WHERE WE ARE

I am in the process of presenting my evaluation of Objection #9 by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory (see Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics).

Here, again, is the core argument of Objection #9 (Swoon Theory Implies False Theories):

1a. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN either (a) the Conspiracy Theory is true or (b) the Hallucination Theory is true.

B. It is NOT the case that either (a) the Conspiracy Theory is true or (b) the Hallucination Theory is true.

THEREFORE:

A. The Swoon Theory is FALSE.

In Part 33 of this series, I showed that the key premise (B) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. This is a sufficient reason to reject the core argument of Objection #9 against the Swoon Theory.

In this current post, I will argue that premise (1a), the other key premise in the core argument of Objection #9, is FALSE, and thus that the core argument is UNOUND. This will give us a second good reason to reject the core argument and to conclude that Objection #9 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

EVALUATION OF THE KEY PREMISE (1a)

In order to evaluate premise (1a), we must know what is meant by the terms “Swoon Theory“, “Conspiracy Theory“, and “Hallucination Theory“. This is a little tricky, because I do not accept the meanings given to these terms by Kreeft and Tacelli. However, premise (1a) is FALSE on their understanding of these terms, and it is also FALSE on my understanding of these terms. So, in either case, this premise is FALSE.

Their Narrow Definitions of the Three Skeptical Theories

Kreeft and Tacelli define these three theories in a narrow way. They, like most Christian apologists, naively assume that all eleven of the remaining disciples of Jesus (the twelve minus Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus) arrived at the same beliefs about Jesus’ death and alleged resurrection and that all eleven of the remaining disciples had the same reasons for forming those beliefs (or publically-stated views). This is, of course, possible, but there is a significant chance that there were differences in these beliefs between the eleven disciples concerning Jesus’ alleged death and alleged resurrection, and they could have had different reasons for holding (or preaching) those beliefs, even when they agreed on the beliefs.

The narrow understanding of Kreeft and Tacelli of these skeptical theories, like that of most Christian apologists, makes it easier for them to criticize and reject those skeptical theories. So, in defining these skeptical theories in this narrow way, they are committing the STRAW MAN FALLACY. They are mischaracterizing the contents of these skeptical theories in an unfair way that makes it easier for them to “refute” those theories.

Nevertheless, if we accept their narrow definitions of these three theories, then it follows that the Swoon Theory does NOT imply the Conspiracy Theory and does NOT imply the Hallucination Theory. Furthermore, it follows that the Swoon Theory does NOT imply that: “EITHER the Conspiracy Theory is true OR the Hallucination Theory is true.” Therefore, premise (1a) is FALSE, given the narrow definition of these three skeptical theories that Kreeft and Tacelli accept.

For example, if the Swoon Theory is true, then (on the narrow definition of this theory) all eleven of the remaining disciples of Jesus SINCERELY BELIEVED that God raised Jesus from the dead. But if the Conspiracy Theory is true, then (on the narrow definition of this theory) all eleven of the remaining disciples DISBELIEVED that God raised Jesus from the dead. Thus, the truth of the Swoon Theory implies that the Conspiracy Theory is FALSE!

Because the Swoon Theory implies that the Conspiracy Theory is FALSE, the Swoon Theory must imply that “the Hallucination Theory is true” in order for it to be the case that the Swoon Theory implies the claim “EITHER the Conspiracy Theory is true OR the Hallucination Theory is true.” But I will now show that the Swoon Theory does NOT imply that the Hallucination Theory is true.

If the Swoon Theory is true, then (on the narrow definition of this theory) all eleven of the remaining disciples of Jesus believe that God raised Jesus from the dead because they have seen a living and physically embodied Jesus (who survived the crucifixion). On the other hand, if the Hallucination Theory is true, then (on the narrow definition of this theory) all eleven of the remaining disciples believe that God raised Jesus from the dead because they have all had hallucinations of Jesus being alive after the crucifixion (when in fact Jesus was not actually present).

I suppose it is possible, though highly unlikely, that all eleven disciples saw a living and embodied Jesus (who survived the crucifixion) and that all eleven disciples also experienced hallucinations of Jesus being alive after the crucifixion (when in fact Jesus was not actually present). So, the key events characterized by these two skeptical theories are logically compatible. However, the seeing of a living and embodied Jesus by all eleven disciples does NOT IMPLY that any of the eleven disciples had hallucinations of Jesus being alive after the crucifixion (when in fact Jesus was not actually present). Therefore, the Swoon Theory does NOT IMPLY the Hallucination Theory, given the narrrow definitions of those theories accepted by Kreeft and Tacelli.

