bookmark_borderBelated Response to Ed Feser

Ed, sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. All of May was taken up by final exam grading and then copy-editing and indexing my new book, due out in August, It Started with Copernicus (completely unabashed and self-serving plug). This is a response to your post of April 25, “A Second Exchange with Keith Parsons, Part I.”
I am very pleased to see how much agreement there is between us. You say that a crude divine command theory would posit a cosmic dictator, a Saddam Hussein writ large. I couldn’t have said it better.
I also hold that there are natural states of thriving or flourishing that constitute the (non-moral) good of organisms. As the Richard Dreyfus character says of the great white shark in Jaws, all such an organism does is swim, eat, and make little sharks. A shark that effectively swims, eats, and makes little sharks is living as well as a shark can live. For human beings, my conception of human flourishing is the same as Aristotle’s eudaimonia: Humans are living as best they can when they think and decide rationally while enjoying fruitful and rewarding interactions with other human beings and while enjoying health and a modicum of material prosperity.
You and I both agree that moral good arises from natural, non-moral good, but we disagree on the nature of the latter. You say that the natural good of an organism depends upon its intrinsic nature—the substantial form in scholastic terminology. I think that there is no such thing.
My understanding of Darwinism entails that “species” only has meaning when considered synchronically. Specific differences represent time-indexed arrangements in the economy of nature, the way that gene pools are sequestered at that given time. Considered diachronically, over geological time, there are no species, no permanent forms. After Darwin, we must regard all organic features as to a large extent plastic. Further, from a Darwinian perspective, the natural good of an organism depends not just on the organism but on the ambient environment. Change the environment and what used to be good for an organism becomes bad. It is good that we can breathe air, but if we lived in Kevin Costner’s Waterworld (yeech) having gills would be better. It appears that permanent, substantial, organic forms just cannot fit into this picture. Organic form is just a temporary solution to the challenges posed by a changing environment.
It is important here to note that the commitment of evolutionary biologists to the mutability of forms across time is not due to an a priori commitment to metaphysical naturalism. Pace Richard Lewontin, we need not say that “natural science” is a tautology. No, the evident plasticity of organic natures derives from our best scientific knowledge about how evolution occurs, i.e. how genomes change and how alleles spread through successive populations. Molecular and population genetics are the drivers here, not metaphysics. Put simply, the basic reason why evolutionary biologists do not countenance irreducible teleology is just that, so far as they can tell, it just is not there! All organic functionality appears explicable in terms of random variation and selection by the (temporarily) ambient environment. Tendency to retain organic form is due to stabilizing selection, not, so far as anyone can tell, a metaphysical principle. Further, over geological time there is, as Darwin said, a tendency for populations to diverge from their ancestors to an indefinite degree. In one hundred fifty million years you can go from the dinosaur to the hummingbird.
Of course, as you note, no empirical evidence can refute a metaphysical claim, though I think it can render it otiose. Intrinsic teleology might be there even though we cannot see it and have no need of it in our theories. Yet, Darwin was quite philosophically astute when he replied to Asa Gray—who suggested that variation might be divinely caused for ends that we cannot fathom—that to say that variation is planned but planned in a way that looks totally unplanned, is to utter a vacuity.
As you say, then, I reject non-reducible teleology, though I maintain that this rejection is not a metaphysical dictate, but is an inference from our best science. At the very least we can say, after Laplace, “I have no need of that hypothesis.” There is no more scientific need to postulate substantial forms than vital forces.
Can reducible teleology be sufficient to provide a basis for ethics? I say yes and you say no. You say that there can be no real non-reducible teleology, but only “as if,” metaphorical teleology if naturalism is true. I disagree. I think that there can be real yet reducible teleology. First, let me quote from a world-class expert on Aristotelian biology, my mentor at Pitt, Prof. James Lennox:

“Aristotle devotes two chapters of the Physics (II. 8,9) and most of the first chapter of Parts of Animals, I, to justifying his view that certain natural changes take place, and certain natural attributes exist for the sake of some end. Not only do these changes and things contribute to an end—they take place and exist in part because they contribute to an end (From “Teleology” in Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, edited by Evelyn Fox Keller and Elisabeth A. Lloyd).”

