Is the Resurrection a matter of faith?

[Occams Barber]

Sorry to pick on you so, but I have never drawn this out explicitly with an atheist:



Testimony is a form of evidence, so clearly the hearer has evidence for a green dragon. It may not be sufficient evidence, but it is evidence. If I told you I have a bicycle in my garage you would believe me. You would believe me because you have evidence, namely my testimony.

Whether some particular claim is "extraordinary" is not at all clear, and begins quite the rabbit hole. Nothing is objectively extraordinary. Things are only extraordinary from a particular point of view, be it personal, cultural, scientific, human, etc. Admittedly a man being raised from the dead is extraordinary when weighed against human experience, but how extraordinary? How much evidence is needed to offset the extraordinariness? Supposing the man is the Son of God, would it still be extraordinarily extraordinary? Again, not clear.

In the case of something like the resurrection your threshold for what amounts to reasonable evidence will be much lower than mine. For me the claim will be highly extraordinary - for you less so.

You believe that a god can exist. You believe that your particular God is the only God. You believe that God's story is told in the Bible. You believe that this God had a son who was crucified. You believe He performed miracles. Given that you already believe all this, the step to believing that something like the resurrection can and did happen is a relatively small one.

I have none of this belief. To believe in the resurrection I would first need to be convinced of the possibility of gods and then, step by step, convinced of all the other things you already believe. At this stage all I can see is the possibility that there was a Jewish rabbi called Jesus who was probably crucified 2000 years ago in some Roman backwater. That's it.

From my point of view, the claim for the resurrection requires cartloads of evidence even before we get to the resurrection itself.

When you consider something like the resurrection you are seeing it through a lens coloured by prior beliefs - beliefs which I don't have. If we go back to the dragon example - if you believe that invisible green dragons exist then my claim that there's one in my garage is not so outlandish.

OB

 

[zippy2006]

In the case of something like the resurrection your threshold for what amounts to reasonable evidence will be much lower than mine. For me the claim will be highly extraordinary - for you less so.

You believe that a god can exist. You believe that your particular God is the only God. You believe that God's story is told in the Bible. You believe that this God had a son who was crucified. You believe He performed miracles. Given that you already believe all this, the step to believing that something like the resurrection can and did happen is a relatively small one.

I have none of this belief. To believe in the resurrection I would first need to be convinced of the possibility of gods and then, step by step, convinced of all the other things you already believe. At this stage all I can see is the possibility that there was a Jewish rabbi called Jesus who was probably crucified 2000 years ago in some Roman backwater. That's it.

From my point of view, the claim for the resurrection requires cartloads of evidence even before we get to the resurrection itself.

When you consider something like the resurrection you are seeing it through a lens coloured by prior beliefs - beliefs which I don't have. If we go back to the dragon example - if you believe that invisible green dragons exist then my claim that there's one in my garage is not so outlandish.

OB

That's right, and where does this leave us on the question of evidence? My prior beliefs dispose me towards belief in the resurrection, and those prior beliefs are grounded in reasons and evidence, and they also provide evidence and grounding for the resurrection itself. For example, for me the fellow making the "extraordinary claim" is of utmost trustworthiness; for you even his existence is in question.

Your earlier cited definitions hold with respect to evidence: we do not have proof for the resurrection, we do not have "complete evidence," etc. But that doesn't mean there is no evidence, and it certainly doesn't mean that faith is defined as belief in the absence of evidence! Ideas such as "belief without evidence," or, "belief with minimal evidence" simply do not enter into the formal definition of faith. The formal definition does include a lack of demonstrability or provability, but that really isn't the same thing as evidence.

 

[FireDragon76]

People in Samoa believe in the John Frum cargo cults, too, including having mystical and religious experiences. That's not a reason for me to accept the cult's beliefs at face values and believe there is a real John Frum.

 

[Rachel20]

Anything I don't have first person experience with is a matter of faith. That includes the resurrection and whether Columbus really sailed the ocean blue. But that doesn't include the possibilty of life after death, insomuch as I've already experienced this first person - I was dead, then I was alive (if not dead, where/what was I when Columbus was sailing?)

 

[cvanwey]

That's right, and where does this leave us on the question of evidence? My prior beliefs dispose me towards belief in the resurrection, and those prior beliefs are grounded in reasons and evidence, and they also provide evidence and grounding for the resurrection itself. For example, for me the fellow making the "extraordinary claim" is of utmost trustworthiness; for you even his existence is in question.

