No Evidence Will Convince a Skeptic of Jesus' Resurrection?
Written on
Understanding the Divide Between Believers and Skeptics
One of the key distinctions between Christians and atheists lies in the amount of proof they require to believe in Christianity.
Most Christians base their faith on a mix of personal experiences and confidence in the historical reliability of the Bible. They often describe a comforting sensation they attribute to the Holy Spirit, alongside encouragement from their pastors who reinforce the Bible's dependability. This blend of factors serves to strengthen their convictions.
While some inquisitive Christians investigate the credibility of the Bible, the majority tend to accept their pastors’ assertions without further inquiry.
On the other hand, atheists typically seek a much higher level of evidence before accepting the Christian faith. They are not easily swayed by church teachings or the arguments presented by Christian defenders, resulting in a persistent skepticism about God's existence and the resurrection of Jesus.
When engaging in discussions with Christians about the validity of their beliefs, I often hear expressions of frustration regarding the stringent criteria skeptics apply to their faith. They feel these standards are excessively high, rendering it nearly impossible to persuade skeptics.
In moments of exasperation, some may declare, “No amount of evidence will convince you that God is real.” But is this statement entirely accurate? In the sections that follow, I will advocate for the "high bar" that skeptics often maintain and argue that, conversely, Christians may be setting their evidential standards too low.
A Hypothetical Scenario
Michael Small, a Christian author on Medium, recently published an intriguing piece titled "What Could Convince Skeptics of Christianity’s Claims?" In this article, he poses a thought experiment:
Imagine if Jesus’ death and resurrection were to be live-streamed on Instagram. Would this suffice as evidence?
Small suggests that even in such a remarkable scenario, skeptics might still find grounds for doubt. They could propose the possibility of advanced technology, like deep-fakes, or a meticulously planned hoax.
He concludes that he does not believe any evidence could ever truly convince skeptics of the resurrection of Christ.
Let’s ponder this for a moment: If a resurrection were actually live-streamed, it wouldn't just be skeptics who remained doubtful. Even Small would likely have hesitations, as he wouldn’t easily dismiss the potential for a hoax just because he couldn't immediately deduce how it could have been staged. In fact, in both Small's view and that of many others, it could seem more plausible that the resurrection was fabricated rather than genuine.
He even conceded this when I raised this point with him: “I would probably not believe a live stream either.”
Assessing the Standards
The aforementioned example highlights a crucial insight — skeptics do not necessarily set the bar too high when evaluating claims of miracles. In reality, many Christians approach miracle claims outside their beliefs with a healthy skepticism. The true issue lies in their tendency to lower their standards when it comes to Christianity.
So, what sort of evidence do Christians typically provide to uphold the assertion that Jesus rose from the dead? They mainly refer to a handful of ancient texts: the four Gospels and the Pauline letter of 1 Corinthians, and that’s about it.
However, a closer examination of these sources reveals several challenges. The four Gospels are anonymous, making it unclear who their actual authors are. They are not entirely independent either, as Matthew and Luke seem to have heavily relied on Mark’s Gospel. Additionally, these texts were penned 30-70 years after the events they describe.
Turning to Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, it’s not entirely evident that he describes Jesus' resurrection as a physical occurrence. He refers to the resurrected body as a "spiritual body," stating that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15). His omission of the empty tomb further undermines the event's credibility.
While there are additional arguments Christians present to support the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, they often lean more on rhetoric than on objective evidence.
For instance, many Christians assert, “No one would die for a lie,” suggesting that the disciples risked their lives to spread the gospel. However, this premise is itself dubious. If individuals filming the live-stream of someone’s resurrection are willing to face imprisonment or death to uphold the event's authenticity, does that automatically validate the resurrection?
No, there are numerous plausible explanations that do not necessitate supernatural involvement. Moreover, historical examples exist of individuals who have willingly died for falsehoods.
Reflecting on Evidence
I invite Christian readers to ponder two questions:
- If you wouldn’t readily accept a live-streamed resurrection today, why do you find it reasonable to believe in a similar miracle story documented in ancient texts that you cannot personally verify?
- If you concede that people have valid reasons to be skeptical about a live-streamed resurrection, what justifies the belief that they should nonetheless accept Jesus' resurrection, given that the supporting evidence is considerably weaker?
The level of evidence required isn't a fixed quantity; it varies from person to person, just as Christians might have diverse standards regarding miracle claims in other religions. Everyone has their own threshold for belief.
While I can only speak for myself, I hope my perspective resonates with others. Here’s how I view the situation:
First, we must acknowledge that throughout human history, countless individuals have died. Depending on your age, it’s likely that billions have passed away since your birth. Here’s the crucial point — none of them have returned to life after three days. Zero.
Science also supports this notion. It indicates that once someone dies, their body begins to decompose. Tissues decay, and microorganisms like bacteria and fungi begin to consume the remains. This decomposition process is largely irreversible. To suggest that this process could be reversed would essentially mean defying the laws of nature.
Thus, if I am to believe that an event defied these natural laws, I would require extraordinarily robust evidence. I’m talking about a team of scientists and medical professionals meticulously documenting all vital signs before and after death, closely monitoring the decomposition process post-mortem. Following the alleged resurrection, extensive tests would need to confirm it’s the same individual, along with thorough examinations of all vital organs to verify they are functioning again.
That level of scrutiny would be necessary for me to even consider the possibility of a genuine resurrection. Anything less, and I would lean toward the idea that it was a hoax.
I understand that Jesus lived two thousand years ago, making it impossible to apply modern scientific scrutiny to his deceased body. This raises another question: If God is aware that it’s reasonable to expect people to believe in miracles when presented with compelling evidence, why did He choose to convey such a pivotal event through oral traditions and written accounts?
It seems as though God couldn't have anticipated future scientific advancements and believed that those accounts in the New Testament alone would be sufficient to convince people across all generations.
Conclusion: A Matter of Perspective
Ultimately, it is misleading to assert that no amount of evidence could ever persuade skeptics like me regarding the occurrence of resurrection. Such a claim is unfounded because it assumes an understanding of skeptics' thoughts.
Even if it were true that no evidence could sway me, that does not inherently render belief in Jesus' resurrection reasonable or justifiable. These are distinct matters.
I want to emphasize that this article isn’t meant to deliver a comprehensive review or critique of the historical validity of Jesus’ resurrection. Instead, my aim is to illuminate why it may not be the most effective tactic for Christians to criticize skeptics for their heightened skepticism concerning miracles in Christianity.
If you are a Christian, perhaps it's time to reflect on the standards you have been using to justify your belief in the miraculous narratives found in the Bible.
Exploring Skepticism and Christianity
In the first video, titled "Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus," various perspectives are examined, offering insights into the skepticism surrounding this pivotal event.
The second video, "LEE STROBEL - The Case for Christ," delves into the arguments and evidences put forth by believers to support the resurrection narrative.