More on the Resurrection Tale
January 27, 2001
Dan, you seem quite willing to persist in your challenge to me (to disprove the resurrection). However, nowhere in either of your two e-mail messages to me, dated 24 and 25 January respectively, do you even acknowledge that my comprehensive response to your initial message to me included two challenges to you.
To refresh your memory, those two challenges were:
Since you neither acknowledge nor meet these challenges, I take it that you are not interested in taking either one on, or that you simply cannot meet them. As a philosopher, I have trained myself to note what is missing as well as to consider what is there.
Additionally, you seem oblivious to the fact that today's Christian believers have NO evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead (all we have are the evidences that some people believed this happen, and the claims that it happened, but neither of these by themselves or in tandem constitute evidence for the proposal in question). This means that no one can prove that the resurrection took place as suggested in the gospel accounts and in Paul's writings (I Cor. 15). The only thing that apologists can appeal to is the Bible's recorded accounts (indeed, you write "
Because there are multiple accounts of the resurrection."), but this begs the question entirely because it is the alleged truth of these accounts which apologists are called to prove!Furthermore, given these insurmountable facts, I find it odd that you do not seem to realize that one is not called upon to prove a negative. If you cannot prove the truth of the proposal in question (i.e., that Jesus in fact rose from the dead), then why should anyone bother with trying to disprove this claim? You do not explain why anywhere why I should. You merely restate that your "faith is logical," which just begs the question.
Other problems which you seem reluctant or unable to deal with in your response include our discussion on the laws of nature and their basis, the axioms of existence and identity. You write:
On a side note, you're very confident in your law of identity. now, that makes sense, but who knows. nothing is absolute. You could be living in a bubble, all sensations somehow pumped into your brain. silly? sure. But possible. you've doubtless dreamed before, and most likely done some ludricously impossible thing in a dream. maybe you've flown, or maybe you've stood on the ceiling, but most of us have had sojmesuch thing happen. and you've also probably thought a dream was real before. it's highly unlikely, but it _is_ possible. nothing is absolute. I'm not 100% sure that i'm right, but I believe because my faith seems most logical.
Now examine this honestly, Dan. Consider what you say. TWICE you say, "Nothing is absolute." Is the statement "nothing is absolute" absolutely true? If this statement is absolutely true, then it is a contradiction. If this statement is not absolutely true, then why should one accept it absolutely?
But the problems generated by your statements go far beyond self-referential contradictions like this. Consider your overall strategy here. For one, you fail to name one witness to the resurrection (my challenge #2 above). There goes all appeals to eyewitnesses. If today's apologists claim that the presence of anonymous eyewitnesses proves the resurrection, then they have no proof, for this very event which Paul says is the fulcrum of Christian faith (I Cor. 15:13-14) does not have a single witness!
Then, you acknowledge that my appeal to the law of identity "makes sense," but go on to say, "who knows?" You invent a few arbitrary scenarios which only fail to bring the law of identity into dispute. Indeed, we need the law of identity to make sense of these scenarios to begin with! You say "you could be living in a bubble," but "in a bubble" as opposed to what? In order for this to have meaning, we must know what we mean by 'bubble', which means 'bubble' must have identity.
Similarly, you suggest that all this could be a "dream." But "dream" as opposed to what? Non-dreaming, right? Well, what does this mean? It means in order for this scenario even to make sense, we must have the concept "dream" and something in reality against which "dream" can be contrasted. Which means: "dream" must have identity in order for any of this to make sense.
Remember what I wrote in my first response to you. In my examination of the supposed validity of the notion 'miracle', I wrote:
I reject the 'miraculous' (and therefore claims which posit miracle events) not only because it is literally nonsense, but because it contradicts what we do know about reality, that existence exists independent of consciousness, that A is A, regardless of who accepts it, likes it, rejects it or is angered by it. So on firm philosophical grounds, contrary to the appeasing posture assumed by non-Objectivist atheologists, I reject the entire notion of 'miracle' when it is intended to refer to some kind of supernatural interruption of the laws of nature. And as an Objectivist, I do this on grounds which every theist must assume even to take issue with me on this matter.