Does contemporary biology, even molecular biology, still employ such functional explanations, i.e. explanations of something in terms of the end it serves? Yes it does and always will, says no less an authority than Alex Rosenberg (The Structure of Biological Science, chapter 3). Now for Rosenberg, of course (and for me), such explanations are in principle reducible, i.e. given world enough and time we could, with immense worthless labor, substitute a staggeringly complex non-teleological explanation at the molecular level for a teleological explanation at a higher level. However, such in-principle reducibility of teleological explanations does not render them merely metaphorical or render the terms of such explanations into fictions. A reductionist auto mechanic might hold that the operation of a fuel injection system can be explained at the molecular level, but that does not mean that there are no fuel injection systems or that their purpose is not to achieve a mixture of air and gas favorable for combustion.
Finally, then, (since I am already over the 1000 word limit) I consider it a false dichotomy to say that derived teleology must either get its teleological nature from intrinsic teleology or must be only metaphorical “as if” teleology. This dichotomy overlooks the third option, namely, that a non-teleological process—the “blind watchmaker,” natural selection—can generate organic attributes that exist because they are teleological, i.e. they exist because they contribute to a certain end and that end serves to enhance the reproductive fitness of the organism. For instance, the formidable alligator snapping turtle has a peculiar vermiform tongue. Why? Because the wiggling of that worm-shaped tongue serves as a natural fishing lure, functioning to entice hapless fish into those waiting jaws. With a sudden snap the fish is gone, the turtle gets a meal, and a well-fed turtle lays more eggs. Mutatis mutandis, what is true for turtles is true for us!

bookmark_borderCraig’s “Historical Evidence” for the Death of Jesus – Part 5

William Craig’s case for the resurrection is a failure because he does not make a solid case for the claim that “Jesus actually died on the cross on Good Friday”. In most of his books, articles and debates, Craig usually just ignores the question of whether Jesus actually died on the cross, but in The Son Rises (TSR), he does make a brief attempt to prove this claim in just five paragraphs, consisting of 35 sentences.
In the first three paragraphs of this “case”, Craig makes dozens of historical claims about Jesus and the crucifixion, but he provides ZERO historical evidence to support these claims, up until the final two sentences of paragraph three. Near the end of paragraph three Craig provides an end note that points to actual historical evidence. The main historical claim at the end of paragraph three is this:
21. The Romans, if they did not simply leave the body [of a victim of crucifixion] on the cross until the flesh decayed or was eaten by birds or wild animals, would ensure death by stabbing the victim [of crucifixion] with a lance.
This historical claim is supported by the following end note:
Quintillian Declamationes maiores 6. 9.
Although Craig is to be commended for (at last) providing some actual historical evidence in support of a relevant historical claim, this end note is a nearly perfect example of how NOT to support an historical claim.
There are many questions that need to be answered before a reasonable person will accept the evidence here as a solid justification for claim (21). But Craig has merely pointed in the general direction of the historical evidence, and provided almost no information or reasoning that is needed to connect the evidence to claim (21), or to evaluate the relevance and strength of the evidence in relation to establishing this claim.
Who the hell is Quintillian?
1. When did Quintillian live?
2. Where did Quintillian live?
3. What did Quintillian do for a living?
4. What do we know about Quintillian’s culture and values?
5. What do we know about Quintillian’s education and intelligence?
6. What do we know about Quintillian’s character and integrity?
7. What do we know about Quintillian’s travels and life experiences?
8. How did Quintillian get his information about Roman crucifixion practices?
9. Was he a Roman soldier or officer who participated in crucifixions?
10. Did he personally witness any Roman crucifixions?
11. How many crucifixions did he witness?
12. Did he know any Roman soldiers or officers who participated in crucifixions?
13. Did he get his information by reading books or documents written by others?
14. Are there other claims made by Quintillian about Roman military practices which can be independently confirmed or disconfirmed?
15. What is Quintillian’s general track-record in terms of the reliability of his historical claims?
These are the sorts of questions that a reasonable person would need answers to in order to evaluate Quintillian as a source of historical information.
What the hell is Declamationes maiores?
16. Was this entire work authored by Quintillian?
17. Was this work originally written in Latin?
18. If not, then in what language was it written?
19. Is this work available in English translation?
20. What does the title mean, translated into English?
21. When was this book written?
22. Where was this book written?
23. What sort of work is this? (A play? A book of poetry? An instruction manual? A book of science or mathematics? A book of history? A book of legends?)
24. What are the specific topics and themes of this work?
25. How is the work organized?
26. For what audience was this work originally intended?
27. How good is the text of the available copies of this work?
28. Were the existing copies made soon after the original, or centuries later?
29. Do the existing copies have only a few minor differences and variations, or are there numerous significant differences and variations between existing copies?
30. Is the text complete, or are there missing words or missing pages or missing sections?
What the hell is contained in section 6.9?
31. What sort of writing is contained in 6.9? (a poem? a play? a biographical sketch? a personal anecdote? a personal account of a crucifixion?)
32. Are there any doubts about whether Quintillian is the author of this passage?
33. Are there any significant textual issues with this passage?
34. Are there any significant translation issues with this passage?
35. Are there any significant issues concerning the interpretation of this passage?
36. Does the passage clearly and explicitly assert that “The Romans, if they did not simply leave the body of a victim of crucifixion on the cross until the flesh decayed or was eaten by birds or wild animals, would ensure death by stabbing the victim of crucifixion with a lance.”, or does it say something very similar to this, but in slightly different words, or does it say something very different, but from which Craig believes we can legitimately infer claim (21)?
37. What, precisely, does that passage say (translated into English)?
These are all fairly basic and common sorts of questions to ask when a reasonable person is trying to evaluate the relevance and significance of a bit of historical evidence from an ancient historical document. But Craig does not answer a single one of the above questions. So, a reasonable person has no way to determine whether this bit of historical evidence is in fact relevant to claim (21) or whether it provides any significant support for claim (21).
Furthermore, when most of the above questions have been answered, the answers may result in raising a RED FLAG, a reason for doubting the relevance or significance of this bit of evidence. If the answers to any of the above 37 questions raises a RED FLAG, then a reasonable person will have further questions to ask that also need to be answered before this evidence is accepted as being relevant and as providing significant support for claim (21).
As a matter of fact, the answers to a number of the above questions do raise RED FLAGS, and so there are several more questions that need to be considered and answered before a reasonable person would accept the evidence from this passage as being relevant and as providing strong support for claim (21).
Other than to point in the general direction of a specific passage in an ancient work, Craig has failed to provide any of the information and reasoning required for a reasonable person to properly evaluate the relevance and significance of this bit of historical data. This is a clear example of what NOT to do when presenting historical evidence in support of an historical claim.
I hope that this helps to show why it is absurd to try to prove the historical claim that “Jesus actually died on the cross on Good Friday” in just two or three pages. Craig has made dozens of historical claims in the first three paragraphs of his “case”, but failed to provide historical evidence to support any of those claims, other than claim (21) of paragraph three, and although he does point us to a passage in an actual historical document, he fails to provide any information or reasoning to show how that this passage is relevant to claim (21) or that it provides strong evidence in support of claim (21). He leaves dozens of basic questions unanswered concerning the value of this bit of historical evidence.
In order to answer most of the above basic questions about the one piece of historical evidence to which Craig points as support for just one historical claim, one would need to write at least three or four pages, which would be, by itself, longer than Craig’s entire case for the claim that “Jesus actually died on the cross”.
But Craig has made dozens of historical claims, and needs to provide one or more pieces of historical evidence in support of each of those claims. Even if some bits of evidence can support more than one claim, there will still need to be many different pieces of evidence provided. Each piece of historical evidence will require some information and reasoning to show that the evidence is relevant and provides significant support for the historical claim made. Such information and reasoning can easily require a number of pages of text for each piece of evidence. So, assuming that Craig does need to make dozens of historical claims, he will also need to provide many different pieces of historical evidence and each piece of evidence will need to be described, clarified, explained, and shown to be both relevant and significant in relation to the historical claim being supported.
One simply CANNOT make dozens of historical claims, provide dozens of pieces of historical evidence, and properly describe, clarify, and explain each of those dozens of pieces of evidence and their relevance and significance in just two pages. This simply is not possible, unless Craig wants to publish his books and articles in microscopic font (so that 50 pages worth of text can be fit onto two pages in a book).

