Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:45 pm
There is a very simple argument that shows that the Bible provides very little evidence to support the belief that Christ physically rose from the dead. I'm not saying there is no evidence, only that the evidence is so weak that it doesn't warrant believing in the Christian faith. I'm talking mainstream Christian denominational beliefs.
We're going to assume that the gospels are eyewitness accounts (this grants what most will not grant, because there are less than four eyewitness accounts), and we'll also assume they were written in the first century. Also we'll grant that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which is another point that probably isn't true. So this argument grants what many others will not grant, and should not grant, and we'll still defeat the Christian belief in the resurrection. The reason for this particular attack is that Christianity falls to pieces if the resurrection is not true (at least for many Christians).
First, there are only four witnesses (actually less, probably two) to the resurrection. Thus all the evidence that Christians use to support the resurrection - the post-resurrection appearances, the guards at the tomb, the missing body, the grave clothes, the moved stone, etc, etc, are all based on the testimony of four (probably 2) biased witnesses. This is a key point, because testimonial evidence tends to be very weak, and in this case we are supposed to believe in something that has never occurred in history, based on the testimonial evidence of four people. And remember it's not just four witnesses, it's four biased witnesses, i.e., they were friends of Jesus. Even if they were sincere in their beliefs, it doesn't change the nature of their testimony. We have no objective unbiased witnesses, and there are no detailed objective historical accounts to warrant belief in a resurrection. We have second-hand testimony (hearsay) that there were over 500 post-resurrection appearances, but hearsay is very weak, much weaker than the four first-hand testimonials. It would take more than four people to convince any reasonable person that such an event actually took place, even if they were unbiased. Thus based on this simple analysis there is no good reason to believe that the physical resurrection took place; and thus it's misguided to place your faith (your belief) in the resurrection based on such weak evidence. You have to almost blindly accept it as true.
Modus Ponens
Premise 1) If the resurrection of Christ is based on two or three eyewitness accounts over 2000 years ago, then there isn't strong enough evidence to warrant belief in the resurrection.
Premise 2) The resurrection is based on two or three eyewitness accounts from over 2000 years ago.
Conclusion: There isn't strong enough evidence to warrant belief in the resurrection.
We're going to assume that the gospels are eyewitness accounts (this grants what most will not grant, because there are less than four eyewitness accounts), and we'll also assume they were written in the first century. Also we'll grant that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which is another point that probably isn't true. So this argument grants what many others will not grant, and should not grant, and we'll still defeat the Christian belief in the resurrection. The reason for this particular attack is that Christianity falls to pieces if the resurrection is not true (at least for many Christians).
First, there are only four witnesses (actually less, probably two) to the resurrection. Thus all the evidence that Christians use to support the resurrection - the post-resurrection appearances, the guards at the tomb, the missing body, the grave clothes, the moved stone, etc, etc, are all based on the testimony of four (probably 2) biased witnesses. This is a key point, because testimonial evidence tends to be very weak, and in this case we are supposed to believe in something that has never occurred in history, based on the testimonial evidence of four people. And remember it's not just four witnesses, it's four biased witnesses, i.e., they were friends of Jesus. Even if they were sincere in their beliefs, it doesn't change the nature of their testimony. We have no objective unbiased witnesses, and there are no detailed objective historical accounts to warrant belief in a resurrection. We have second-hand testimony (hearsay) that there were over 500 post-resurrection appearances, but hearsay is very weak, much weaker than the four first-hand testimonials. It would take more than four people to convince any reasonable person that such an event actually took place, even if they were unbiased. Thus based on this simple analysis there is no good reason to believe that the physical resurrection took place; and thus it's misguided to place your faith (your belief) in the resurrection based on such weak evidence. You have to almost blindly accept it as true.
Modus Ponens
Premise 1) If the resurrection of Christ is based on two or three eyewitness accounts over 2000 years ago, then there isn't strong enough evidence to warrant belief in the resurrection.
Premise 2) The resurrection is based on two or three eyewitness accounts from over 2000 years ago.
Conclusion: There isn't strong enough evidence to warrant belief in the resurrection.
