hinchley.net

This is the fifth part of a multi-part series. You can also read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.

In this post i will discuss two topics. Firstly, i will explain why i consider there to be insufficient evidence to support a belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ. I will not attempt to methodically refute all arguments standing in favour of the resurrection, although there are many who have done so; rather, i will seek to expound on why i consider even the most sturdy of arguments an inadequate justification for purporting the reality of the resurrection. Secondly, i will explain why i consider the eternal assignment of non-christians to hell to be irreconcilable with the concept of a just god.

There are numerous statements in the bible, and a handful in non-biblical sources, that report the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Any good christian apologist will explain that the passages in the bible that report the resurrection are strengthened by a principle known as “multiple attestation”. This simply means that certain books in the bible, which were written independently, consistently document the resurrection. Although somewhat true, we do need to be careful when we say that the gospel accounts are truly independent. For example, not all of the material presented in the gospels is uniquely formed: large tracts of the gospels of Matthew and Luke are explicitly based upon the gospel of Mark. Also, it’s important to recognise that the gospels were not written immediately following the resurrection (the earliest, Mark, was written perhaps 40 years later, whilst John was written up to 60-70 years after the resurrection). I say this not to discredit the writings (for in comparison with the majority of historical records, these timeframes are actually rather impressive), but merely to highlight that the gospels did not introduce “new ideas” as much as they captured the essence of existing oral traditions that were already within heavy circulation amongst christian communities. Let me explain why this is important.

We should expect that early christian communities would develop in disparate locations, and develop perspectives, preferences, and practices that were largely unique to each community (just as we experience in church’s today). We should also expect that there would be a degree of pollination across the communities (e.g. through traveling missionaries). Therefore, when two separate communities commit to writing independent gospel accounts, we should not be surprised to see the development of passages peculiar to each community, but also to witness a degree of harmonization across the accounts. Are the writings truly independent? I would say no. They may be written by different authors, and at different times, but the authors have drawn on a common body of understanding, not just explicitly, as Matthew and Luke reference Mark, but implicitly in the way the writings represent an already agreed and respected account of events. To my way of thinking, this is not “real” multiple attestation. As an example, consider this: two unrelated people attend a music concert. They return that night to their respective homes and immediately write independent reviews based on what they witnessed at the gig. This is multiple attestation. In contrast, if the fans waited a couple of weeks, read reviews of the concert recorded in high profile music magazines, discussed the gig with common friends over internet chat lines, listened to the same music critics dissect the concert on the radio, and then sat down to write their own reviews, would we say they were truly independent? I think not.

With respect to the extra-biblical references to the resurrection, i do not regard these accounts as particularly revealing. An historian is like a reporter. They report what they see and hear in the community. They are not oracles of truth. In recording the occurrence of a particular event, an historian, or other social commentator, is not necessarily lending weight to the notion that the event actually occurred. They are simply recording what others purport to have occurred. An historian may write that christians claim that Christ rose from the dead. Does this mean that Christ did? No, it just means that christians thought he did. In this respect, the secular sources speaking of the resurrection tell us nothing new; they simply reinforce a point that the bible renders perfectly clear.

Another mechanism used by christians to support the truth claims of the resurrection is the reliability of the gospel tradition; the almost faultless manner in which the text of the bible has been passed through the generations. For example, many christians will point to the reliability of the gospel tradition; the almost faultless manner in which the text of the bible has been passed through the generations. Archeological discoveries of tracts of biblical text have shown uncanny word for word consistency with modern day renderings of the ancient writings, confirming that the scribes tasked with reproducing the bible through the centuries were particularly methodical and trustworthy in the way they transcribed the text. This of course does not mean that accidental and deliberate errors have not crept into the bible. There is an entire branch of study known as textual criticism, that amongst other tasks, seeks to verify the authenticity of the scriptures, highlighting what has changed through the passage of time, what was accidentally added or removed after the fact, what was deliberately embellished, etc. There are some scholars who have become so disillusioned by the errors that have crept into the scriptures that they have abandoned the faith, although this response is somewhat difficult to appreciate, as most of the identified errors have little impact on the broader principles of christian theology. However, what i consider even more important than the reliability of transmission, is the reliability of the first writings. It is one thing to show that we can reproduce the bible word for word as it was originally written (not that we can), but it is quite another to show that the original words were indeed correct. I could write down on a piece of paper today that i have red hair. These words could be faithfully reproduced down the generations for two thousand years without suggesting for a moment that i really have red hair.

There are many other techniques used to show that the claims of the original gospel writers were valid. These techniques seek to demonstrate that the bodily resurrection of Christ is the most plausible explanation of the collected evidence. Examples include: As the resurrection was preached so close to the actual event, why did non-believers not recover the body of Jesus to demonstrate that he hadn’t risen from the dead? Why did non-believers not challenge those who claimed to have witnessed the resurrected Jesus? Why do the gospels record women as the first people to see the resurrected Christ, when society so poorly respected the opinions of women? Surely, if the story was fabricated, the scriptures would record men as witnesses of the risen Christ. Why do the gospels present the apostles as bumbling idiots? Surely if the story was fabricated the followers of Jesus would have been presented in a positive light? If the resurrection is not real, how do we explain the apparent transformation of these bumbling disciples into brave and focused missionaries who were prepared to die for their beliefs? And so on.

It would take far too much time to systematically challenge each of these points in turn (although there are many good books that do); and besides, this is not the primary purpose of this post. The point is, even if it is not possible to offer strong and sure answers to the questions offered above, even if i can’t provide a reasonable explanation as to why the disciples underwent a dramatic change of demeanor, are the absence of suitable explanations sufficient to justify a belief that a man died, lay dead for 3 days, and then rose again? This is the key point i want to address.