LOOK AT MY LAST SENTENCE: "And as an Objectivist, I do this on grounds which every theist must assume even to take issue with me on this matter." And your (arbitrary) scenarios above indeed confirm this, for not only do your scenarios fail to challenge the validity of the law of identity, they indeed make no sense without the presupposition of the law of identity.
But what is your intention with these scenarios? Exactly this: Since you most probably do recognize that you have no means of proving the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, you turn to attack the points which I have put forward which soundly solidify my rejection of the notion 'miracle' to begin with. You likely recognize that one needs the validity of the notion 'miracle' in tact in order to accept the claim that Jesus rose from the dead as truth. And, because of this, you likely realize that, if I provide grounds upon which to reject the supposed validity of the notion 'miracle', you need to dispel the grounds of my rejection of 'miracle' before you can proceed with your apology for the supposed resurrection of Jesus.
Consequently, when faced with these hurdles, you next turn your attention to attacking my confidence in my mind and in the laws of nature! This is inevitable in all apologetic encounters: If the non-believer does not succumb willingly, attempt to destroy his confidence in his mind and his grasp of reality. This can only mean that apologists want mental zombies to fill their church pews!
To put it briefly:
Indeed, we would need the law of identity even to make sense of the idea "Jesus rose from the dead," but now you want to attack the non-believer's confidence in this factual law! In philosophy, this is called a performative inconsistency, for the performance of your argumentation is inconsistent with the aims of your arguments.
Now why do you want to do this? What will this all accomplish?
Perhaps you should read my essay
Dear Apologist.You also write:
WIth this whole natural laws thing, I think we'll have a conflict mostly here. Just a guess. Now then, clearly, you and I seem to exist. even if we are some goldfish's dream, let's act as though we exist. It's the only thing we have to go on. So, you say "Existence exists". A logical statement. We certainly seem to exist. Nothing comes from nothing however. You can turn that around on me when I tell you that "God exists". where'd God come from? He always was. something was around forever, you say it's the universe, I say it's God. I see no trememendous difference in reasoning so far.
You're getting very warm when you say of "this whole natural laws thing, I think we'll have a conflict mostly here." Certainly, if one wants to reject the law of identity, he can argue anything for the only thing open to his mind would be the arbitrary. But since reality has identity, so does truth. Can you think of any true statement that does not need the law of identity? How could you call it true if it had no identity? What would you be calling true? That which has no identity? What is that which has no identity?
We know from Objectivism that, to exist is to have identity. If A should exist, it must be A. That is a simple axiom, it is perceptually self-evident, and all our actions and thinking irrescindably presuppose this these facts. If you want to attack these fundamentals, then you attack the basis of all reasoning, including your own. So, you are free to try this all you like, but you will fail a) to prove the claim you are called to prove (e.g., that Jesus rose from the dead), and b) to defeat the law of identity. For the law of identity remains in tact regardless of what one wants to argue. Argument, or more broadly, logic and reason, do not exist without the law of identity.
But perhaps you do not want to prove any truth claims, but would rather turn men against their minds? Is this what happened to you? Were you indoctrinated by such anti-reasoning yourself? Were you ushered into a church hall and your confidence in the facts of reality demolished so that they could be replaced with arbitrary nonsense? Don't tell me that this does not happen in religion. THIS IS WHAT RELIGION IS ALL ABOUT. Read some more of my essays and you may begin to recognize this for yourself.
But yes, I think you're very close when you say that much of our conflict will be over the law of identity. For one thing, I do not reject the law of identity, but recognize its fundamental inescapability. But what is more fundamental than the law of identity? What is the real nature of our conflict?
The fundamental issue which is the center of such a radical conflict as ours, Dan, is the question of our respective starting points. What is your starting point? What is the ultimate bedrock of your cognition and conscious experience? Do you know? Have you examined such questions before? Are you conscious of your starting point in all your reasoning? If you believe we can dismiss the law of identity at will and that we must do so in order to argue for certain claims, in particular your religious claims, then what starting point would allow this? Let's pursue this a bit and see what your own statements have to tell us.