Your earlier cited definitions hold with respect to evidence: we do not have proof for the resurrection, we do not have "complete evidence," etc. But that doesn't mean there is no evidence, and it certainly doesn't mean that faith is defined as belief in the absence of evidence! Ideas such as "belief without evidence," or, "belief with minimal evidence" simply do not enter into the formal definition of faith. The formal definition does include a lack of demonstrability or provability, but that really isn't the same thing as evidence.

Does God care how much 'faith' you have in Him? Doubters, skeptics, atheists, agnostics, and other religions, tend to doubt the claims of a resurrection. Heck, even someone like Richard Dawkins cannot discount the claimed resurrection with 100% assurance. Often times, doubters/other measure probability of a truth claim. It's likely you've already heard the on-going phrase "I tend to proportion my beliefs with the amount of presented evidence.' Thus, even if we were to take into account the available evidence for the resurrection as truth, without contest; seems as though the level of faith would still be less than the level of faith one has to believe what happened in this video, which is most likely 99.999999% across the board for all whom are presented....

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Does God care how much 'faith' you have in Him? Doubters, skeptics, atheists, agnostics, and other religions, tend to doubt the claims of a resurrection. Heck, even someone like Richard Dawkins cannot discount the claimed resurrection with 100% assurance. Often times, doubters/other measure probability of a truth claim. It's likely you've already heard the on-going phrase "I tend to proportion my beliefs with the amount of presented evidence.' Thus, even if we were to take into account the available evidence for the resurrection as truth, without contest; seems as though the level of faith would still be less than the level of faith one has to believe what happened in this video, which is most likely 99.999999% across the board for all whom are presented....

OH NO!!! This means............**gulp**......**gulp**.......that I just HAVE to throw away my J. Warner Wallace book and stop watching any of his youtube videos,

.........BECAUSE......BECAUSE.......BECAUSE...........................**gulp**.......someone like him couldn't possibly be correct about even one little smidgen in defense of his Christian faith.


........................ right?

 

[cvanwey]

OH NO!!! This means............**gulp**......**gulp**.......that I just HAVE to throw away my J. Warner Wallace book and stop watching any of his youtube videos,

.........BECAUSE......BECAUSE.......BECAUSE...........................**gulp**.......someone like him couldn't possibly be correct about even one little smidgen in defense of his Christian faith.


........................ right?

Did you even read my reply?

Even a 'true-blue atheist' must reconcile that the resurrection is possible. Is God okay with the [faith-level] of an atheist - (likely 1% or less)? Or what about someone whom is on the fence, like they are with claimed alien sightings? Or how about all in between and on the outsides? Other, other, other....?

Example...

An (atheist/skeptic/other religion) believes, with 99+% certainty, about many proofs or assertions. It's likely that the claims of a resurrection does not fall upon this 99+ percentile list of proofs and assertions.

Is God okay with this level of 'faith'? If so, what is the magic value?

You see @2PhiloVoid , someone of your background may quickly realize, that no matter what answer is given, likely more Biblical controversy becomes presented, verses plausibility of viable and/or provable conclusion(s).?.?.?.?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Did you even read my reply?

Even a 'true-blue atheist' must reconcile that the resurrection is possible. Is God okay with the [faith-level] of an atheist - (likely 1% or less)? Or what about someone whom is on the fence, like they are with claimed alien sightings? Or how about all in between and on the outsides? Other, other, other....?

Example...

An (atheist/skeptic/other religion) believes, with 99+% certainty, about many proofs or assertions. It's likely that the claims of a resurrection does not fall upon this 99+ percentile list of proofs and assertions.

Is God okay with this level of 'faith'? If so, what is the magic value?

I was kind of thinking that it only had to be at least a "mustard seed" level of faith for God to accept it ............ I mean, as far as I know, that's all I'm getting into Heaven on here, bud!

You see @2PhiloVoid , someone of your background may quickly realize, that no matter what answer is given, likely more Biblical controversy becomes presented, verses plausibility of viable and/or provable conclusion(s).?.?.?.?

Who cares either way? We see from the texts of the New Testament that Jesus (along with John the Baptist and the nature of the ministry of the earliest disciples) were controversial on all social and epistemological fronts. So, why would we expect it to be any different 2,000 years later? ............. I don't. Why should you?

And if we want to get into Bayesian probabilities, then (Richard Carrier and Anthony Magnabosco not withstanding) we should be able to see that this whole trope is laced with its own limitations.

