Richard Swinburne - The Probability of the Resurrection of Jesus
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2014
- God has major reasons for intervening in human history by becoming incarnate himself - to identify with our suffering, to provide atonement for our sins, and to reveal truths. Given there is at least a significant probability that there is a God, there is at least a modest probability that he would become incarnate and live a life and provide teaching appropriate to one who sought thereby to realise these goals. Jesus lived and taught in the appropriate way. If it was God incarnate who did so live and teach, he would need to show us that it was God who had done so, and so could be expected to put his signature on that life and teaching by a super-miracle, such as the Resurrection. So there is a modest prior probability in advance of considering the direct historical evidence of the Resurrection, to expect that it would happen to someone who lived and taught as Jesus did. Jesus is the only person in human history about whom there is significant evidence both that he led the appropriate kind of life, and that his life was culminated by a super-miracle. So we do not need too many witnesses to the empty tomb or too many witnesses who claimed to have talked to the risen Jesus, to make it probable that Jesus did indeed rise. We do have some such witness evidence, which it is very improbable would occur (in connection with someone who led the appropriate sort of life) unless the Resurrection occurred. In consequence it is overall very probable that the Resurrection occurred.
RICHARD SWINBURNE is a Fellow of the British Academy. He was Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford from 1985 until 2002. He is best known for his trilogy on the philosophy of theism (The Coherence of Theism, The Existence of God, and Faith and Reason).The central book of this trilogy, The Existence of God (2nd edition, 2004) claims that arguments from the existence of laws of nature, those laws as being such as to lead to the evolution of human bodies, and humans being conscious, make it probable that there is a God. He has summarized the ideas of this trilogy in a short 'popular' book, Is There a God? He has written a tetralology of books on the meaning and justification of central Christian doctrines (including Revelation and Providence and the Problem of Evil). He has written at various lengths on many of the other major issues of philosophy (including epistemology, the study of what makes a belief rational or justified, in his book Epistemic Justification); and he has applied his views about what is made probable to the issue of how probable it is on the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead in The Resurrection of God Incarnate. He has summarized the ideas of the later tetralogy and on the Resurrection in a second 'popular' book, Was Jesus God? He is also well known for his defence of ‘substance dualism’ (the view that humans consist of two parts -soul and body), especially in his book The Evolution of the Soul. His new book Mind, Brain, and Free Will claims that substance dualism has the consequence that humans have free will to choose between good and evil. It argues that neuroscience cannot now and could not ever show this claim to be false. He lectures frequently in many different countries.
Christ is Risen!
Христос Воскресе!
Χρηστος Ανεστι!
Hristos a Inviat!
Aleluia
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
C. S. Lewis
Wrong. If Christianity is false, it means that billions of people throughout history have constructed their lives, morals, and understanding around a false belief. You’re crazy if you think that is of no importance.
christianity is neither true or false since there is no well defined "christianity".
Best video on the internet
Which of these two stories has a higher probability of having occurred:
Jesus of Nazareth is crucified in Jerusalem in circa 30 AD. As he draws his final breath, the entire earth goes dark for three hours, a violent earthquake shakes dead people awake in their graves, and rips the Temple veil down the middle. Jesus' body is taken down off the cross and placed in the tomb of Joseph of Arimethea, a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish governing body which the previous night had voted unanimously to execute Jesus. The tomb is sealed with a large stone and Roman guards placed in front of it. Three days later, a second great earthquake shakes Jerusalem, causing the dead who had been shaken awake in the first earthquake to now come out of their tombs to roam the streets of Jerusalem and reconnect with old acquaintances; an angel (or angels) comes and rolls away the great stone in front of the tomb, causing the soldiers to faint and testifies to one, several, or many women that Jesus' tomb is empty; that he had risen from the dead. Jesus later appears to the Eleven, and eight days (or forty days) later, ascends into heaven from a mountain in Bethany (or Galilee, or from the Upper Room in Jerusalem). The resurrection appearances of Jesus so emboldened the previously easily-frightened, doubting disciples that they now boldly preach the gospel of Jesus in the temple, Judea, and the world, dying martyrs deaths, refusing to recant their eyewitness testimony that they had seen the resurrected, walking/talking body of Jesus. These same disciples soon write the Gospels and several epistles that would soon become the New Testament of the Bible. The Gospel of Jesus spreads like wildfire, even though furiously persecuted by both the Jews and Romans, to become the dominant faith of the Western World for two thousand years.