You write, "
Now then, clearly, you and I seem to exist." What do you mean by "seem" here? Is there any real doubt in your mind that you exist? Be honest here, Dan. Genuine intellection requires the most unrelenting honesty on the part of thinkers. If you are reluctant to be genuinely honest to yourself in your reasoning, then what good are your conclusions going to be?Then you write, "
even if we are some goldfish's dream, let's act as though we exist." None of this makes sense if we entertain the alleged "possibility" that existence does not exist. The very concept 'possible' is incoherent outside existence. The idea of "some goldfish's dream" makes no sense outside existence. And your advise "let's act as though we exist" itself presupposes the very fact which you illicitly cast into question, which is: existence exists.You write: "
It's the only thing we have to go on. " What else do we need? What are we trying to accomplish? If you want to establish truth, then you should ask yourself what we mean when we use the word 'truth'. Do you have a ready answer for this? According to Objectivism, 'truth' is "the recognition of reality." But then this compels us to answer the next obvious question: What is reality? According to Objectivism, 'reality' is "the realm of existence." If something exists, it exists in reality, not outside it. There is no "outside of reality." Objectivism also rejects the superfluously arbitrary idea of "multiple realities." Such an idea is internally incoherent, and incoherent with the facts of reality. Such ideas as "multiple realities" or "you have your reality, and I have mine" only reveal the intention of those who assert such nonsense. And that intention is: To evade the facts of reality. Such terms are the handiwork of evaders, not honest men.So, in response to your statement "It's the only thing we have to go on," I ask: What else do you need? Are you not willing to deal with reality on reality's terms? If not, then the conflict you speak of is between you and reality, and is therefore irresolvable.
You write:
So, you say "Existence exists". A logical statement. We certainly seem to exist." Again, I must question you here: What do you mean by "we certainly seem to exist"? Do you know of any reason to doubt the fact of your existence? I know of no reason to doubt the fact of my own existence. In order to have any doubts, I must be conscious. And in order to be conscious, there must be something to be conscious of. Consciousness conscious only of itself is a contradiction in terms. How could such a consciousness identify itself as consciousness if it were only "conscious of itself"? This notion commits the fallacy of the stolen concept, which is the root of all religious error.So this is something you need to deal with, Dan. If you believe there is some legitimate reason to doubt your own existence, what is it? (By the way, Dan, all of your attempts to draw doubt here only underscore my argument that religious epistemology ultimately reduces to hardboiled skepticism, contrary to the claims of most apologists.)
Then you write: "
Nothing comes from nothing however." Aha! Now we're starting to get somewhere! Does anything exist? If so, then given this maxim, "nothing comes from nothing," we cannot assume the primacy of non-existence, right? We cannot claim that "nothingness" is the fundamental inescapable starting point, right? Nothing as opposed to what? Something, right? That's right. We cannot even grasp the notion 'nothing' unless we can contrast it against the something which does exist. But does this mean that we need 'nothing' in order to grasp that something exists? No, of course not. Hierarchically, we are not first conscious of nothing and then conscious of something. Consciousness is consciousness of that which exists, and therefore consciousness must begin with that which exists. So, for your maxim to have any cognitive merit to begin with, we must recognize its affirmation of the Objectivist axiom existence exists.So far, you've scored no points for your god-belief, nor have you scored any points against the validity of Objectivism. But let's continue and see where this goes.
You write: "
You can turn that around on me when I tell you that "God exists". where'd God come from? He always was. something was around forever, you say it's the universe, I say it's God. I see no trememendous difference in reasoning so far."But Dan, there's all the difference in the world here. You say that "something was around forever," and I agree, this is definitely going to be a criterion satisfied by any legitimate starting point. But where I start with what we know exists, the universe, you want to start with a form of consciousness, "God." This is a "tremendous difference in reasoning," but either you do not recognize the fundamental gulf here, or you don't want to. So I'll explain it briefly.
As I mentioned above, our conflict is one of starting points. Where do we start? As an Objectivist, I start with the perceptually self-evident: Existence exists. To be conscious is to be conscious of something. Can we be conscious of nothing? No, to be conscious requires content, and to be conscious of content requires a means of consciousness. And as human beings, we can identify our means of consciousness: Our senses, our nervous system, our brain.
The universe is defined as the sum total of existence. If A exists, it is therefore part of the universe. Given this definition, we must recognize that to start with anything in particular, that anything in particular must exist within the universe. If we want to start with the general, we must start with the universe itself, or, more fundamentally, with the fact of existence proper. Existence exists.