 

[cvanwey]

I was kind of thinking that it only had to be at least a "mustard see" level of faith for God to accept it ............ I mean, as far as I know, that's all I'm getting into Heaven on here, bud!

Who cares either way? We see from the texts of the New Testament that Jesus (along with John the Baptist and the nature of the ministry of the earliest disciples) were controversial on all social and epistemological fronts. So, why would we expect it to be any different 2,000 years later? ............. I don't. Why should you?

And if we want to get into Bayesian probabilities, then (Richard Carrier and Anthony Magnabosco not withstanding) we should be able to see that this whole trope is laced with its own limitations.

You still continue to appear pretty miffed Need I not remind you of your own video, for which you published about a year ago --- "the prince and the monster". Seems as though some of my responses release your 'monster'

Anywho, if the metric is the 'metaphorical' mustard seed, then maybe atheists stand just as good of a shot as yourself, if Christianity is actually real? Maybe it's that whole faith vs works thingy..... Maybe you are judged by your deeds, and not by your level of faith?

You see how this opens up a never-ending can of worms? Which Verses of the Bible do we prioritize, and which ones fall into the background, or are rendered as secondary to the main message?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You still continue to appear pretty miffed Need I not remind you of your own video, for which you published about a year ago --- "the prince and the monster". Seems as though some of my responses release your 'monster'

What ... are ... you ... talking ... about? That video was one from atheist Anthony Magnabosco, and I posted it in order to allow it to be refuted, not only by others, but by my self as well. However, your posting here of Dark Matter's video ISN'T analagous to my earlier post. So, don't make it sound like there's some kind of similarity when there isn't.

Anywho, if the metric is the 'metaphorical' mustard seed, then maybe atheists stand just as good of a shot as yourself, if Christianity is actually real? Maybe it's that whole faith vs works thingy..... Maybe you are judged by your deeds, and not by your level of faith?

As long as a person's faith is real, despite its apparent 'size,' then yes, that person should be able to find eternal life in Jesus Christ. But, I don't define faith as some human belief activity that is somehow separate from human action----which is why I always define faith by what I see in the Bible and not as mere trust and belief. More specifically, I rather understand faith as a full person response [both rationally and actively] to God and what God has revealed in Jesus Christ. See the difference?

You see how this opens up a never-ending can of worms? Which Verses of the Bible do we prioritize, and which ones fall into the background, or are rendered as secondary to the main message?

I agree there is a can of worms, but I don't think it's never ending IF you don't merely start with the Bible and end with the Bible. It's not as if the Bible explains itself. It doesn't, so let's not pretend or talk like it does.

So what does this mean? It means that in order to understand the Bible, we're all going to have to proceed to do difficult, corporately involved interpretive work in order to see which statements of the bible seem to be not only real but retain meaning and truth. We'll find that some have meaning and reality, while some may have had meaning that is now lost to the ravages of time and cultural distance.

 

[cvanwey]

What ... are ... you ... talking ... about? That video was one from atheist Anthony Magnabosco, and I posted it in order to allow it to be refuted, not only by others, but by my self as well.

It's ironic that you state this, in light of the last several posts you have supplied me, including your comment directly above

As long as a person's faith is real, despite its apparent 'size,' then yes, that person should be able to find eternal life in Jesus Christ.

What is the metaphorical definition of a 'mustard seed's worth of faith'? There's a question....

But, I don't define faith as some human belief activity that is somehow separate from human action----which is why I always define faith by what I see in the Bible and not as mere trust and belief. More specifically, I rather understand faith as a full person response [both rationally and actively] to God and what God has revealed in Jesus Christ. See the difference?

It would sure be nice to know God's take on this....? Has anyone asked Him? Does He ever answer? Does He even care to elaborate, especially when called upon? Anyone? Shouldn't something as seemingly fundamental and as seemingly pivotal as the claimed criteria for salvation be spelled out clearly and unambiguously?

I agree there is a can of worms, but I don't think it's never ending IF you don't merely start with the Bible and end with the Bible. It's not as if the Bible explains itself. It doesn't, so let's not pretend or talk like it does.

If the Bible doesn't explain itself, then where the heck does that leave you and your faith?

So what does this mean? It means that in order to understand the Bible, we're all going to have to proceed to do the difficult, corporately involved interpretive work in order to see what statements of the bible seem to be not only real but retain meaning and truth. We'll find that some have meaning and reality, while some may have had meaning that is now lost to the ravages of time and cultural distance.

