternative to Christianity in the West. Yet there are thousands of other worldviews. Am I going to consider them all? Of course not! But I do not intend to dismiss them all either. A key challenge is to propose a manageable number of categories that are as comprehensive as possible. I will seek to view the evidence for the resurrection through these worldviews:
This book will argue we cannot view the resurrection accounts in isolation. We cannot understand these New Testament claims, without first grappling with who Jesus claimed to be, what he said, and what he did. Nor can we separate these events from Israel’s story revealed over millennia. For Christians, Jesus’ resurrection is evidence that he is God’s king and judge: ‘For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.’ (Acts 17:31, NIV)
Plan for the book
Part one provides a broad framework for viewing Jesus’ resurrection from a Christian perspective and a range of other views. Naturalism receives a particular focus, given that naturalists have been prominent critics of the resurrection (particularly in the West).
Part two sets out the Christian story of creation and fall. The triune God, a relational God from all eternity, creates a world where he will dwell with his people. Humans made in God’s image, can (at least partially) understand our complex world. Yet we are fallen, prone to error, bias, and evil. In contrast, I will look at key alternative perspectives on the existence of the universe, the success of science, and the problem of evil.
Part three is on the ‘prior’ historical evidence. I look at how the theology of the Hebrew Bible, and the circumstances of Jesus life, are consistent with Jesus’ resurrection and ascension. After considering this context, Part four focuses specifically on the resurrection accounts. Part five considers some of the main naturalistic explanations for these events. Part six summarises the model comparing accounts of Jesus’ resurrection.
Although the argument is built up consecutively, each part is self-contained enough to dip in and out of sections. I have several kinds of reader in mind when writing. I expect the primary audience will be seminary students, pastors, and those with an interest in philosophy and apologetics. But I also hope the book is sufficiently accessible to serious-minded Christians.
Some may want to understand better why atheist friends consider the evidence for the resurrection insufficient. The first two parts of the book, outlining the Bayesian approach and the likelihood of naturalism, will be a good place to start. For others, you may have friends who have no doubts there is a God. Yet it is inconceivable to them the Messiah is God or could suffer. The first and third parts of the book are most relevant. Others may want to explore the evidence for the resurrection as an argument for Christian theism, in this case Part six is most relevant.
Some readers may want a refresher on the evidence. Parts four and five summarise evidence for the resurrection and the best responses to naturalistic explanations. It is also important to note this is not only a book for Christians. I have met many non-Christians who are well-informed about the Bible and theology. Perhaps you are curious why Christians believe in the resurrection?
