Is it insane to believe in the Resurrection?

Greg Clarke

Is it sane to believe in the resurrection?

Or is the whole Christian festival of Easter based on a foolish hope, an insane desire that something impossible happened back in the first century and it somehow helps us in our lives today?

If you read the atheist writers today, you would certainly think so. Richard Dawkins, the sharp-witted atheist professor from Oxford University, said in a recent debate with a Christian professor, "It all quite really comes down to the resurrection of Jesus. It has a fundamental incompatibility [with] the sophisticated scientist… It's so petty, it's so trivial, it's so local, it's so earth-bound, it's so unworthy of the universe."

The New Testament gives us perhaps a surprising answer to the question “is it insane to believe in the resurrection?” It says ‘yes’ – if the resurrection didn’t take place.

In the first letter to the Corinthian church, the writer (the apostle Paul) makes it plain that he thinks it is crazy to be a Christian, to be a believer in Jesus Christ as the living Son of God and Lord of everything, if this Jesus did not rise from the grave after his crucifixion. He writes, “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1 Corinthians 15:14). The Christian faith stand or falls on this. Paul doesn’t say, well, let’s just put the resurrection to one side and get on living morally as Christians, doing good deeds and being polite to each other. Rather, he calls a spade a shovel: “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men” (1 Corinthians 15:19). The New Testament gives us perhaps a surprising answer to the question “is it insane to believe in the resurrection?” It says ‘yes’ – if the resurrection didn’t take place.

If you were making this story up ... you wouldn’t have given women such an important role.

Before you summon up pity by the parish-ful, consider the implications of the Apostle’s position. It means that the plausibility of the resurrection is important. It is not a fanciful notion that is worth holding even if it didn’t occur; rather, it is something that history, philosophy and psychology ought to comment on. Thankfully, all of those disciplines do just that.

History tells us at least three significant things. First, we have multiple, independent and early accounts that the tomb in which Jesus was laid was found to be empty. You can read them because they are now compiled in what we call the New Testament section of the Bible. But remember, these are historical records that anyone can examine, regardless of their beliefs.

I have to add, with embarrassment here, that one of the reasons for believing these are historically accurate records is that the reports of the empty tomb are given by women. And in the ancient world, no one trusted the accounts given by women! If you were making this story up rather than reporting what really happened, you wouldn’t have given women such an important role. Outrageous, but true.

Second, in these independent records known now as the New Testament, there are accounts of many people seeing Jesus alive again three days after his burial. And some of these accounts were written while those witnesses of Jesus were still alive so they could easily have been checked and denied. Even the ardent sceptics take the historical nature of the resurrection appearances seriously. People thought they saw Jesus alive again—make of that what you will, but it is historically significant.

And third, history has to account for the rise of Christianity, something that makes most sense if a resurrection-style event took place to ‘shock’ the followers of Jesus into action. Something happened back then in the first century, at the first Easter, that those early Christians witnessed and that gave them reason to tell others about it, despite their fears and insecurities.

When we turn to philosophy, the figure of David Hume looms monstrously over the idea that a miraculous event such as a bodily resurrection took place. But, as philosopher John Earman has demonstrated in his book Hume’s Abject Failure, Hume does not allow any of the ‘background information’ about events to affect their likelihood of occurring. When you allow a piece of background information such as ‘God exists and is involved in the world”–a view which the majority of human beings still hold to be true—it becomes rather simple to believe that an event such as resurrection from the dead is plausible. You would still want to know it happened (that’s where history comes in), but the prior belief that God exists means there are no philosophical barriers in the way. And third, we turn to psychology. Some theorists of human behaviour want to claim that the resurrection is just another example of wish-fulfilment by mortals. We fear death, so we are predisposed to believe that someone could conquer it and we would worship such a being.

belief in the resurrection of Jesus seems reasonable, defensible and very attractive.

I agree. We are afraid of death; we do wish to survive it and spend most of our time trying to; and we would fall in humble adoration before anyone who could help us do so. That’s why I’m a Christian, because I believe that in Jesus Christ, that wish is fulfilled—actually, in history, not simply emotionally.

When I add together the history, the philosophy and the psychology, belief in the resurrection of Jesus seems reasonable, defensible and very attractive. It would seem insane not to at least give it serious thought.

Greg Clarke is co-director of the Centre for Public Christianity

This article first appeared on ABC Online Opinion and Analysis
 

29-Apr-2009 02:03 PM Anonymous
Short, sweet and to the point. You obviously couldn't get into the details (and I'm sure someone will comment toward this end), but I think you wrote a short article that gets to the heart of the matter and will at least make some look into the question some more.