Doesn't look like that's gotten mankind any closer - ala the mass number of opposing denominations. Seems as though God claims to not only have the power to sort out the confusion, but might want to; especially when called upon repeatedly to do so. And furthermore, when countless people claim they have received direct revelation.

And yet, many claims differ? Weird, isn't it?

 

[cvanwey]

your posting here of Dark Matter's video ISN'T analagous to my earlier post. So, don't make it sound like there's some kind of similarity when there isn't.

All my provided video was to demonstrate, was a comical and hyperbolic example of a conclusion, for which you would have >99% faith in it's asserted conclusion. --- And to further demonstrate that it's likely that even many/most Christian's level in faith for a resurrection would likely not be at the same level of confidence.

Which stemmed the relevant follow-up question... How much faith is enough faith? Got it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's ironic that you state this, in light of the last several posts you have supplied me, including your comment directly above

..... hmmmm. I don't see the irony. You may have to be more specific as to what you're referring to. I mean, you don't literally think I'm going to throw away my J. Warner Wallace book do you? If I did, THAT would be ironic.

What is the metaphorical definition of a 'mustard seed's worth of faith'? There's a question....

I think the point is that as long as a person's faith is real regardless of its size then that person will receive 100% of God's grace, mercy, love and reconcilation that comes in and through Christ and the Holy Spirit. It also means then that demons better pack their damned bags ... ... ... since the mountain they're inhabiting is about to get removed !

It would sure be nice to know God's take on this....? Has anyone asked Him? Does He ever answer? Does He even care to elaborate, especially when called upon? Anyone? Shouldn't something as seemingly fundamental and as seemingly pivotal as the claimed criteria for salvation be spelled out clearly and unambiguously?

If the Parable of the Sower is any indication, then the answer to your questions would be: Yes, it would; Yes; Yes; Yes; Yes; and No!

If the Bible doesn't explain itself, then where the heck does that leave you and your faith?

It leaves me in need of the education that goes into interpreting ANY HUMANLY conveyed communication, whether it's from the present or from the past. What it doesn't do is leave me in the lurch ...

Doesn't look like that's gotten mankind any closer - ala the mass number of opposing denominations. Seems as though God claims to not only have the power to sort out the confusion, but might want to; especially when called upon repeatedly to do so. And furthermore, when countless people claim they have received direct revelation. And yet, many claims differ? Weird, isn't it?

No, not really. Since on the one hand human beings from all cultures and times have disagreed with each other on this, that and the other, and Jews have disagreed with each other, and on the other hand, New Testament writers warned that there would be divisive, contentious, heretical, even apostate or anti-Christ voices popping up in and around the Christian Church, I don't think it's unexpected. For that matter, we see Jesus reprimanding His apostles, apostles disagreeing with other apostles, and Christians over the last 2,000 not seeing eye to eye on various points of 'exacting' theology, either.

So, why do we act like it's so surprising when the presence of various perceptions and interpretations regarding the Bible (as with almost anything) indicates to us it really shouldn't be surprising.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

All my provided video was to demonstrate, was a comical and hyperbolic example of a conclusion, for which you would have >99% faith in it's asserted conclusion. --- And to further demonstrate that it's likely that even many/most Christian's level in faith for a resurrection would likely not be at the same level of confidence.

Which stemmed the relevant follow-up question... How much faith is enough faith? Got it?

OK. fine. But the video from Dark Matter got scattered when it referred to "sperm on the ceiling," however comically situated that line was supposed to be.

Sure, we can think in probabilities of abductive inference if we want to, but it's not by subscription to some probability number alone that a Christian will have faith when looking at circumstantial evidences. In fact, I'd say probability is always an open conjecture in the case of the Christian faith, so it's best not to rely much on that as a conceptual measure of how reliable some idea or aspect of the Bible really is.

 

[cvanwey]

..... hmmmm. I don't see the irony. You may have to be more specific as to what you're referring to. I mean, you don't literally think I'm going to throw away my J. Warner Wallace book do you? If I did, THAT would be ironic.

I sense the hostility in some of your responses. If it were mere surface-level discord, I doubt your responses would be so gruff. It's not rocket science.

I think the point is that as long as a person's faith is real regardless of its size then that person will receive 100% of God's grace, mercy, love and reconcilation that comes in and through Christ and the Holy Spirit. It also means then that demons better pack their damned bags ... ... ... since the mountain they're inhabiting is about to get removed !

