Weighing the Resurrection Hypothesis

In the previous post, we weighed various naturalistic hypotheses to see if any were a good candidate for the best explanation and found them all extremely wanting. In this post, we shall be looking at how well the resurrection hypothesis meets the criteria for the best explanation. 

In terms of explanatory scope, the resurrection hypothesis accounts for all the data, which is more than I can say for most of the naturalistic alternatives, and it has particularly strong explanatory power because the evidence is exactly what we would expect were the resurrection hypothesis true. It is also not particularly ad hoc since we need only suppose that God exists (which is entailed by the various arguments for the existence of God). 

How about plausibility? Just how plausible is it that God resurrected Jesus from the dead? What accepted truths, if any, imply the resurrection hypothesis? Which accepted truths, if any, imply that it is false? Now, this depends on whether or not God exists. An atheist will presumably argue that God's non-existence implies that it is false, whereas a (Christian) theist would presumably argue that God's existence implies that it is true. 

Of course, without any sort of argument for either position, then such claims are clearly question begging. If we assume agnosticism, then, at worst, plausibility is simply inscrutable. At best, we can conclude that whilst it is perhaps not necessarily plausible, it is not necessarily implausible either. However, why settle for this when we have an array of logically valid, sound arguments that show beyond a reasonable doubt that God almost certainly exists? 

With all due respect to my atheist friends and so on, atheism makes about as much sense as putting an ashtray on a motorcycle. Whilst the question of whether or not God exists might seem like an open question, it only seems this way if one ignores virtually all of philosophy and theology. Atheism logically entails its own defeat and requires us to accept a number of beliefs that are quite frankly absurd.

A similar discussion can be had when it comes to whether or not the resurrection hypothesis is disconfirmed by accepted truths or not. Now, somebody might argue that dead people stay dead. That is true enough. But the hypothesis is not that Jesus rose from the dead naturally so this response will not do. 

It's worth noting that Christianity had virtually everything stacked against it. It had none of the advantages of pagan cults which took pre-existing beliefs and myths and/or relied on humanity's base instincts, like sex cults, etc. It didn't tell people what they wanted to hear. In fact, it told people what they didn't want to hear.

Its central figure was a Galilean Jew from Nazareth who was publicly crucified for sedition and who was accused of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin. It made tough ethical demands on its followers. Really, the crucifixion of Jesus should have put a stop to the fledgling religion, but it didn't. We could suppose that the disciples were inculcated fanatics, sure, but what about James and Paul?

Moreover, why did people flock to Christianity in the thousands? Out of all the pagan religions to have ever existed, only Hinduism still persists and is limited almost entirely to India and its diaspora. The chief rival to Christianity, Islam, takes Jesus and places Him as a prophet of high importance. Why is this the case? 

So, even if we insist on rating the plausibility and level of disconfirmation somewhat neutrally, the resurrection hypothesis still comes out on top above the rival hypotheses. Even if we combine naturalistic hypotheses, these can never be more probable than either hypothesis in isolation. A combination can only be as probable or less. 

As such, given the total poverty of naturalistic alternatives to the resurrection hypothesis, it is clear that there is no chance of any them soon exceeding the resurrection hypothesis in any of the criteria for the best explanation. You'd have to resort to wildly implausible, ad hoc scenarios such as 'advanced aliens' or claim that God exists but allowed demonic forces to 'trick' humanity. But if that is your route to avoid concluding that Jesus rose from the dead, you might as well just admit you don't have an argument. It will save everybody some time.