Because the Swoon Theory (on the narrow definition) implies that the Conspiracy Theory (on the narrow definition) is FALSE, and the Swoon Theory (on the narrow definition) does NOT IMPLY the Hallucination Theory (on the narrow definition), premise (1a) is clearly FALSE, given the narrow definitions that Kreeft and Tacelli accept of these three skeptical theories.

My Broader Definitions of the Three Skeptical Theories

However, I do not accept the narrow definitions of these skeptical theories that are accepted by Kreeft and Tacelli. I do NOT assume that all of the eleven disciples agreed on beliefs about the alleged death of Jesus on the cross and about the alleged resurrection of Jesus. I also do NOT assume that the disciples who agreed on those beliefs did so for the same reasons. What matters is that SOME of the eleven disciples agreed that Jesus died on the cross and that God raised Jesus from the dead a short time after Jesus was removed from the cross and that MOST of the disciples who played an important role in promoting this belief did so for the same reason (seeing a Jesus who survived crucifixion or having a hallucination of Jesus or deciding to intentionally lie about Jesus rising from the dead).

On my understanding of these three skeptical theories, it is not necessary that all eleven disciples arrive at the same beliefs about Jesus’ alleged death on the cross and alleged subsequent resurrection. If just one or two of the eleven disciples agreed that Jesus had died on the cross and that God had raised Jesus from the dead, and if that one or two disciples were then able to preach and persuade hundreds or thousands of other early Christian believers to accept these beliefs (and if there was more than one such disciple and they had the same reason for promoting this belief), then we could conclude that THE CAUSE or EXPLANATION of their agreement about the alleged death and alleged resurrection of Jesus was the PRIMARY CAUSE of the early Christian belief that God raised Jesus from the dead.

What is essential in my definitions of these three skeptical theories is that they characterize the PRIMARY CAUSE of the belief among early Christians that God raised Jesus from the dead. Because the three different skeptical theories provide three different PRIMARY CAUSES, they contradict each other. If the Swoon Theory is true (on my broader definition), then not only is the Conspiracy Theory FALSE, but so is the Hallucination Theory. On my understanding, each of these skeptical theories identifies the PRIMARY CAUSE of early Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection, and because those PRIMARY CAUSES are different from each other, no more than ONE of the three theories can be TRUE.

Therefore, given my broader conception of the contents of the Swoon Theory, the Conspiracy Theory, and the Hallucination Theory, it is clear that the Swoon Theory implies that the Conspiracy Theory is FALSE, and the Swoon Theory implies that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE. Thus, the Swoon Theory does NOT IMPLY that “EITHER the Conspiracy Theory is true OR the Hallucination Theory is true.” Therefore, premise (1a) is FALSE.

Combination Skeptical Theories

I should note that there is a way to combine two or more of these skeptical theories, but when one does so, the resulting theory constitutes a NEW and DIFFERENT explanation than the three skeptical theories originally proposed. So, the combination theory would, if true, imply that the original three skeptical theories were all FALSE.

For example, suppose that five of the eleven disciples saw a living and physically embodied Jesus who survived his crucifixion (without any supernatural assistance) and that the other six of the eleven disciples had hallucinations of Jesus being alive after he was crucified (even though Jesus was not actually present when they had these experiences). Suppose that all eleven disciples then agree with each other that God raised Jesus from the dead, and suppose they all sincerely believed this to be the case. Furthermore, suppose that the five disciples who saw a living and physically embodied Jesus preached and converted hundreds of people to the Christian faith including the belief that God raised Jesus from the dead. Suppose that the six disciples who had hallucinations of Jesus being alive after his crucifixion preached and converted hundreds of people to the Christian faith including the belief that God raised Jesus from the dead.

In this case, there would be NO SINGLE PRIMARY CAUSE of the early Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection. Instead, there would be TWO MAIN CAUSES of the early Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection: (1) some of the eleven disciples saw a living and physically embodied Jesus who had survived crucifixion (without any supernatural help), and (2) some of the eleven disciples had hallucinations of a living Jesus after his crucifixion (even though Jesus was not actually present when they had these experiences). This TWO-MAIN-CAUSES scenario implies that all three of the ONE-PRIMARY-CAUSE theories are FALSE.

We could say that in this scenario, the Swoon Theory would be “partly correct” and the Hallucination Theory would be “partly correct”, but since both of these theories assert that there is just ONE PRIMARY CAUSE of the early Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection, it is more accurate to say both of these theories are FALSE, in the TWO-MAIN CAUSES scenario just described.

CONCLUSIONS ABOUT PREMISE (1a) AND OBJECTION #9

Whether you accept the narrow understanding of these three skeptical theories that Kreeft and Tacelli accept, or you accept the broader understanding of these three skeptical theories that I recommend, premise (1a) is FALSE. Thus, the core argument of Objection #9 (Swoon Theory Implies False Theories) is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Therefore, we now have a second good reason to conclude that Objection #9 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.