Constructive criticism - Minimal facts method

[GioD]

The so-called “minimal facts approach” is only practiced by Apologists and is no more than special pleading in favor of Christian scholarship.

How is it "special pleading"? Secular scholars attest to most if not all of these facts too.

All it offers are minimal “facts” whilst arbitrarily excluding more controversial details such as the authorship, dating and reliability of the texts.

All of these except possibly 5 can be inferred from Paul's Letters, which are among the earliest and most reliable sources of information. Their reliability is agreed upon by both secular and Christian scholars.

Even the “early belief in resurrection” can be queried in that the original belief was probably that of Jesus' spiritual body resurrecting, not the fleshly body as referred to in the gospels. Hence no “empty tomb”. Jesus mortal body decomposed like that of any other body.

When Paul said "spiritual body" he meant a physical body that was enhanced by the power of the Holy Spirit. The earliest Christians did believe Jesus' crucified body was raised.

[shunyadragon]

How is it "special pleading"? Secular scholars attest to most if not all of these facts too.

All of these except possibly 5 can be inferred from Paul's Letters, which are among the earliest and most reliable sources of information. Their reliability is agreed upon by both secular and Christian scholars.

The special pleading is not whether the facts happened or not, but the conclusions from many of the traditional Christian apologist perspective that these facts in some way provide significant historical evidence to further justify their beliefs.

For example the empty tomb is simply an empty tomb with a number of possible explanations.

Yes, many secular scholars do except that these events likely took place, but most are open to far more simpler more mundane explanations for these events.

[Doug Shaver]

Imagine what we would take as true if we followed what the internet thought!

We would take anything we wanted to believe. Whatever is said in one place on the Internet is contradicted in some other place.

[GioD]

The special pleading is not whether the facts happened or not, but the conclusions from many of the traditional Christian apologist perspective that these facts in some way provide significant historical evidence to further justify their beliefs.

For example the empty tomb is simply an empty tomb with a number of possible explanations.

Yes, many secular scholars do except that these events likely took place, but most are open to far more simpler more mundane explanations for these events.

The only trouble is no naturalistic explanation can account for the combination of every fact. Each entails the denial of another fact.

[Doug Shaver]

The only trouble is no naturalistic explanation can account for the combination of every fact. Each entails the denial of another fact.

That cannot happen. What can happen is, a statement purporting to be factual can deny another statement purporting to be factual, but then at least one of those statements has to be false. No actual fact can contradict another actual fact.

[GioD]

That cannot happen. What can happen is, a statement purporting to be factual can deny another statement purporting to be factual, but then at least one of those statements has to be false. No actual fact can contradict another actual fact.

I agree completely. That's why the naturalistic explanations should be rejected.

[GioD]

Hi all,

I have been writing a wiki page about the minimal facts method - the way I'd say that Gary Habermas goes about arguing for the resurrection of Jesus. I'm by no means a historian and there are a lot of people here with a better historical and biblical knowledge than me. So I'm interested in getting some constructive criticism, and suggestions for how to make the argument better.

The page is here:
http://www.apologetics-wiki.com/wiki.../Minimal_facts

I'm not interested in getting into a big argument about ECREE, and, no, I'm not trying to convert you atheists. What I do want to know is: Are there ways to make this argument better? For example: Are there some good sources (preferably which are available on the web) which I should cite? Have I written things which are just wrong? Do you have some useful quotes, or some interesting piece of information that could be added?

Thank you in advance.

The link isn't working for me :(

[shunyadragon]

The only trouble is no naturalistic explanation can account for the combination of every fact. Each entails the denial of another fact.

Not so, none of the facts need to be denied at all. In ancient writings as today, personal experiences and bits of evidence may cobbled with any number of possible explanations. The personal testimony of Paul is anecdotal personal evidence. The 'empty tomb has at least several possible explanations, and being crucified for rebellion against Rome was no significant event, possible quite common, that would necessarily lead to any other conclusions that Jesus was crucified for rebellion against Rome.

Many well known skeptical scholars basically accept all the events as possibly if not likely true and do not conclude that the ressurection was a true event. There are indeed naturalistic explanations that can easily account for all these events and other claims as well.

[GioD]

Not so, none of the facts need to be denied at all. In ancient writings as today, personal experiences and bits of evidence may cobbled with any number of possible explanations.