The evidence required to support a claim must be commensurate with the scale of the claim. I need little direct evidence that my wife went to the gym today. I know from experience that she attends the gym every Sunday. She left the house wearing gym clothes. She came home smelling a little sweaty. I am not aware of any reason why she would lie to me about going to the gym. Her behaviour is completely consistent with her character, with her past actions, and with the actions of people that attend the gym daily. Even without other evidence (i.e. the clothes, the sweat), the mere fact that she told me she went to the gym is sufficient evidence for me to believe that she did.

Now if Megan told me that instead of going to the gym she went to the moon, i’m afraid i would not take her at her word. Her statement alone is no longer sufficient to justify the magnitude of the claim. Even if she brought home some grey looking dirt in a bottle. Even if a couple of her friends vouched that they saw her blast off into space. Even if she showed me photos. I’m not going to be easily persuaded. I’m going to need more than that. The claim that in an interval of a few hours on a Sunday morning she somehow went to the moon is so extraordinary that i would need truck loads of evidence before i would believe it. And so it is with the resurrection of Christ.

It is one thing to point to a passage in the book of Acts that states that 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus. It is one thing to ask the question of how else are we to explain the transformation of the disciples. Written statements, and suggestive scenarios, may be considered sufficient evidence when trying to ascertain the plausibility of “everyday” historical events. But the resurrection is not an everyday event. It is nothing at all like Megan attending the gym. It is like Megan claiming to travel to the moon. The evidence that is sufficient to support one claim is not sufficient to support the other. The point is this: i need more, lots lots more evidence before i am willing to accept the writings of people that i do not know; writing 2000 years ago in a context, and for a purpose, of which i cannot be sure; writing in a mythical age, where without the benefit of science, and critical rational thought, all sorts of wild fancy abounded. I just cannot accept that these writings, and these writings alone, are sufficient to support a completely miraculous claim, when i, and arguably no one alive today, has ever witnessed the truly miraculous. The bible is “full” of miraculous events. Isn’t it strange that these miracles no longer occur; that the events vanish into thin air in the context of an educated and critical society? I need more. Much more evidence to support a miraculous claim.

There are some who may argue that the resurrection of Christ is really not that surprising given that Jesus is God and God can do anything. But this is a cyclic argument. For christianity is dependent upon the resurrection. The only reason christians believe that Jesus is God is because of the resurrection. To claim that the resurrection is evidence that Jesus is God, and then to say the resurrection is possible because Jesus was God is to talk in circles.

One of the primary reasons i am no longer a christian is the mismatch of the scale of the claim and the scale of the evidence as it relates to the resurrection. I am sure many christians would like to think that i left the faith either because i was never really a christian to begin with, or because i don’t want to live under the authority of God. This is crap. I have no problem with authority. I have no problem submitting to a real God. My departure from the faith has nothing to do with convenience or self will. I am no longer a christian for one reason only. I don’t see a reason to believe in God. I just don’t believe he exists.

This brings me to the topic of hell. To get straight to the point, christians believe that non-christians will spend an eternity without God. What does this mean? It means an eternity without everything that God provides: no love, no compassion, no peace, no refuge, etc. This is hell. It is the anthisesis of everything good. Or to use New Testament terms: it is a place of fire and brimstone and gnashing of teeth. It is utter torment. It is hell. And non-christians will be there for all eternity. Some may argue that hell isn’t really about punishment. It’s a bit like heading to the south pole to attend a party, but since you’re not on the guest list the host won’t let you in, and you have to sit outside in the freezing cold and slowly die; you’re not being punished, you’re just dealing with the consequences of not being permitted into the presence of the host. You get the idea: the host is God, the party is heaven, and only christians are on the guest list. It’s kind of a nice analogy, but i think it is floored, partly because it doesn’t really deal with the notion that God, in his role as a just judge, must enforce justice through punishment of the sinful. And in my unbelief, i am apparently rebelling against God, and on the day of judgement, without Christ by my side, i will be exposed to the full wrath of God and thrown into the lake of burning sulfur.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that i have a problem with this. In particular, i see this as unjust. We are told that God is just. This is why he needs to deal with sin. But the major characteristic of justice is the notion that the payment fits the crime. If i am sentenced to death after stealing a loaf of bread, you would not say that justice has been served. Similarly, if a court of law sentenced Hitler to four weeks of community service for his role in the Holocaust, you’d say that justice had been subverted. So even if we should argue that i have spent a life time in rebellion against God, is eternal punishment a just response? Not 100 years, not a thousand, not a million billion trillion, but an eternity of perfect suffering for a mere 70-80 years of sinfulness. It sounds awfully like chopping off my head for stealing a loaf of bread, only infinitely worse. This is not justice.

You may argue that because God is perfect, that any transgression against him is infinitely great, and therefore reason enough for an eternity of punishment. And yet i’m not convinced that this approach is valid. For i consider justice to center on the nature of the crime, not on the nature of the offended party. Should a criminal receive a greater punishment for murdering an “important” person than a nobody? We would say this is wrong. The crime is murder, and the criminal should be punished independently of the status of the murdered. In a similar vein, i’d argue that my crime toward God is ignorance at worst. And if i should be punished, the nature of the punishment should be based upon the nature of the crime, not on the nature of God. Anyway, what is the root cause of my apparent sinfulness? I don’t follow God because i don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief in his existence. Why should i be punished for all eternity because God hasn’t provided evidence commensurate with the claim that he came to Earth, died, and rose from the dead? Why should i be punished if he hasn’t made his presence clear? I mean, what kind of god would punish a person, and punish them for all eternity for failing to be convinced of the miraculous on insufficient evidence? It isn’t right. And it’s just another reason why i am not a christian.