Or, is this what happened:
Jesus of Nazareth is crucified. He dies. His body is left on the cross for days, as was the Roman custom, to warn any other "King of the Jews" pretender to think twice about stirring up trouble. After a few days have passed and the birds, dogs (Roman crosses were low to the ground), and other carrion ravaged the body, the remains were taken down at night and tossed into an unmarked common grave---a hole in the ground--- with the bodies of other criminals executed that week. The location of this common grave is known only to a few soldiers, as the Romans do not want to give the "King of the Jews" a proper burial nor do they want a known grave to become a national shrine where Jews could later come and pay homage to their "King", possible inciting more trouble. Jesus disciples who were already in hiding, go home to Galilee to take up their prior professions---fishing or collecting taxes. The small band is devastated. Their beloved leader is dead; their hopes of reigning over the New Kingdom on twelve thrones with Jesus are dashed to pieces; there will be no overthrow of the hated Romans after all. All hope seems lost. Then...months or a few years after Jesus' death...a couple of women disciples see a man in the distance, at sunset, and in the silhouette of the fading sun...he looks like Jesus. Is it Jesus? He turns to them, waves with his hand, and then disappears behind a hill. "It was Jesus!" they exclaim. They run and tell the disciples. Soon other disciples are "seeing" Jesus. "He is risen, just as he said he would!" The disciples are thrilled! They WILL reign in the New Kingdom after all! They begin to preach the Gospel of Jesus, telling everyone how he has risen from the dead, as he promised.
...and forty years later, after Jerusalem has been destroyed and most of the disciples are dead, a Greek speaking Christian in Rome writes down the story of Jesus. However, the version of the oral story that this man hears circulating in Rome tells of an empty tomb, the tomb of a member of the Sanhedrin, ...so "Mark" writes down the story. A decade or so later, "Matthew" in another far away location and "Luke" in another, write down the story of Jesus. They borrow heavily from "Mark's" story, from another common source (Q), and from other sources that they do not seem to have shared. For instance, "Matthew's" story contains incredible supernatural tales, such as an earthquake occurring when Jesus died, causing dead people to come back to life...but they don't come out of their graves until three days later! One wonders what they were doing in their tombs for three days!
And two thousand years later, every Christian on earth believes that the stories written by "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" are the historically accurate accounts of the life and death of Jesus, when all they are are legendary stories. No one lied. No one made anything up. It's a legend. Now, dear Christian, how many supernatural events such as dead people coming out of their graves and walking around town have you seen in your life? Not many, have you? And how many times have you seen a simple story about a car accident or someone's mysterious death, turn into the wildest tale, with all kinds of miraculous claims, develop in just a matter of days?
So, honestly, friend: Which of the above two stories about Jesus is much more probable to be true?
+Gary M any sane person would believe the first one
+Gary M By Occam's razor: the first as it posits the least number of assumptions.
+Gary M The first one, of course.
It's funny how you toss in the supposed report of bodies coming into Jerusalem as if it's a definitive event in the life of Jesus. It wasn't pert of the gospel message of Paul. It is mentioned in the gospels, yes. But you simply assume it was meant to be a literal event. Not necessarily. Scholars like Donald Hagner, Mike Licona, RT France others...raise issues about it being a literal event and give reasons for its inclusion.
Gary M Wow, that was amazingly well written. Thanks for the comment!
Swinburne is reading from a paper and the link is provided by another commenter below.
He actually jumps over almost all of his last paragraph. That's where he throws out some actual numbers that he uses to calculate the overall probably of the resurrection of Jesus. They include a probability of 0.5 for there being a God and 0.5 for God becoming man. Believers would estimate those probabilities as 1 and non-believers would estimate them as 0. Since there's no agreement on that, what's the point of using the Bayesian equation?
No believed and non believers I know would put the number that high or low. Swineburne chooses that number based on his arguments from natural theology.
Swineburne ,the baloney theology exponent
Let's try to read some scholarship before commenting fundy atheists...
Timothy Bukowski Do you require such scholarly study from people joining your religion or just from people who are not persuaded by it? It seems that in order to profess a belief in something then the onus is on you to demonstrate that you understand that to which you aspire. No study is required from atheists as they are not the ones making a claim.
