BOOK REVIEW: The resurrection as a case study in evidence versus faith

[rug]

A philosopher argues against the main belief of Christianity in Atheism and the Case Against Christ

By Roberto Perez-Franco
STAFF WRITER

November 30, 2012

★★★★★

Atheism and the Case Against Christ

By Matthew S. McCormick
July 2012

In his recent book Atheism and the Case Against Christ, Matthew McCormick, a professor of philosophy at CSU Sacramento, takes issue with the most fundamental claim of Christianity: Jesus came back to life after being dead for three days.

But saying that McCormick “takes issue” with the resurrection claim is an understatement. He uses 288 pages to take the critical-thinking equivalent of a chainsaw against the poor claim, and what follows is not nice. I am not sure how a believer might feel when reading McCormick’s book, but for me, an open atheist, following his grinding argument against the evidence for the resurrection was like watching him beat a dead horse and then extract from the resulting pulp at least half a dozen different, compelling reasons to not just doubt but reject altogether the historicity of the resurrection on the basis of insufficient evidence. He then blows the remains in the faces of all other religions, since, he contends, they all contain equally fantastic and unsupported claims. McCormick, all the while, touts the moral advantages of atheism, particularly the benefit of being able to think through problems on the basis of facts, instead of wishful thinking.

From cover to cover, McCormick’s comprehensive refutation felt to me like overkill. Who, after all, takes the resurrection to be truly a historical fact? I did not have to wait for long to be reminded who.

Take the Pope, for example. In his latest book on Jesus, published last week in 20 languages and an instant bestseller, Benedict XVI asks, “is what we profess in the Creed true?” If you are not familiar with the Creed, you don’t know what you are missing. It is a public affirmation of a series of fundamental Christian beliefs, including Jesus’ birth from a virgin and his resurrection from the dead. “The answer is an unequivocal yes,” says the Pope: both the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus are historical truth. How does he know this? It is not because he has found sufficient historical evidence to support these extraordinary claims, but because these beliefs are cornerstones of his faith and are supported by scripture, which is taken again by faith as being true.

http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N57/atheism.html

[cleanhippie]

1. Have you read this book yet?

his grinding argument against the evidence for the resurrection was like watching him beat a dead horse and then extract from the resulting pulp at least half a dozen different, compelling reasons to not just doubt but reject altogether the historicity of the resurrection on the basis of insufficient evidence.

A very strong assertion, that sounds like there would be little, if any, room to argue FOR the resurrection. What is your response to this as a believer of the resurrection?

[rug]

6. No I haven't but he strikes me as a blowhard.

McCormick, all the while, touts the moral advantages of atheism, particularly the benefit of being able to think through problems on the basis of facts, instead of wishful thinking.

Frankly, I don't know why this would take 330 pages.

I may get around to it at some point but from what I see of his website I expect it be predictable.

http://www.provingthenegative.com/2012/05/atheism-and-case-against-christ.html

[cleanhippie]

19. You may be right.

I may try and give it a read though, just to see if he is on to something.

[Goblinmonger]

2. Do agree with your church and your church's leader

that "both the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus are historical truth"? (emphasis mine)

[rug]

5. They would have to be historical truth if they in fact occurred.

Rather than go down aisle 3 with you to peruse ancient texts and Josephus, I'll answer the better question: Do I think the virgin birth and the resurrection occured? Yes.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. There are no ancient texts that provide an first person or even contemporaneous

account of either mythical event. The alleged virgin birth is a 2nd century ce addition to the jesus myth.

[rug]

9. Aisle 3 is that way ----->

[cbayer]

3. I agree that literalists have to be challenged, but I would have

absolutely no interest in reading this book....

and I doubt any literalists are going to read it either.

[prefunk]

4. Do you believe that the Resurrection was in fact an historical event?

[cbayer]

7. I think most of what is in the Bible is men's attempts to explain what

they experienced or transmit stories that were metaphoric.

How about you?

[Leontius]

11. How about a yes or no answer on the question.

It's kind of a baseline question on the Christian faith.

[cbayer]

12. I've never claimed to be anything in particular and I don't have a yes or no answer.

How about you?

[Leontius]

14. As Paul said if what is preached is a lie than all Christianity is false

No Resurrection no Christianity.

[cbayer]

16. Don't do dogma and don't buy that.

[Leontius]

17. So I say Jesus died and was resurrected and you say that's nice, then I say

Jesus died and was not resurrected and you say that's nice. Is that what you're going with?

[cbayer]

18. Pretty much. Doesn't make much difference to me what you believe.

As long as your beliefs don't infringe on my rights, why would it make any difference to me? You can't prove or disprove either of those statements, but if they have some personal meaning for you, I will defend your right to have them.

[prefunk]

32. That is what I was thinking.

Seems like a reasonable question, right?