bookmark_borderCraig’s “Historical Evidence” for the Death of Jesus – Part 4

William Craig asserts that “Jesus rose from the dead”. In making this claim, Craig takes on a burden of proof. A crucial part of this burden is to prove that Jesus actually died on the cross, since a person can rise from the dead ONLY IF they have previously died. Unfortunately, in most of his books, articles, and debates, Craig simply ignores this issue.
However in The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (hereafter: TSR), Craig does make a brief attempt to prove that Jesus did actually die on the cross.
Craig’s case for the death of Jesus is made in a little more than just two pages of text, in five paragraphs, consisting in a grand total of 35 sentences. I have reviewed the first 24 sentences (about two-thirds of Craig’s case) and the results are as follows: Craig has made about 53 historical claims related to the crucifixion and alleged death of Jesus, but he has provided ZERO historical evidence to support the dozens of claims he has made. So, it looks like Craig’s case for the death of Jesus is a complete failure, and thus that his case for the resurrection is a complete failure as well.
There are 11 more sentences left to consider, so perhaps Craig can pull off a miracle of his own and prove the death of Jesus in just 11 sentences (but I’m not going to hold my breath over this). In today’s post, I will only examine the last two sentences of paragraph three.
These sentences assert several historical claims, and potentially they represent a complex logical structure, and this is also the one and only place in Craig’s case for the death of Jesus where he provides an End Note, citing a passage from a document as historical evidence for an important historical claim. I have a few things to say about this End Note and the evidence to which it points.
In the last two sentences of paragraph three, I believe that Craig asserts about seven historical claims:
It is interesting to note that because [claim 19]
it is difficult to determine just when the victim dies [claim 20],
the Romans, if they did not simply leave the body on the cross until the flesh decayed or was eaten by birds or wild animals, would ensure death by stabbing the victim with a lance. [claim 21]
The Roman executioners were aware that [claim 22]
death might be apparent [claim 23]
and [thus for that reason] [claim 24]
had a method of ensuring that the victim was really dead. [claim 25]
NOTE: The numbering of claims starts over with each paragraph, so “claim 25” above is the 25th claim in paragraph three (not the 25th claim overall).
One could argue that the last sentence in this paragraph merely re-iterates in different words what was already asserted in the second-to-last sentence. This is a plausible interpretation, but there are some subtle differences between the claims made in the two sentences, and it seems to me that these various specific claims can be put together in a logical structure that is relevant to the question at issue, so I’m inclined to think that all (or most) of these claims should be taken as separate historical claims.
Here are the seven historical claims from the end of paragraph three, spelled out a bit more clearly:
19. Because it is difficult to determine just when the victim [of a crucifixion] dies, the Romans, if they did not simply leave the body [of a victim of crucifixion] on the cross until the flesh decayed or was eaten by birds or wild animals, would ensure death by stabbing the victim [of crucifixion] with a lance.
Claim 19 is a causal historical claim that implies or presupposes two other historical claims:
20. It is difficult to determine just when the victim [of a crucifixion] dies.
21. The Romans, if they did not simply leave the body [of a victim of crucifixion] on the cross until the flesh decayed or was eaten by birds or wild animals, would ensure death by stabbing the victim [of crucifixion] with a lance.
22.The Roman executioners were aware that death [for a victim of crucifixion] might be apparent [but not actual].
23. Death [for a victim of crucifixion] might be apparent [but not actual].
24. Because the Roman executioners were aware that death [for a victim of crucifixion] might be apparent [but not actual], the Roman executioners had a method of ensuring that the victim [of a crucifixion] was really dead.
25. The Roman executioners had a method of ensuring that the victim [of a crucifixion] was really dead.
I can make use of all seven of the above claims in a logical structure that seems somewhat plausible:

Claim (20) does seem to be a reason supporting claim (23), and claim (23) does seem to provide support for claim (22). Claim (21) does provide a reason supporting claim (25). However, I don’t think the above analysis accurately captures the meaning of the last two sentences of paragraph three.
One problem is that a key inference in the reasoning, according to this proposed interpretation, is that claims (22) and (25) work together to support claim (24). Claim (24) is a causal or explanatory historical claim. While it is true that (24) presupposes the truth of claims (22) and (25), these two claims are merely necessary conditions for (24), and they don’t really provide a solid reason for believing (24) to be true. This inference would border on the post hoc fallacy.
For example:
(S) John was smoking in bed last night (in his own home).
(F) John’s house caught on fire and burned to the ground last night.
Therefore:
(C) John’s smoking in bed last night caused John’s house to catch on fire and burn to the ground.
Claim (C) does presuppose the truth of (S) and (F), but (S) and (F) provide only a very weak reason for believing (C). The truth of (S) and (F) merely show that it is a plausible or reasonable hypothesis that (C) correctly explains why John’s house burned to the ground last night. There are still many other possible explanations that ought to be considered and investigated (unless someone actually saw John’s burning cigarette ignite the bed sheets and the fire on the bed sheets ignite the curtains, etc.). We cannot immediately conclude that John caused the fire simply because smoking in bed is dangerous and could potentially lead to a fire.
I’m not inclined to accuse Craig of a post hoc fallacy at the end of paragraph three. Also, it seems to me that claim (21) is at the heart of the matter, and that the other claims play a much less vital role. I don’t think Craig cares much about WHY the Roman soldiers had various practices and techniques related to crucifixion. What he cares about is THAT they did have a specific method for ensuring that a victim of crucifixion was really dead.
So, I think a more charitable, and more plausible, interpretation of the last two sentences of paragraph three would be that Craig is mainly ASSERTING claim (21), and that the other claims merely serve to show that (21) is a plausible historical claim: it makes sense that the Romans would have a method to ensure the death of a victim of crucifixion, given that death could (in some cases) be merely apparent but not actual.
But showing that (21) is plausible is not the same as showing that (21) is true. The truth of (21) is supported by the one-and-only end note that Craig provides for his five-paragraph “case” for the death of Jesus on the cross:
Quintillian Declamationes maiores 6. 9.
I have a few comments and objections concerning this footnote and the historical evidence to which it points, and that will be the topic of my next post in this series.

bookmark_borderWhy William Lane Craig Has Not Seriously Argued for Jesus’ Death

It is difficult, of course, to get into someone else’s mind and to figure out why that person thinks the way they think. But I can make some educated guesses as to why William Lane Craig rarely argues in support of the death of Jesus on the cross, and why when he does so (e.g. in The Son Rises, hereafter: TSR), he does not make a serious intellectual effort (i.e. he rattles off dozens of historical claims without providing actual historical evidence to support those claims).
I think there are at least a couple of reasons for this: (1) Craig believes that the Apparent Death Theory (hereafter ADT) was soundly refuted long ago, and (2) Craig believes that the refutation of the Apparent Death Theory is sufficient to establish the Christian view that Jesus actually died on the cross on Good Friday. However, Craig is wrong on both points.
One reason why Craig thinks that ADT was refuted long ago, is that he thinks that David Strauss refuted ADT in the 1800’s, especially in Strauss’s book The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined, which was published in the 1830s:
The full original title of this work is Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet (Tübingen: 1835-1836), and it was translated from the fourth German edition into English by George Eliot (Marian Evans) (1819–1880) and published under the title The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined (3 vols., London, 1846). (“David Strauss” Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Strauss)
Here is Craig’s general view of ADT:
Strauss’s critique really put the nails in the coffin for the apparent death theory. Again, I want to emphasize that no contemporary scholar would support such a theory; it has been dead over a hundred years. Only in propaganda from behind the Iron Curtain or in sensationalist books in the popular press does such a theory still find expression. (TSR, p.40)
But Craig fails to fully grasp the logic of Strauss’s position on ADT. In Strauss’s day, there were two main camps on Jesus: traditionalists who believed that Jesus performed miracles as described in the Gospels, and skeptics who believed that Jesus did more-or-less what the Gospels claimed but that Jesus did NOT perform any miracles. Strauss rejected the views of both the traditionalists and of the anti-supernaturalist skeptics. He did so by rejecting an assumption that was held by both traditionalists and skeptics: the Gospels provide historically accurate and reliable reports about the life and ministry and death of Jesus.
Strauss argued that the Gospels contained a healthy dose of fiction and myth, and that we should not take them at face value as accurate and reliable historical accounts. Against the skeptics of his day, Strauss argued that IF one assumes the Gospels to provide historically reliable accounts of the life of Jesus, then one cannot reasonably deny that Jesus performed miracles. But such arguments were NOT intended to persuade the skeptics to believe that Jesus performed miracles; the arguments were intended to persuade skeptics to abandon the assumption that the Gospels provided reliable historical accounts of the life of Jesus.
In view of this background information, one can view Strauss’s criticism of ADT in a similar fashion: IF you ASSUME that the Gospels provide historically reliable accounts of the trials, crucifixion, burial of Jesus, and of the discovery of his empty tomb, and of the appearances of Jesus to his disciples on Easter Sunday, then you cannot avoid the conclusion that a miracle occurred, that Jesus rose from the dead. Specifically, IF you ASSUME that the Gospels provide historically reliable accounts of the life of Jesus, then you cannot reasonably accept ADT.
This seems like a reasonable position to me. But the point was NOT to disprove ADT nor to prove the resurrection, but rather to prove that it is logically inconsistent to hold BOTH of the following beliefs:
(1) The Gospels provide historically reliable accounts of the life of Jesus.
(2) ADT is true.

