In Chapter 8 of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. They claim that there are only four skeptical theories that are alternatives to the Christian view:

1. The Swoon Theory
2. The Conspiracy Theory
3. The Hallucination Theory
4. The Myth Theory

Based on that assumption they attempt to refute each of these skeptical theories in order to try to prove the resurrection of Jesus. They claim to have refuted all four of these skeptical theories in Chapter 8, and they conclude that this proves that the one remaining theory (the Christian view that God raised Jesus from the dead) is true.

I have examined their arguments against these four skeptical theories and my conclusion is that they have FAILED to refute ANY of these skeptical theories. Furthermore, it is clear that these are NOT the only four skeptical theories concerning the alleged resurrection of Jesus. So, their case for the resurrection of Jesus is a complete FAILURE.

But before one can show that their arguments against these theories FAIL, one must first analyze and clarify the objections that they make against the skeptical theories. One must have a clear understanding of an objection or argument before one can do a careful job of evaluating the objection or argument. Careful argument analysis is a prerequisite for doing careful argument evaluation.

I have previously carefully analyzed and clarified their fourteen objections against the Hallucination Theory so that I could carefully evaluate those objections. But recently, I have developed a step-by-step process for careful argument analysis, so I decided to go back and work through those fourteen objections again, this time following my step-by-step process for careful argument analysis. So far, I have revised my analysis of their first three objections against the Hallucination Theory. There are eleven more objections to the Hallucination Theory that I will work through again using my new process for careful argument analysis.

If you do not have a copy of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics, you can read the objections by Kreeft and Tacelli against the Hallucination Theory in this web article:

Real Encounter: 13 Reasons Jesus’ Disciples Did Not Hallucinate

NOTE: Objection #13 is followed by another different objection that Kreeft and Tacelli do not realize is a separate objection from Objection #13.

I plan to publish posts about these objections to the Hallucination Theory, as I make progress in producing revised and improved argument analyses of them.

====================

WHAT IS THE HALLUCINATION THEORY?

A basic principle of critical thinking is that one needs to be clear about the meanings of key words and phrases in an instance of thinking that one is attempting to analyze and evaluate.  CLARITY is one of the universal intellectual standards to which a critical thinker consciously strives to conform his or her thinking.  So, before we examine any of Kreeft and Tacelli’s objections against the Hallucination Theory, a first step should be to determine what specifically the Hallucination Theory asserts.

Here is what Kreeft and Tacelli say to characterize the content of the Hallucination Theory:

…the apostles were deceived by a hallucination…

(HCA, p.182)

The phrase “the apostles” refers to the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus (“the twelve” minus Judas Iscariot).  Kreeft and Tacelli are implying that the Hallucination Theory asserts that sometime after Jesus was crucified, the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus experienced hallucinations of Jesus, and that the disciples mistakenly but sincerely believed those experiences were of an actual, physical, living Jesus who had been brought back to life by God and been given an immortal body. 

Alleged appearances of the risen Jesus are a key reason given in support of the view that God raised Jesus from the dead.  The Hallucination Theory thus attempts to provide a skeptical non-supernatural explanation for the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples.

The characterization of the Hallucination Theory by Kreeft and Tacelli is too narrow and excludes many possible scenarios that would verify the truth of the Hallucination Theory.  For example, suppose that TEN of the eleven disciples each experienced hallucinations of the risen Jesus and those experiences convinced not only those ten disciples that God raised Jesus from the dead, but also convinced the one disciple who did not experience an appearance of the risen Jesus that God raised Jesus from the dead.  Clearly, this scenario would count as verifying the truth of the Hallucination Theory.  Suppose that NINE of the eleven disciples each experienced hallucinations of the risen Jesus, and that two of the eleven disciples had no alleged experiences of the risen Jesus and suppose that all eleven disciples were persuaded by this that God raised Jesus from the dead.  Again, this would clearly count as verification of the truth of the Hallucination Theory.

Suppose that only two or three of the eleven disciples experienced hallucinations of the risen Jesus, and this not only convinced those two or three disciples that God raised Jesus from the dead, but also convinced the other disciples who did not have any alleged experiences of the risen Jesus.  This too would count as verification of the Hallucination Theory.  Thus, the idea that the Hallucination Theory is true ONLY IF each and every one of the eleven disciples had hallucinations of the risen Jesus, and they each became convinced by these experiences that God raised Jesus from the dead is an overly narrow conception of the Hallucination Theory.

Not only is this narrow understanding of the Hallucination Theory implausible and mistaken, but if we accept this narrow definition of the Hallucination Theory, then Kreeft and Tacelli’s case for the resurrection of Jesus would immediately FAIL, because that narrow definition implies that there are MANY OTHER skeptical theories about the resurrection that Kreeft and Tacelli have not considered and thus have not refuted. 

What about the theory that ten of the eleven disciples experienced hallucinations of the risen Jesus?  What about the theory that nine of the eleven disciples experienced hallucinations of the risen Jesus?  What about the theory that eight of the eleven disciples…etc. 

Christian apologists, such as Kreeft and Tacelli, are tempted to define skeptical theories very narrowly because such narrow definitions make it easier for them to refute skeptical theories (thus committing the STRAW MAN fallacy).  But a key claim of Kreeft and Tacelli’s case for the resurrection is that there are only FOUR skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus.  When they define any of those skeptical theories narrowly, that opens up room for other possible skeptical theories (e.g. only ten of the eleven disciples experienced hallucinations of the risen Jesus), and that makes their key claim that there are only FOUR skeptical theories FALSE. 

If Kreeft and Tacelli were to insist on a narrow definition of the Hallucination Theory, then their case for the resurrection would immediately FAIL, so they have no choice but to allow for a broader definition of the Hallucination Theory.  I propose the following broader definition to use in evaluating Kreeft and Tacelli’s objections:

The Hallucination Theory is true IF AND ONLY IF:

Sometime after Jesus was crucified, at least one or two of the original followers of Jesus experienced hallucinations of the risen Jesus, and that persuaded several of the original followers of Jesus that God had raised Jesus from the dead, and this was the primary basis for the origin of the Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus.