Two Logical Fallacies Behind Resurrection Skepticism
In attempts to examine the historical Jesus, many scholars have denied the resurrection account as an historical event. Such attempts always appear as taking a centrist approach to examining the life of Jesus, yet it becomes obvious that they are aligned on the side of the skeptics when it comes to the supernatural events in the story of Jesus. However, rejection of the supernatural is seldom supported by any reasons and often commits two logical fallacies: a priori assertion of the impossibility of miracles to occur, and “genetic” attachment of Christianity to ancient myths.
In their reaction to the supernatural in general and the orthodox view of Jesus in particular, a group of 74 scholars called the Jesus Seminar claimed that:
“The Christ of creed and dogma… can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo’s telescope. The old deities and demons were swept from the skies by that remarkable glass. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo have dismantled the mythological abodes of the gods and satan, and bequeathed us secular heavens”. Applying such a conclusion to Jesus’ resurrection, one scholar later asks “But what of the resurrection? Is it not a mythical event pure and simple? Obviously it is not an event of past history…”
One characteristic of this rejection of the supernatural is the failure to provide any actual reasons for this rejection. These scholars simply assume that such things do not happen rather than take the trouble to examine what evidence could be adduced to show that the resurrection was an objective historical event.
Please watch this playlist to understand why alternative theories to the resurrection are false.
Another point of logic concerning the scholarly denial of the resurrection is the commission of the genetic fallacy, which occurs when one challenges the origins of an idea without actually assessing its facticity. In other words, if it is thought that merely attributing a Gospel report to the author’s style, or to other ancient parallels, to explain it away. This is a logical mistake and doesn’t preclude historicity.
Please watch this playlist to know why the story of Jesus is different from ancient myths.
To conclude, it solves nothing to state one’s views to be correct, without providing reasons for such views to be correct. Such approaches are inadequate precisely because they fail to address the data. There is no substitute for a careful investigation of the possibilities.