Strauss’s view is that belief (1) ought to be rejected. But if a skeptic agrees with Strauss, and rejects (1), then there is no longer any strong reason to reject (2), because the logical inconsistency has been resolved by rejecting (1).
Now Strauss may have also rejected (2) as well as (1), but if a person embraces Strauss’s skepticism about the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts, that undermines almost all of the reasons given for rejecting (2). So, Strauss in NO WAY refuted ADT, but rather showed the way to refute most of the objections that have been raised against ADT, including the objections raised against ADT by Strauss himself.
The most often quoted objection to ADT from Strauss is what I call the Sickly Jesus Objection (hereafter: SJO). If Jesus was beaten and scourged before being crucified, and then he was nailed to the cross, then even if Jesus survived crucifixion and managed to escape from the stone tomb and find his way to the disiples, he would have been weak, and bloody, and cut, and bruised, and limping, and would have looked like warmed-over death on Easter Sunday, and such an appearance could not have inspired his disciples to develop a strong faith that Jesus had risen from the dead.
But this scenario depends heavily on the assumption that the Gospels provide historically reliable accounts of the details of Jesus’ trials, crucifixion, burial, and appearances to his disciples. What if Jesus was NOT beaten up or scourged prior to being crucified? What if Jesus had been tied rather than nailed to the cross? What if the first post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus took place two or three weeks after the crucifixion, rather than 48 hours after it? The force of Strauss’s most famous objection to ADT rests on the very assumption that Strauss was challenging: the assumption that the Gospels provide us with accurate and reliable historical accounts of the life of Jesus. If your reject this assumption, then the force of Strauss’s best-known objection to ADT is seriously diminished.
Craig might also believe that refuting ADT is sufficient to show that Jesus actually died on the cross on Good Friday. But this involves a confusion about the logical relationship between ADT and the claim that “Jesus actually died on the cross on Good Friday” (hereafter: DOC). DOC and ADT are mutually exclusive ideas:
If DOC is true, then ADT is false.
If ADT is true, then DOC is false.
However, these two ideas do not jointly exhaust all of the logical possibilities:
If DOC is false, then ADT might be true or might be false.
If ADT is false, then DOC might be true or might be false.
What Craig may not fully realize is that ADT is a fairly complex idea. ADT makes more than a dozen assumptions and assertions:
1. There was an historical Jesus.
2. Jesus was crucified on Good Friday.
3. Jesus appeared to die on the cross on Good Friday, but he was actually still alive.
4. Jesus was judged on Good Friday to have died on the cross by the Roman soldiers who crucified him.
5. (4) happened because of (3).
6. Jesus was removed from the cross on Good Friday.
7. Jesus was burried in a stone tomb on Good Friday at about sunset.
8. The tomb where Jesus was burried on Good Friday was empty on Easter Sunday.
9. Jesus’ disciples experienced appearances of a living Jesus on Easter Sunday.
10. Jesus’ disciples developed a firm conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead on or shortly after Easter Sunday.
11. Jesus was alive and walking around on Easter Sunday.
12. (11) happened because of (3) and (4).
13. (8) happened because of (11).
14. (9) happened because of (11).
15. (10) happened because of (8), (9), and (11).