This does not answer the question. And the rest of this response is nothing more than additional unfalsifiable claims and statements. I'll ask again. How much faith is enough faith?

Your statement of "as long as a person's faith is real regardless of its size" merely pushes the question right back upon itself; and leaves it utterly unanswered. Meaning, presumably, all faith is [real]... Whether it be faith that it is raining outside, or faith in your car brakes. Faith implies your trust/belief/hope/confidence in something.

I'll ask again, maybe modifying or augmenting verbiage a bit....

What level of confidence is necessary to hold, that Jesus is risen?

If the Parable of the Sower is any indication, then the answer to your questions would be: Yes, it would; Yes; Yes; Yes; Yes; and No!

That's funny, didn't you just state in post #70:

"It's not as if the Bible explains itself. It doesn't, so let's not pretend or talk like it does."

So which one is it? Does the Bible tell us how to achieve salvation specifically, or not? And if not, why does God wish to leave such a seemingly important topic ambiguous?

It leaves me in need of the education that goes into interpreting ANY HUMANLY conveyed communication, whether it's from the present or from the past. What it doesn't do is leave me in the lurch ...

Looks like you might have very well been 'left in the lurch'. You yourself stated "It's not as if the Bible explains itself. It doesn't, so let's not pretend or talk like it does." You are instead left to your own fallible human devices, to try and figure it out on your own. And if you should happen to get it wrong, God is apparently going to punish you.

How do you know who has it right, since you also admit the Bible is not going to tell you?

No, not really. Since on the one hand human beings from all cultures and times have disagreed with each other on this, that and the other, and Jews have disagreed with each other, and on the other hand, New Testament writers warned that there would be divisive, contentious, heretical, even apostate or anti-Christ voices popping up in and around the Christian Church, I don't think it's unexpected. For that matter, we see Jesus reprimanding His apostles, apostles disagreeing with other apostles, and Christians over the last 2,000 not seeing eye to eye on various points of 'exacting' theology, either.

So, why do we act like it's so surprising when the presence of various perceptions and interpretations regarding the Bible (as with almost anything) indicates to us it really shouldn't be surprising.

Great, then maybe all your past and present name drops fall within this direct category, as stated above. Remember, God is not telling you either

 

[FireDragon76]

I would like to offer another possibility- Jesus "resurrection" was an After Death Communication, a phenomenon that is well known in the modern age among those who study death, dying, and the grieving process. For instance, 40 percent of those who have experienced recent bereavement report some kind of interaction with the deceased.

That's not to say the disciples were necessarily mentally ill or lying, but merely than we may be dealing with a phenomenon that is not fully understood, whether paranormal or psychological in nature isn't all that relevant. But it doesn't necessarily entail jumping to the conclusion "ergo Christianity".

Being as none of us were actually there and we don't have time machines, I think anybody would have to just have to take it on faith to a certain extent, ultimately, that they believe in the resurrection. It's certainly not established fact. As I pointed out, merely making a strong case for something mysterious happening after Jesus' death doesn't necessarily entail a Christian creedal statement.

 

[FireDragon76]

What if someone requires something more than mere "evidence"? "Evidence" can point to any number of conclusions, so it can hardly prove a particular conclusion definitively. "Rational historical analysis" is a method of reconstructing evidence to point to conclusion(s), but its use on this subject demonstrates its inherent fatal flaw, imo: it uses fallible methodology to point to a supposedly infallible deity. Why would an infallible deity use fallible (aka questionable) methods to communicate?

In fairness, I don't think any Christian suggests God must necessarily be "infallible", whatever that is supposed to mean. One could go all Calvinist, after all, and suggest that God is not electing some for salvation, for instance, and still believe God is capable of doing so.

 

[zippy2006]

Why would an infallible deity use fallible (aka questionable) methods to communicate?

Name an infallible method of communication.

 

[ananda]

In fairness, I don't think any Christian suggests God must necessarily be "infallible", whatever that is supposed to mean. One could go all Calvinist, after all, and suggest that God is not electing some for salvation, for instance, and still believe God is capable of doing so.

Infallible: "incapable of error" ... if it's not incapable of error, then it surely cannot be the highest goal.

 

[ananda]

Name an infallible method of communication.

From my Buddhist perspective, the most infallible "thing" that 1. exists, is 2. observable, and 3. can be seen as a kind of communication are the laws governing the fabric of reality itself - for example, the law of cause and effect, which we call Kamma.

Those Laws are essentially our highest Scriptures.