But how many probable ones?

The personal testimony of Paul is anecdotal personal evidence.

Actually it's testimonial, not anecdotal.

The 'empty tomb has at least several possible explanations, and being crucified for rebellion against Rome was no significant event, possible quite common, that would necessarily lead to any other conclusions that Jesus was crucified for rebellion against Rome.

They claimed Jesus rebelled against Rome, but what really happened is a good bit more complicated than that. Even if Jesus did actually rebel against Rome that doesn't make a naturalistic explanation more likely.

Many well known skeptical scholars basically accept all the events as possibly if not likely true and do not conclude that the ressurection was a true event. There are indeed naturalistic explanations that can easily account for all these events and other claims as well.

Not that I've seen. Every skeptical scholar I've read either doesn't offer a naturalistic explanation or offers one that entails one or more of the facts being false. Unless you have quotes to support you otherwise...

[shunyadragon]

But how many probable ones?

At least several proble alternatives as cited by scholars

Actually it's testimonial, not anecdotal.

The testimony remains anecdotal by definition.

They claimed Jesus rebelled against Rome, but what really happened is a good bit more complicated than that. Even if Jesus did actually rebel against Rome that doesn't make a naturalistic explanation more likely.

Complexity aside, the fact that it was a common punishment for rebellion against Rome as Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews makes it likely for a naturalistic explanation. I have simply proposed that based on the given events listed it cannot be proposed that the supernatural is not necessarily the more likely explanation. There are logical and viable natural explanations for the events.

Not that I've seen. Every skeptical scholar I've read either doesn't offer a naturalistic explanation or offers one that entails one or more of the facts being false. Unless you have quotes to support you otherwise...

Geza Vermes for one does not entail that any one of these facts be false, but does not conclude that the Resurrection is true. You yourself said many skeptical scholars accept the facts as historical. Are you back peddling

http://earliestchristianity.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/geza-vermes-on-jesus-resurrection-liconas-summary-and-evaluation/

The first hypothesis to be examined is that of Geza Vermes, whose view can be summarized as follows:

(1) The empty tomb is historical. Jesus’ tomb really was empty at a point shortly after his death and burial. (2) The appearances (apparitions?) to Jesus’ original disciples are also historical. (3) Belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is not supported by evidence that meets the standards of legal or scientific inquiry. (4) The following naturalistic explanations all fail upon further examination: Jesus’ body was stolen, the wrong tomb was visited, Jesus did not actually die, or Jesus resurrection was spiritual. (5) Historians are unable to determine whether Jesus was actually resurrected. Agnosticism on the matter is the proper position to take. (6) After Jesus’ crucifixion, his followers had a powerful mystical experience at Pentecost that convinced them he had been raised and motivated them to continue their ministry (472-73).

© source where applicable

[GioD]

At least several proble alternatives as cited by scholars

Just because they're cited by scholars (especially when you say it in such a vague way) doesn't make it probable.

The testimony remains anecdotal by definition.

What's your definition of "anecdotal" then?

Complexity aside, the fact that it was a common punishment for rebellion against Rome as Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews makes it likely for a naturalistic explanation.

Why? If anything it supports a supernatural one - see http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#one

I have simply proposed that based on the given events listed it cannot be proposed that the supernatural is not necessarily the more likely explanation. There are logical and viable natural explanations for the events.

But no probable ones.

Geza Vermes for one does not entail that any one of these facts be false, but does not conclude that the Resurrection is true.

I said the only way one could hold to a naturalistic account while keeping all the facts was taking a position of Agnosticism, which is exactly what Dr. Vermes does!

Are you back peddling

No. If ~3/4 skeptical scholars each affirm one of the 4 main facts the majority of skeptical scholars attest to them all. It may not be the case that the majority of them say all 4 are true at once but the majority, in total, affirms all of the facts. An atheist on this very thread pointed out the force in stacking the skeptical scholars' views of the facts!

[shunyadragon]

Just because they're cited by scholars (especially when you say it in such a vague way) doesn't make it probable.

No just because they're cited by theist scholars (especially when you say it in such a vague way) doesn't make it probable.

What's your definition of "anecdotal" then?

Anecdotal testimony is personal accounts, or stories of experiences that are not verifiable by objective evidence.