DOC and ADT are logically incompatible because of claim (3) above. So, one possible objection to ADT is to show that DOC is true. But there are many other claims and assumptions that are part of ADT. For example, if I challenge the assumption (1) that Jesus was an historical person, that would be a challenge to both ADT and DOC. If I challenge claim (2) that Jesus was crucified, that is a challenge to both ADT and DOC.
If I challenge claim (9) that Jesus’s disciples experienced appearances of a living Jesus on Easter Sunday, that would be a challenge to ADT. If I could prove that (9) was false, that would be showing that one of the claims of ADT was false. But showing that (9) is false would NOT prove that Jesus actually died on the cross. In fact, if (9) was proven false, that would cast significant doubt on the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts, and thus would undermine the primary evidence used to support the claim that Jesus actually died on the cross. So, objections to ADT, do not necessarily provide support for DOC, and may actually provide evidence against both ADT and DOC.
If I challenge the claim (7) that Jesus was buried in a stone tomb, that would challenge ADT but not DOC. However, if it could be proved that (7) is false, that would refute ADT, but would NOT establish that Jesus actually died on the cross. Jesus could have been crucified, and survived crucifixion, but was rescued from the cross at night by a friend or a disciple, and thus was NOT burried in a stone tomb on Good Friday. In that case both ADT and DOC would be false.
Because ADT is a complex idea, a theory, it encompasses a number of claims and assumptions, and only ONE of those assumptions is that Jesus did NOT die on the cross. So, there are lots of logical possibilities besides ADT vs. DOC. In short, refutation of ADT as a way of supporting DOC commits the fallacy of false dilemma. There are more alternatives than just these two possibilities. An objection to ADT might not provide any support for DOC, and in some cases objections to ADT also work as objections to DOC.