You say you want to start with God, but how could one validate this? Well, it seems plausible to many people who want to start with something outside the universe (already an incoherent idea as we saw above), to ask: Well, how did the universe get here? Again, as you said, nothing comes from nothing. But already there's an assumption here that the universe is not eternal. How does one prove that the universe is not eternal? Well, the common approach is to say that the universe at one time did not exist. But how does one prove that the universe at one time did not exist? What evidence is given? What evidence is there that at one time the universe did not exist? Here the theist positing the non-eternality of the universe must prove a negative, which he can never do, but which he must do in order for his argument even to get off the ground. Indeed, if he had evidence to point to, then he'd be pointing to something which exists, and as we saw above, the universe is the sum total of existence. Which means: His evidence only confirms the existence of the universe rather than calls its existence into question. So on this point, not only is his argument stumped, but his entire procedure of arguing only confirms the non-theistic position that the universe is eternal and that the presupposition of the fact of existence as such is the only valid starting point.
But this will not appease the theist's desire to establish the arbitrary whims of his imagination as the rightful starting point. What does he do? He does not posit existence as the starting point, nor does he posit non-existence as the starting point. Instead, he posits consciousness as the rightful starting point when he claims that the universe could only exist if it were called into existence through some kind of conscious activity (e.g., "the mind of God").
This gives the theist the impression that arguments like "God created the universe, so its existence is evidence of the existence of God!" are somehow valid. But of course it is obvious that such questions interminably beg the question, for it is precisely this claim which the theist is called to justify, and repeating a claim does not constitute that claim's proof. (If repeating a claim constituted its own proof, we could claim anything is provably true simply by repeating the claim in question over and over again, but where would this get us? Just deeper into the arbitrary and further from the facts of reality.)
Objectivist Leonard Peikoff says it best when he writes:
The religious view of the world, though it has been abandoned by most philosophers, is still entrenched in the public mind. Witness the popular question ‘Who created the universe?’ - which presupposes that the universe is not eternal, but has a source beyond itself, in some cosmic personality or will. It is useless to object that this question involves an infinite regress, even though it does (if a creator is required to explain existence, then a second creator is required to explain the first, and so on). Typically, the believer will reply: ‘One cannot ask for a explanation of God. He is an inherently necessary being. After all, one must start somewhere.’ Such a person does not contest the need for an irreducible starting point, as long as it is a form of consciousness; what he finds unsatisfactory is the idea of existence as the starting point. Driven by the primacy of consciousness, a person of this mentality refuses to begin with the world [i.e., with existence, reality], which we know to exist; he insists on jumping beyond the world to the unknowable, even though such a procedure explains nothing. The root of this mentality is not rational argument, but the influence of Christianity. In many respects, the West has not recovered from the Middle Ages. [Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pg. 21.]
Indeed, Peikoff is precisely correct here. The theist does not want to begin with the fact of existence, he wants to begin with some form of consciousness as his starting point. It is a form of consciousness (e.g., "God") which is eternal, according to the theist, and this "explains" everything, he tells us. Not only does the theist explain how God "created" the universe (they just say that God commanded it to exist, but this tells us nothing), he also fails to tell us what God was conscious of before He created anything. Which means, the theist must begin with consciousness conscious only of itself as his starting point. I examine this problem-saturated proposal in great detail in my essay
God and Pure Self-Reference, the sixth installment of my Letters to a Young Atheologist.What we have from the theist is not genuine reasoning and intellection, but evasion after evasion.
What justifies asserting 'consciousness' prior to existence? Blank out.
Exactly how does God create existence? Blank out.
What justifies assuming the universe to be non-eternal? Blank out.
Why not simply start with what exists, and recognize that consciousness is consciousness of what exists? Blank out.
I hope you are beginning to see how tremendous the implications of this difference are.
Then, you write:
Alright now, the laws of nature. with regards to a miracle, you say that it must suspend the law's of nature to happen. Now, again, i think God was around first. you think the universe was. If I'm right, then God made Nature's laws and he can easily bend them. All my arguments so far don't make my argument better then yours, perhaps they make mine worth, but I'll get to that. Pascal's wager and all that.
