Easter and historical investigation

"The disciples Peter and John came running to the tomb
on the morning of the resurrection" by Eugene Burnand (1898)

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, April 17, 2014 

Easter and historical investigation 

For many, Easter is the celebration of Jesus' bodily, physical resurrection after His death by crucifixion. Jesus' resurrection indicates that we should take Jesus seriously as Lord—God in human flesh. 

Of course, Jesus’ resurrection is a miracle. It’s an event that goes against our expectations of nature's usual course, and it’s caused by God. 

Some object that because a miracle has to do with God, a miracle is beyond historical investigation. 

Typically, Christians accept Jesus’ resurrection via faith, which is legitimate, because this is a work of the Holy Spirit. 

But in a world of competing religious claims (and competing spirits) is it possible to investigate an alleged miracle such as Jesus' resurrection historically (to arbitrate between competing spirits)? 

I think the answer is Yes. 

Note: In much of what follows I am indebted to contemporary philosopher Francis Beckwith (especially his article "History and Miracles" in the book In Defense of Miracles). 

If God were to exist and raise Jesus from the dead within physical space and time, then that miraculous event would have a physical dimension that could be accessed as historical evidence without first applying a theological interpretation to that evidence. 

Think about some of the phenomena surrounding Jesus' alleged resurrection, phenomena that can be—and have been—investigated historically apart from theological interpretation. 

Beckwith sets out the following: 

(1) “the claim by Jesus of Nazareth, a first-century Jewish carpenter, that he was the Son of God and that his resurrection from the dead would establish the truth of his claim." 

Beckwith interjects (in the lecture version of his article): "Why can't that be investigated? You have a historical person who said a number of things." 

(2) “[T]he crucifixion, death and entombment of Jesus (c. A.D. 33).” 

(3) “Jesus' tomb discovered to be empty a few days after his death.” 

(4) “[T]he claim by Jesus' followers that they saw their leader alive several days after the burial." 

It turns out that the above phenomena have been accepted by many if not most historians as historical facts. (For references see the works of Lee Strobel, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig.) 

Okay, so we have the above facts. What about interpreting those facts theologically? Is the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead out of order? 

Answer: No. 

It turns out that naturalistic (non-God) explanations run amok in view of the facts. (See Strobel, Habermas, and Craig.) 

Plus it turns out that contextual considerations make the theological interpretation plausible. 

The very facts themselves call out for a theological explanation. A resurrection smacks of supernatural causation, especially in view of the resurrectee’s divine claims. 

Moreover, and more broadly, there are good independent reasons—a cumulative case argument—for thinking that God exists. 

The Big Bang points to a beginning of the universe. Because it's reasonable to think that whatever begins to exist has a cause, it's reasonable to think that the universe's beginning—i.e., the beginning of space, time, and matter/energy—has a cause. This cause is powerful and universe transcendent: supernatural. 

Also, the fine-tuning for life of the universe's initial conditions points to the universe’s cause being a super-intelligent cause, as do the molecular machines of the living cell and its DNA code/ language. 

Also, the very concept of a miracle such as Jesus' resurrection implies/ predicts the above findings of contemporary science, thereby adding further plausibility to the theological interpretation. (For more on this, see my PhD dissertation "Miracle reports, moral philosophy, and contemporary science".) 

Now couple the above reasoning with the work of the Holy Spirit in one's heart. 

Therefore, historical investigation doesn't preclude knowledge of the resurrection of Jesus—it confirms the truth of Jesus' miraculous resurrection. 

Jesus is risen. Jesus is Lord. Happy Easter! 

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College.)

Do Jesus' miracles violate the laws of nature?

"Feeding the Multitudes" by Bernardo Strozzi (1581-1644)

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon

April 3, 2014 

Do Jesus' miracles violate the laws of nature? 

Some say that a miracle, such as Jesus’ multiplication of loaves and fishes, is a violation of the laws of nature, and thus should be dismissed. I disagree. 

The bringing about of something physical out of the non-physical does not violate nature's laws. Why not? Because such a bringing about is merely a change to the material conditions to which the laws of nature apply. 

Philosophers David and Randall Basinger explain: “Natural laws…are conditional propositions [i.e., if-then statements]. They do not describe what will or will not occur, given any set of preconditions. Natural laws tell us that, given a specific set of natural conditions and given that there are no other relevant forces present, certain natural phenomena will or will not always occur.” 

In other words, a natural law says this: If X is a so-and-so, then X does such-and-such, given no interference. For example, if X is a sugar cube, then X dissolves in water, if there are no other influences present. 

This means that if there are some other relevant forces or interferences or influences present—let's say the sugar cube has been wrapped in clear plastic—then the law concerning the solubility of sugar will not be violated when the sugar cube does not dissolve in water. Yes, our predictions might be off, but the law remains intact. 

Philosopher Robert Larmer helpfully clarifies with another example: “We do not…violate the laws of motion if we toss an extra billiard ball into a group of billiard balls in motion on a billiard table. There is no moment at which the laws of motion are contravened. What we do by introducing the extra billiard ball is change the material conditions to which the laws of motion apply and hence change the result which would otherwise be expected.” 

At this juncture, one might object that Jesus’ many loaves and fish, unlike the billiard ball, were supposedly brought into physical existence out of nothing, that is, from the non-physical realm. (Jesus had a few loaves and fish to begin with, but not enough to feed thousands plus have baskets full of leftovers.) Wouldn't a violation of a law of nature occur here? 

That is to ask: Wouldn't the creation of matter/energy violate the First Law of Thermodynamics—i.e., the Principle of the Conservation of Energy? 

Larmer anticipates this objection. Larmer points out that the Principle of the Conservation of Energy has two formulations: (1) “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, although its form may change"; and (2) "In an isolated system (that is, a system not causally influenced by something other than itself) the total amount of energy remains constant, although its form may change.” 

Larmer also points out that the first formulation is stronger than the second, and that the actual evidence only supports the second. In addition, it is only the first formulation that the creation of matter/ energy would violate. 

Now, because the first formulation is not only much stronger than the second but also much stronger than the evidence warrants, and because the first formulation is the only formulation of the two that a miracle would violate, the first can be reasonably seen to be not a law of nature but an assumed metaphysical principle which unjustifiably rules out miracles. 

The second formulation, on the other hand, is a legitimately expressed law of nature. And on the second formulation it is possible for a transcendent agent to intervene in the physical universe by bringing about something physical out of the non-physical. 

Thus, a miracle does not violate the laws of nature. 

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. For further discussion of the notion of miracle, see Hendrik’s PhD dissertation, “MiracleReports, Moral Philosophy, and Contemporary Science”.)