30-Apr-2009 01:54 PM Megan Hinchley

Greg, A couple of quick questions/comments on your well written article. 1. You write "we have multiple, independent and early accounts that the tomb in which Jesus was laid was found to be empty". How independent are our sources on the topic of the empty tomb? It is my understanding that the writings of Paul do not specifically mention an empty tomb. The empty tomb is certainly discussed in the gospels, but are we confident on exactly who wrote these documents, and are they really independent? Matthew and Luke appear to draw on Mark, and to my knowledge, many scholars suggest they also draw heavily upon another (now lost) common source. The book of Acts and Luke appear to be written by the same author. The gospel of John appears to be distinct, but can we be confident that this gospel, and the others, were not the work of a single community, or of people drawing upon a common body of knowledge with a single origin? The documents may be "different", but are they really "independent"? 2. You write "and some of these accounts were written while those witnesses of Jesus were still alive so they could easily have been checked and denied". This statement may require qualification. The books that most explicitly describe the appearance of the risen Christ are the gospels (excluding Mark), and the book of Acts. The book of Acts appears to have been written approximately 30 years after the death of Jesus; the gospels somewhere between 35 to 60 years after his death. With that in mind, the following points apply. A person denouncing the appearance of the risen Christ as written in the gospels would need to have been alive between 30 to 60 years after the resurrection. They would need to have read (or at least have heard) the written account of the appearance. They would also need to be in a position to actively discount the resurrection story. i.e. The fact that a person did not witness the localized appearance of the risen Christ is not sufficient for that person to argue the event did not occur (they may have been on the other side of town when the appearance took place). The person would then need to write against the account (or speak out to the point that the contention is recorded). Finally, a record of the written contention would need to have survived until the modern day. These points suggest that the absence of 1st century counter arguments to the resurrection story are not entirely surprising. 3. In relation to your third point "something happened back then in the first century... that gave them reason to tell others about it, despite their fears and insecurities": to this i will only say, history is replete with examples of people who have been motivated to stand for a cause, even until death, despite the fact the cause was based on a lie, misunderstanding, wishful thinking, etc. 4. I agree with your final point on "background information" to the extent that the value of any idea must be weighed against the value of the alternatives. However, are you saying that a general belief in the existence of a god somehow aids belief in the resurrection, on the grounds that if a god existed, all things would be possible? This approach is weakened by recognizing a universal explanation of everything (i.e. an all powerful god) is really no explanation of anything at all. Always enjoy your articles and videos. You site is an excellent resource. Thanks, H.

02-May-2009 11:47 AM Trav

Hi Megan, a couple of points. On Number 1, recently I read something about this- you might find it useful: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7047. On your 2nd point- I think most Historians agree that the Synoptics were all written within 40-50 years of Jesus, and were based on earlier sources written within 15-20 years of Jesus. On point 3- You say "history is replete with examples of people who have been motivated to stand for a cause, even until death, despite the fact the cause was based on a lie". Can you give me some examples? Also keep in mind the distinction between people who believe something to be true, and people who know something to be true. For example, modern day examples like the Branch Davidians and the like- they die for silly causes, but they are dying for causes they believe to be true. They do not KNOW. The disciples died for something, and they were in the position to know whether it was true or not because they were there. Regards Trav

06-May-2009 07:44 AM Megan Hinchley

To the site moderator: The comment dated April 30 was from Peter Hinchley, not Megan Hinchley. I recall submitting the comment as "Hinch". Not sure how or why this was translated to Megan Hinchley. To Trav: Thanks for the link. I'll definitely check it out. The essence of the second point in my previous comment was that we should not be surprised by the absence of first century documentation critiquing the resurrection account, for the existence of such documentation is surely contingent upon a chain of factors, including those that i listed. Even if we assume that detailed accounts describing the appearance of a resurrected Jesus existed within 15 years of his death, as opposed to the 30 years i proposed, the fact remains, the existence of early documentation refuting the resurrection should not be seen as a necessary condition for denying its occurrence, for the existence of such documentation is itself dependent on myriad conditions. To answer your question, and follow up on my statement, "history is replete with examples of people who have been motivated to stand for a cause, even until death, despite the fact the cause was based on a lie", i will say: I think we are all willing, at least to some extent, to endure unnecessary persecution in an effort to maintain a position we know to be invalid. A criminal accepting an extended prison sentence in lieu of admitting guilt; a man willing to lose his wife and family in preference to conceding a thoughtless act of infidelity; a soldier willing to lose his life supporting a cause he admits to be wrong; a person caught up in a crusade, so driven by passion, that ultimately, the ends override the means. We are all driven by complex motives of pride, honor, self-righteousness, duty and devotion, and we will frequently accept social alienation, erosion of liberty, financial difficulty, public humiliation, and emotional and physical suffering, in order to maintain a flawed position. You stressed the importance of distinguishing between those that believe something to be true, and those that know something to be true. I think we can over play this distinction, for many of us turn our "wants" into "beliefs", and our "beliefs" into "truths". The difference between what we accept as truth, and what we sincerely know to be true, may not always be as large as we think. We should therefore not see the supposed persecution of the disciples, resulting from their proclamation of the gospel, as most reasonably explained by truth of the resurrection. Thanks, H.

06-May-2009 09:39 AM Anonymous
Dear H, Please accept my apologies for the name appearing with your comment. I'm not sure how that happened and will investigate it. We certainly intend to allow people to comment anonymously if they wish - hence the name, website, and email address appearing as 'optional'. I'll look into it and again, sorry for the way that occurred. Simon Smart

06-May-2009 09:54 AM Simon Smart

H, I agree with much of what you write here. We are certainly all a complex mix of motivations, desires, insecurities and hopes. These no doubt play a role in the things we are drawn to and the beliefs we hope to be true. It's not the whole story though. It would be a bit depressing to think we are not capable of moving towards truth and coming to understanding of the world and our place in it, despite real limitations. We see this when we sometimes come to change our perception of the world, and are 'converted' to another way of thinking. The well known sceptic A.N. Wilson's recent re-conversion to Christianity might serve as an example. I don't think it is generally true that people accept public humiliation and physical suffering in support of something they know to be false, even if there are some examples of this occurring. Finally, might it not equally be true, that sometimes people reject something they suspect might be true for the same reasons you have outlined above - 'turning our wants into beliefs'? Best wishes, Simon

Copyright © 2008 Centre for Public Christianity | Privacy Policy | 30-Apr-2009 09:05 AM | Powered by Business Catalyst