Why? If anything it supports a supernatural one - see http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#one

Please, not tektonics. If you want to cite something from this cite and be specific, do not argue by weblink.

But no probable ones.

Yes, probable ones.

I said the only way one could hold to a naturalistic account while keeping all the facts was taking a position of Agnosticism, which is exactly what Dr. Vermes does!

The agnosticism referred to here by Vermes is what most skeptical scholars hold to, specifically there is insufficient information to draw a definitive conclusion. This directly results from the probability that these events could be explained by natural causes. If they believed they could not be explained by natural causes, than the any alternative is the traditional Christian Claim. Vermes does not go there. They do not draw conclusions saying the reported events listed above are true nor false.

No. If ~3/4 skeptical scholars each affirm one of the 4 main facts the majority of skeptical scholars attest to them all. It may not be the case that the majority of them say all 4 are true at once but the majority, in total, affirms all of the facts. An atheist on this very thread pointed out the force in stacking the skeptical scholars' views of the facts!

Please cite sources. I cited Vermes, who is a top notch scholar, accepts all the above as historical, but concludes there is insufficient information to justify the conclusion. Virtually all skeptical scholars do not say any of these facts are 'false.' They question at various levels the weakness or strength that they are supported by historical evidence. Ehrman does not consider the claim of the 'empty tomb' as false, he believes the evidence for it as a historical event is weak.

[GioD]

No just because they're cited by theist scholars (especially when you say it in such a vague way) doesn't make it probable.

Fortunately I never argued that my position was true by virtue of being held by scholars.

Anecdotal testimony is personal accounts, or stories of experiences that are not verifiable by objective evidence.

How do you define "verifiable by objective evidence" in this case? I'm not trying to go into a definition loop, but I want to know what your actual argument is.

Please, not tektonics. If you want to cite something from this cite and be specific, do not argue by weblink.

This being the case, we may fairly ask, for the first time in this essay, why Christianity succeeded at all. The ignominy of a crucified savior was as much a deterrent to Christian belief as it is today - indeed, it was far, far more so! Why, then, were there any Christians at all? At best this should have been a movement that had only a few strange followers, then died out within decades as a footnote, if it was mentioned at all.

The historical reality of the crucifixion could not of course be denied. To survive Christianity should have either turned Gnostic (as indeed happened in some offshoots), or else not bothered with Jesus at all, and merely made him into the movement's first martyr for a higher moral ideal within Judaism. It would have been absurd to suggest, to either Jew or Gentile, that a crucified being was worthy of worship or died for our sins.

There can be only one good explanation: Christianity succeeded because from the cross came victory, and after death came resurrection. The shame of the cross turns out to be one of Christianity's most incontrovertible proofs!

-happy now?

Yes, probable ones.

Naked assertion.

This directly results from the probability that these events could be explained by natural causes.

I didn't want a vague question-begging appeal like this, I want to see actual explanations. Because once you overcome the skeptical bias in such a view you'll see every Naturalistic explanation falls on its face!

They do not draw conclusions saying the reported events listed above are true nor false.

Vermes does:

The empty tomb is historical.... The appearances (apparitions?) to Jesus’ original disciples are also historical.

They question at various levels the weakness or strength that they are supported by historical evidence.

It's the same basic principle, and I write these on short timeframes so I can't access the work of scholars now, if and when I get the chance I will give quotes. Besides, I was giving those numbers as hypothetical examples to refute your claim that just because the majority of skeptical scholars affirm these facts that one of the naturalistic explanations accounts for them all, which just above you gave an even more ready explanation for - that they presuppose the improbability of Christian explanations!

[Doug Shaver]

What can happen is, a statement purporting to be factual can deny another statement purporting to be factual, but then at least one of those statements has to be false. No actual fact can contradict another actual fact.

That's why the naturalistic explanations should be rejected.

Sure, if we presuppose the factuality of certain historically orthodox Christian dogmas. Otherwise, I don't see how that follows.

[GioD]

Sure, if we presuppose the factuality of certain historically orthodox Christian dogmas. Otherwise, I don't see how that follows.

There's no presupposition involved. The Gospels and Paul's letters can be proved reliable and we can draw the key facts from them. If one wants to propose a naturalistic explanation that accounts for some of the facts but entails the denial of others then it's either question-begging or special pleading.