And here we really begin to see the devastating results of god-belief when applied to our ability to reason. So far I have already explained why the notion 'miracle' is invalid (see my
initial response to you). Your response to this was your attempt to cause doubt with respect to the validity of the law of identity. This effort flatly failed, and even if you could claim victory in challenging the validity of the law of identity, then you would consequently cast doubt on your own arguments as well (cf. performative inconsistency). The soundness of my rejection of the notion 'miracle' remains intact.We have also found that the central focus of our conflict here is the question of legitimate starting points. I have validated my starting point above, and any attempt on your part to argue at all, regardless of what you're arguing for or against, only confirms the validity of my starting point, because any argument you offer will presuppose the validity of the law of identity, and the grounding of the law of identity is the fact of existence (my starting point), not a universe-creating, reality-ruling form of consciousness.
In addition to this, we see that theists have no rational means of validating their alleged starting point, which is a form of consciousness which allegedly 'exists' prior to the universe. Above we saw that this is completely and irrescindably incoherent.
Now you say, "If I'm right, then God made Nature's laws and he can easily bend them." If we accept this idea, that A can be both A and non-A at the same time (because the law of identity can now be "bent"!), what happens to our inductive certainty? If we accept this kind of arbitrariness, then all inductive certainty goes out the window. I've already written on this in my
Dialogue on Induction, so I need not go into detail here. This dialogue shows precisely why the acceptance of the notion 'miracle' can only result in our inductive uncertainty. If this is what you want to achieve - inductive uncertainty in your own cognition, then god-belief is the surest way to accomplish it.Furthermore, if you argue that my rejection of the notion 'miracle' can be refuted because the laws of nature can be "bent," and that the assumption that the laws of nature can be "bent" is justified by the idea that God exists, then you again beg the question! For you're assuming the very proposal which you are called to justify. Again, your arguments are checkmated.
You write, "My Christianity is logical." But you have not shown this. Indeed, no Christian has ever shown this. For if one were to attempt to demonstrate something as logical, it would cease to be anything mystical (like Christianity) if that attempt were solidly successful. One cannot establish something as logical when what he argues for undermines the security of logic (i.e., the law of identity) and is incompatible with an objective starting point (the fact of existence).
Indeed, look how far today's apologists have deviated from the founding fathers of Christianity. We need look no further than Tertullian (c. 155-220 AD) for his famously incriminating comment:
"[T]he Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed because it is absurd. And he was buried and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible." [De Carne Christi, ch. 5.]
Tertullian, an early church father, one of the first prominent evangelizers after the apostles, made no bones about it. He argued that the absurdity of the gospel claims of the resurrection is actually its virtue, and he embraced it openly. He bases his certainty on the fact that the event in question (the resurrection) is impossible. Did Tertullian argue that his Christian faith beliefs were "logical"? No, he did not. This was far from his lips.
But today, we see Christian men and women, graduating with utterly useless "degrees" in theology and apologetics, trying to hijack reason and logic into the camp of the mystic.
Dan, you have a lot to think about here. There was much in your recent e-mails to me on which I have plenty to say. But certainly I do not have the time. But let me end with these brief and general observations:
You clearly have no case for the claim that Jesus was resurrected. You clearly have no way of challenging the grounds of my rejection of the notion 'miracle' without completely compromising your own ability to argue as a net result such a challenge would necessarily yield. You provide no eyewitnesses to the event in question. You fail to demonstrate the power of your faith. You fail to identify in essential terms just what constitutes your cognitive starting point, and you fail to advance enduring criticism of mine. Your arguments are flimsy and performatively inconsistent. Your claim that your Christian beliefs are logically valid is completely untenable.
On every point and at every corner, your arguments fail and your attempts to challenge mine turn round to bite you in the backside.
Clearly, if Christian doctrine were so virtuous and powerful, neither of these would be the case. However, as I have demonstrated, they are precisely the case. Your god-belief is impotent, and insistence on it will render your mind impotent. You are fortunate to be learning this at your tender age. May you learn from this and choose to seek a legitimate course of reasoning to guide your life in the future.
Best regards,
Anton Thorn