Dicky R they do
Certainly, first step is to identify some evidence to be addressed by scholarship... So far... Nothing has been turned up but hearsay and feelings...
@Dicky R I do believe his "study the subject" condition was placed on "before writing a comment" as it relates to "atheists." Your comment is irrelevant as a response to what was posted. However, it is, in fact, a requirement that any true professing believer study to show his or herself approved regarding the wisdom and application of The Holy Scriptures and its overall logical and existential import.
@@elsiervo121 bullshit. You guys don’t say that when trying to persuade children, or desperate people. Going “any true professing believer” is just a no true Scotsman argument.
31:05
No
Resurrection? Okay, for discussion’s sake I’m willing to posit that JC died and returned to life. No tricks, no coma or catatonia: he was straight-up dead, then lived again. Hey, why not-according to the Bible, there was a lot of that going on then (Mat 27:52-53)! All of which proves…what?
That JC was very special or very lucky? Yes, for sure!
That there is a “god” that created the universe? That JC was a son of that being? Oh, and somehow also that “deity” himself? No, there is no logical step by which those conclusions automatically follow.
If you want to convince people that there's a supernatural being operating in the universe nowadays, you're going to have to give some _current_ evidence for it. JC's (alleged) resurrection, two thousand years ago, doesn't qualify.
www.veritas.org/can-scientist-believe-resurrection-three-hypotheses/
Your position is that someone saying they were the son of God, that they would die and rise again, and then dying and rising again isn’t actually evidence for the existence of God?
You wouldn’t believe in God if he had a 2 hour conversation with you and three other people.
I think Christianity is a great religion. However, we should not condemn certain things in society and label those things as sinful. Also people who take the Bible all too literally are a danger to the survival of the Christian faith.
True!
“While I don’t condone murder, I won’t call it a sin, because I don’t want to pass judgment onto the lost “
39:18-39:40 ..And that's the stupidest thing I've heard all week. Beg the question much Swineburne?
It goes like this: presuppose a good God exists. Presuppose the greatest good just so happens to be equivalent to Jesus' resurrection. Therefore a good God would certainly do that good. Therefore Jesus was raised, and evidence is just irrelevant possible icing on the perfectly circular cake.
Plus it's a non-sequitur even accepting his circular argument. Humans existed at least 100,000 years before this crucifixion, so there's no reason to presume God would have to do it by ca. 30 CE. It could be billions of years before he gets around to doing this "greatest good." Even with his circular argument, we still need strong evidence (not this weak ass evidence) to conclude this some particular individual was indeed raised from the dead. And no such evidence exists.
Incorrect. The case for the resurrection is based on probability due to it being a historical event. Science tells no tells about this. See Mike Licona and Habermas on the minimal facts argument.
Swinburne isn't begging the question, he's just loading his subjective priors with Christian-specific theological assumptions. If a person doesn't believe in God, or doesn't believe that Jesus is equivalent to the greatest good, then their Bayesian inference would be drastically different.
In other words, if you presuppose theism, and that Jesus was predicted in the Old Testament, then you will conclude the probability of Jesus' resurrection will be very high. This is little more than a prejudiced argument.
Jarrid Gable Why do Christians think asserting their opinions as fact constitutes a valid argument?
@@BlGGESTBROTHER
I was just about to ask that about atheists.
Then you miss the point. Atheists ask for evidence, Christians assert that two thousand year old hearsay accounts constitute facts... Do you se the difference?
_"Given there is at least a significant probability that there is a God, there is at least a modest probability that he would become incarnate and live a life and provide teaching appropriate to one who sought thereby to realise these goals."_
This is precisely why probability arguments are so valuable - these presuppositions immediately expose the claimant as completely insane and not worth listening to.
Luckily professionals in the field aren't as dismissive (or embarrassingly vitriolic) as YT atheists.
+Gnomefro RUclips comments like this are so valuable. They show that the claimant is completely closed-minded and cannot interact meaningfully with careful argument, even if that argument is false.
+Luke Barnes On point my friend. Internet skeptics will cherry-pick statements they find detestable and then declare "Aha! The argument is nonsense."
@@LukeABarnes No. You must really have lost at least some of your marbles if you stand up and make the argument swinebyrne makes. This isnt a rational intellectual argument.
@@matswessling6600 it's a good thing you aren't standing up anywhere making arguments about anything.