Daniel Ang: A Scientist Looks at the Resurrection

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Rumraket

Merely presenting some evidence that a being with the capacity to resurrect Jesus exist is far from showing that it would want to. You still have all your work ahead of you in establishing the plausibility of the resurrection.

To @vjtorley’s point, to understand this peice of the puzzle:

@vjtorley

Putting it another way: if all you knew about Jesus consisted of the Passion and Resurrection narratives in the Gospels, and you knew nothing whatsoever about his teachings, would it still be reasonable to believe in him? Obviously not. That should tell you that a case for the Resurrection which is built entirely on the Passion and Resurrection narratives and the brief testimony of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 isn’t enough to warrant faith in Jesus’ Resurrection. Much more is needed to make belief in the Resurrection intellectually reasonable, including a close study of Jesus’ teachings, how his teachings were subsequently transmitted by his followers, and the impact of his ideas on world history, making him a unique force for good in the history of the world.

You want objective evidence? There is the Resurrection. You want coherence? Well, for that you have to go deeper.

@swamidass

The Dreaming and Waking Worlds

As a final thought, I will still add one more parable, from one of my regular “conversation” partners, the great C.S. Lewis. C.S. Lewis writes in Is Theology Poetry? … (http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/arts/lit/Theology=Poetry_CSL.pdf)

This is how I distinguish dreaming and waking. When I am awake I can, in some degree, account for and study my dream. The dragon that pursued me last night can be fitted into my waking world. I know that there are such things as dreams; I know that I had eaten an indigestible dinner; I know that a man of my reading might be expected to dream of dragons. But while in the nightmare I could not have fitted in my waking experience. The waking world is judged more real because it can thus contain the dreaming world; the dreaming world is judged less real because it cannot contain the waking one. For the same reason I am certain that in passing from the scientific points of view to the theological, I have passed from dream to waking. Christian theology can fit in science, art, morality, and [other] religions. The scientific point of view cannot fit in any of these things, not even science itself. I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.