bookmark_borderAn Open Letter to Dr. William Lane Craig

Dear Dr. William Lane Craig,
Let me be honest: I am opposed to Christianity. I am an enemy of Christianity. My life (or at least my free time outside of work) is dedicated to attacking and destroying the Christian faith.
However, though I hate the faith, I love the believer. I don’t hate you or any other Christian apologist. In fact, I admire you and your life-long dedication to the defense of Christianity. I think you have the potential to be the best Christian apologist of the 21st century, and even of the modern era. As an undergraduate, my plan was to attend Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and do graduate study in Christian apologetics under your guidance. But I left the Christian faith about the time I graduated with a B.A. in Philosophy, so my original plan did not work out.
As an enemy of Christianity, I must admit to a certain degree of pleasure in taking apart the arguments of Christian apologists, such as your arguments for the resurrection of Jesus. But, frankly, I’m tired of knocking down the straw men that you and your fellow apologists so steadily put forward. I’m not committing the Straw-Man Fallacy when I do so; there just are no ‘real men’ out there to challenge, no real, intellectually serious cases for the resurrection of Jesus that exemplify scholarly excellence.
I don’t want to win the war against Christianity simply because you and your fellow apologists are too lazy to make a real and honest intellectually serious effort to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. I want to win only after having come face-to-face with a powerful and scholarly and well-thought-out case for the resurrection, and I think you are the one who could actually pull this off. But you have not done so yet.
David Hume was a skeptic who challenged the intellectual complacency of Immanuel Kant. As a young man, Kant thought that Christian metaphysics was in the bag, a done deal, a settled matter. Kant was wrong. It took the skeptic David Hume to wake him from his dogmatic slumber. I want to perform a similar service for you and your fellow apologists. There is no real, intellectually serious case for the resurrection of Jesus, no case that exemplifies excellent historical scholarship and careful analytic thinking. I want to wake you up from your dogmatic slumber on this issue.
Although we are on opposite sides of the fence concerning Christianity, you and I agree on some important issues. We agree that everyone, at least every American and every European (and Canadian, Mexican, Central American, and South American), ought to take a stand for or against the Christian faith. Nobody should be a Christian just because their parents were Christians, or just because their friends or neighbors were Christians. Just like nobody should be an atheist just because their parents were atheists, or just because their friends or neighbors were atheists. Each person should make up his or her own mind and take a stand on this important issue.
We also agree that, although there are many different beliefs and practices associated with Christianity, there are a few basic issues that constitute the heart-and-soul of the Christian faith: Who was Jesus? Was Jesus just a wise Jewish teacher? Or was he a true prophet, the divine Son of God, and the savior of humankind? Anyone who denies that Jesus was a true prophet, or that he was (and is) the divine Son of God, or that he was (and is) the savior of humankind, is not truly a Christian, no matter what other specific Christian beliefs or values he or she may have adopted (e.g. the Golden Rule, charity towards the poor, etc.).
Finally, you and I agree that a key question to consider, before taking a stand for or against Christianity, is this: Did God raise Jesus from the dead? And an essential part of what one needs to think about to answer that theological question, is to think about these historical questions:
1. Did Jesus actually die on the cross on Good Friday?
2. Was Jesus alive and walking around unassisted on Easter Sunday (after Good Friday)?
Unfortunately, you and your fellow apologists have failed to deal with Question (1) in an intellectually serious way.
Dr. Norman Geisler has clearly spelled out a fundamental principle on this matter:
Before we can show that Jesus rose from the dead, we need to show that He really did die. (When Skeptics Ask, p.120).
I believe that Geisler is correct. This seems like common-sense to me. It is not possible for a person to rise from the dead until AFTER that person has actually died. Thus, in order to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, one must first prove that Jesus died on the cross. But in most of your various books, articles, and debates, you simply ignore this issue. For that reason, I’m convinced that your case for the resurrection is a complete failure.
You do make a brief attempt in The Son Rises to make a case for the death of Jesus on the cross (p.37-39). But you make dozens of historical claims in just a few paragraphs and offer almost nothing in the way of actual historical evidence to support those claims. This “case” is crap. I know it is crap, and you know it is crap. It is a joke to even use the word “case” to describe the five paragraphs filled with unsupported historical claims. Geisler does a better job than this in his general handbook of apologetics (When Skeptics Ask, p.120-123). But, to the best of my knowledge, your pathetic “case” for the historicity of the death of Jesus simply reflects the general intellectual laziness of Christian apologists concerning Question (1). You are not alone.
Here are my recommendations:
1. Confess the Truth (i.e. Geisler’s principle)
If you agree with Geisler’s principle that the historicity of Jesus’ death must be proven in order to prove the resurrection, then admit this principle. If for some reason you disagree with Geisler’s principle, then say so publically, and make your best and strongest case against Geisler’s principle in public and in writing.
2. Confess the Sin (i.e. the intellectual shortfall)
If you agree with Geisler’s principle, then take the next step and admit that your case for the resurrection (as well as the case made by each of your fellow Christian apologists) is a failure because you have not (yet) made an intellectually serious case for the historicity of the death of Jesus on the cross, a case that exemplifies excellent historical scholarship and careful analytical thinking.
As a young man, Richard Swinburne looked around and noted that one of the biggest challenges to the Christian faith was in the apparent conflicts between science and faith, particularly between science and the Christian faith. He also noted that this was the elephant in the living room, that Christian theologians and intellectuals had failed to seriously address this problem. He then dedicated his life to understanding both science and the Christian faith, and to making a serious intellectual effort to reconcile science with the Christian faith. As with alcoholism, it is essential to recognize and admit that there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
3. Repent (i.e. fill the intellectual void)
I know you are a sharp person who has knowledge and skill in N.T. scholarship, and in the history of Christian apologetics, and in philosophical analysis. I have faith in you. I believe that you have the potential to fill a huge gap in Christian apologetics and to be the only modern apologist to make an intellectually serious case for the resurrection of Jesus.
So, no more of the crappy two-page “cases” for the historicity of the death of Jesus. Just say ‘NO’ to such intellectual sloth. Take your own good advice to heart:
The only reason most people think historical apologetics to be easier [than philosophical apologetics] is because they do it superficially. But, of course, one can do philosophical apologetics superficially too! My point is that if we are to do a credible job in our apologetics, we need to do the hard thinking and the hard work required, or at least to rely on those who have.
(Reasonable Faith, p.253)

On my bookcase is a two-volume set by Raymond Brown titled: The Death of the Messiah. The first volume is 877 pages. The second volume is 731 pages. Both volumes are densely-packed with intellectually serious work that exemplifies excellence in historical scholarship and careful analytical thinking. Brown is focused mainly on the meaning and significance of the Passion narratives, and pays less attention to historical issues. But there is plenty of good material there to make use of in building an intellectually serious case for the historicity of the death of Jesus.
But I’m NOT asking you to write a massive two-volume work spanning 1,600 pages in defense of the actual death of Jesus on the cross (although I wouldn’t complain if you did). What I’m asking is that you treat Question (1) with at least as much intellectual seriousness and effort and care as you have treated Question (2).
Please write a book or a long scholarly article defending the claim that “Jesus actually died on the cross.” One hundred pages would be a good start. A 200-300 page book could really do the trick.
Sincerely,
Bradley Bowen
Skeptic and Enemy of Christianity