The Logic of the Resurrection
When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered,
but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” Acts 17: 32
Over the previous years, I have met several people, who said they could not believe the Bible, as that would imply sacrificing scientific reason. For, we all know that dead people do not rise; yet, the Bible claims that Jesus did.
Gary Habermas, for instance in his (co-authored) book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, has pointed out that there is irrefutable historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. The objectoirs I met, then replied that historical evidence cannot qualify as scientific proof.
+++
Amazingly, perhaps, scientists have argued and found evidence that the laws of mathematics and physics are universally valid throughout time and space.
Other patterns may be called “natural laws”, because we observe them as consistent patterns that have not (yet) been disproven.
Examples of such ‘laws’ are:
· All cells come from previously existing cells. (cell theory in science)
· All living things come from living things.
The implications of these are:
· No cells can and have been produced from non-cells (only).
· No living things can and have been produced from non-living things.
Logical considerations:
The implied statements (and therefore the ‘laws’ from which they were derived) cannot be proven, because our knowledge and experience- as a person or even as a civilization, is limited. So, even if there has ever existed one exception, the law would thereby be nullified. The best we could do is to agree that (under the current circumstances) such an exception should be treated with great suspicion, as it must be seen as highly unlikely in the context of the vast majority of observations and experience.
Common sense, Dinesh D’Souza argues, is not always a reliable guide to the truth. Common sense tells us that the earth is stationary and that the sun revolves around it. Common sense tells us that an object is naturally at rest and that a moving object must automatically come to a stop. Common sense tells us that space and time are absolute. Yet, all these simple intuitions are false. In fact, the great discoveries of modern science -from Copernicus to Galileo to Newton to Einstein to Bohr to Heisenberg- are all massive violations of common sense. That is why in several cases the geniuses who first put forward those ideas were dismissed as crackpots. We now know that these crackpots were right”.[1]
Indeed, earlier widely accepted ‘laws’ have been disproven before. This took great courage from those who shouted “The emperor has no clothes!” In the classic tale, therefore, it was a mere boy, not yet afraid to lose his reputation in the face of strong opposition. So, it has happened that, after the shocking exclamation, more eyes were opened and honesty prevailed, so that the former absurdity became normality and the pioneer/prophet became a hero of progress or enlightenment.
What about the origin of life?
If the highlighted “laws” were always in effect, then there never was an “origin of life”, for life and living cells must always have existed.
Interestingly, when Richard Dawkins was questioned by Ben Stein[2] (in the dvd ‘Expelled’) about the origins of life on earth, he had to agree that scientists have no satisfactory answer to this question. When he got pressed, he suggested that life had come from somewhere else in the universe. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, follows the same reasoning in his book Life Itself.[3] This sounds like a cop out, as it just begs the question how it could have been formed by non-life… somewhere else in the universe. For, that would imply that scientific laws don’t hold out there or that it always existed “out there”. If scientific laws cease to work, this is another way of saying, “a miracle occurred!”
Gary Larson, The Far Side
What about the origins of the universe?
Humans have realized for ages that everything in the universe has a cause outside itself, which brought it into being. If the universe never had a beginning, however, scientists need not worry about the problem what caused the universe to exist at the beginning of time.
Nevertheless, the second law of Thermodynamics (which simply states that all things have a tendency to break down) suggests already that there must have been a beginning.
Astronomers have realized since the eighteenth century that the universe itself is subject to this law of natural decay.
In de 1930s, astronomers began to accept the idea of an expanding universe. Since then, a lot of evidence was found for this idea. The universe actually had a beginning; it was created in a primordial explosion of energy and light. Space and time did not exist prior to this “Big Bang”.[4]
Stephen Hawking, the brilliant physicist who near the end of his life became quite outspoken for atheism, argued that at the beginning of the existence of the universe, scientific laws did not apply. The Big Bang theory holds that the universe in retrospective can shrink to the size of an extremely small "subatomic ball" known as the singularity. According to Hawking, the laws of physics and time cease to function inside that tiny particle of heat and energy. [5]
Again, how is this substantially different from claiming that the universe had a miraculous beginning? If nature had a beginning, then “something” supernatural must have caused it to come into being. The creation story of Genesis suddenly does not look so outlandish anymore!
Biologist E.O. Wilson once said, “If any positive evidence could be found of a supernatural guiding force… it would be one of the greatest discoveries of all time.” Dinesh D’Souza replies that “in recent decades… such evidence has indeed been found.”[6]
Astronomer Robert Jastrow puts it … vividly, “For the scientist, who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak. As he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries.”[7]
Those who believe in the existence of an intelligent designer-creator for the universe and all living things, typically also believe that such a designer still has the power to periodically overrule his own natural laws. If Jesus claimed to be (the Son of) God, it makes sense that he proved this by demonstrating his power to make water into wine and to let the man, born lame, suddenly walk and jump.
Now, let’s consider what the Bible claims about Jesus.
· He was born from a virgin’s womb. In other words, there had been no human impregnation for Mary’s pregnancy.
· He was murdered on a Roman cross, but on the third day he rose from the grave with his own (similar, yet different) body.
We all agree to these normal patterns or natural laws:
· Every pregnancy requires a male parent’s sperm, whether this is by sexual intercourse or by artificial insemination.
· Truly dead people cannot be made alive again.
Conclusion: the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus defy the natural laws.
Yet, as we noted before, we cannot prove that there never were or could have been exceptions to these laws.
So, there are two possible logical conclusions:
· If we believe there is a God, probably the one who made life out of non-life, he could break his own rules to bring about the virgin birth and resurrection of the Son of God.
· If we believe that natural laws always hold and have held, which implies that there is no God who has created these laws or has the power to overrule them, then the Bible is not reliable and does not portray to us the truth.
For those, who are swayed by the first conviction, a whole new perspective opens up. And this perspective may bring you loss (of certain friends, reputation, and jobs), but it will set you free from guilt and you will discover your true identity.
For those, who are swayed by the second belief, no matter how many Christians there are or how many witnesses there were of Christ’s resurrection, it will never be enough evidence.
The faith of the secular scientist
E.F. Schumacher, who became famous during the energy crisis, started life in a nominal Christian family, but embraced atheism. After trying Communism and Buddhism, he converted to Christianity. When questioned about “faith and science”, he replied, “I was taught that science had proven the non-existence of God, but now I realize it was not their conclusion from experimental evidence, but rather their presupposition and worldview from which they approached their ‘science’.
D’Souza gives several examples of this mindset among scientists. Dawkins, for example, admits, “Even if the evidence did not favor (the theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection), it would still be the best theory available.” His presuppositions are (1) There is no God, and (2) Miracles cannot occur.
Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin writes, “we have a prior commitment- a commitment to materialism… Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Biologist Will Provine argues, that “there are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces rationally detectable.” D’Souza points out that “Provine assumes without evidence that scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge, and that it gives us true and full access to reality.” He calls this ‘philosophical atheism’.[8]
When we read the first books of the New Testament, we see how Jesus’ students, even when they heard his prediction of resurrection, could not understand this. Why? Because, they all knew the natural law that “death is the end of life on earth”. Thomas continued in his disbelief, in spite of the stories of his friends… until he could see and feel it for himself.[9] The Jewish leaders preferred not to believe these things, even though they were witnesses to Jesus’ mighty miracles, as this would hurt their reputation.
The Bible and Christianity would not be believable if miracles are impossible, on that point Dawkins is right. D’Souza points out that atheists love to refer to David Hume’s book ‘Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding’. In it, Hume argues that
1. A miracle is a violation of the known laws of nature.
2. We know these laws through repeated and constant experience.
3. The testimony of those who report miracles contradicts the operation of scientific laws.
4. Consequently, no one can rationally believe in miracles.
And yet, Hume also writes to show that “human knowledge is so limited and unreliable that it can never completely dismiss the possibility of miracles.”
So, D’Souza follows the same kind of reasoning that I had used:
1. A miracle is a violation of the known laws of nature.
2. Scientific laws are on Hume’s own account empirically unverifiable.
3. Thus, violations of the known laws of nature are quite possible.
4. Therefore, miracles are possible.[10]
Well, if miracles are possible, why could Christ not have risen from the dead?
Today’s Secular Culture
As Charles Taylor demonstrated in his classic publication A Secular Age, we -in the West- live in a unique culture in the earth’s history, where it is normal to believe there is no god. A typical western response might be that only we, now, have managed to evolve and escape the long history of myth-making. Yet, this kind of thinking would look extremely ethnocentric and proud to others, as it seems to imply that all other people were/are ignorant in comparison to us, the übermenschen (superhumans) of all times.
In fact, Jews, Muslims, and Christians -even if they have been mostly silenced in the modern West- still hold to a personal God, who has revealed himself. So, by implication they would be ridiculed as those who still believe in myths.
To this, the Bible states, “The fool says in his heart: ‘There is no god’.”[11]
So, why does a growing majority in the western cultures reject this? Not, because scientists have proven the non-existence of god!
The Bible claims there is an enemy of God, called the deceiver. And it tells us about the powerful reality of deceiving spirits. Those, who do not believe in the existence of spirits are most likely to be deceived by them, so that they end up -without any evidence- with the sure conviction that there is no god!
In the month that I turned five, the Soviet cosmonaut Titov, after his successful spacewalk, revealed that “he had not seen God”. Some replied, “That’s his own fault. If he had taken off his space-suit (during his ‘walk’), he would certainly have seen Him.[12]
If this is true for Titov, then all those who think that, and live as if there is no god, refusing to accept Jesus’ claims about himself, will -at their time of death- meet Him as their judge. And then, they will have no excuse and no defence.
Therefore, “Today, as you hear God’s Word, do not harden your hearts, like Israel in their rebellion. For they all perished in the wilderness without entering the Promised Land”.
No comments:
Post a Comment