[prefunk]

31. So if the Resurrection was just metaphor, what does that mean for the core belief of Christianity?

From what I know, this is the foundation upon which the religion is built.

[cbayer]

33. Imo, the core of christianity is following the teachings of christ.

While there are some that take the stories, including resurrection, literally, it is by no means the only POV held by christians and not a *requirement*.

[prefunk]

34. Honestly, do you really think that most Christians do not take the Resurrection as an historical

event?

While I understand that not all Christians may hold that view, it seems reasonable that most do, and that it is a basic tenet of the faith.

Is there anything in the Christian theology that can be taken as literal then? If so, what?

[cbayer]

35. I think that most probably do, but it's not all and many are not literalists.

How people interpret the stories written by men is highly individualized. Literalists run into a lot of difficulty because of the glaring contradictions.

For me, what is literal and what is not makes no difference. Is the message one worth following? Does it matter whether some read it as literal and others do not, if the basic meaning stays the same?

[prefunk]

36. If it is all metaphor and open to interpretation, who can say just what the basic message

really is? Looking at the state of religion in America (and the world) today, it would seem easier to raise the dead than to find two people that agree on just what that message is. And that being the case, why should religion, and Christianity in particular, demand so much respect? If it is all personal interpretation, why is it's influence so pervasive in our lives? And how do we stop that?

For me, I see no message in the Christian faith that cannot be found elsewhere, both good and bad, so I see no reason to utilize it as something special. One does not need a God or a religion to have compassion and respect for each other. And at least in this country, compassion and respect for others seems to be severely lacking where the majority of people believe in this religion/message.

[cbayer]

37. That's the problem, isn't it. There is no ultimate authority,

nor should there be one, imo.

Here is the bottom line for me. I believe strongly in the core values of the Democratic party. I support organizations that promote and work towards those goals, be they religious or secular.

What a specific organization or individual believes or doesn't believe makes little difference, as long as their believes do not infringe on the rights of others.

As to the demand for respect, I am not sure what you are alluding to. There are clearly religious intrusions into the government where there should not be and there are good organizations, both religious and secular addressing that. They seem to be making some progress at this point and are effectively pushing back the religious right.

I agree that the many of the messages contained in christian doctrine can be found elsewhere. So what? If a good person gets a good message and proceeds to do good deeds based on their beliefs and faith, what difference does it make?

I disagree that compassion and respect are lacking. I see it every day. Most people are both, whether it comes from their religious beliefs or not.

What I reject is intolerance and those who are anti-theist. That has no more legitimacy than being anti-atheist, imo, and has no place in this party.

[eomer]

43. You're conflating semantics with religious beliefs.

You're free to believe whatever you want. You're not free to have your own definition for words - at least not if you want to function normally in society.

"Jesus Christ" was not Jesus' name; rather it means Jesus the Messiah. And it is the belief in the divinity of Jesus, that he was the Messiah, that puts the "Christ" in "Christian".

Don't all churches that self-identify as Christian include a belief in the divinity of Jesus, that he was Christ? From this it seems pretty clear that the commonly understood definition of Christian includes a belief in his divinity.

Building on what you're free to do, you are also free to say anything you want, even if it's nonsense (and doesn't violate any laws, which obviously isn't an issue here). So you can say you're a Christian who doesn't believe that Jesus was Christ, but you won't really be making much sense. The core meaning of being a Christian is, as commonly understood in our society, to believe that Jesus was Christ. So if you do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, that he was Christ, then you're not a Christian if we stick with the commonly understood meaning of the term. If, on the other hand, we don't care what words commonly mean then you can say, if you want, that you're a dog. But saying it won't make it true.

[Jim__]

45. "For me, I see no message in the Christian faith that cannot be found elsewhere, ..."

I'm not sure what the for me qualifier means; but, I believe the message that is unique to religion in general and/or spirituality, is the message of salvation. Outside of some sort of spiritual belief, death is our inescapable fate. I take that to be the message of religion that cannot be found elsewhere.

[Leontius]

38. That is exactly what it is, the foundation of Christian faith.nt

[dimbear]

10. The story of the Nicene creed is quite educational all by itself. Folk ought to know how

much differently they believe than did the early Christians.

The original Nicene creed ends with a curse, BTW. They lightened up over time.

For a hint of what early Christianity actually was like, a good bet is to look into the Didascalia (or the Didache.)

Naturally only scraps have avoided the scrubbing later generations of Christians gave their past.

[Leontius]

13. Do you believe that Acts and the confirmed Pauline Epistles paint

an untrue picture of early Christianity?

[dimbear]

20. That's two very separate questions. No for Acts, yes for the legit Pauline epistles,

if we agree they reflect the church only as it grew in the west, not the original church.

Luke/Acts has too much late fantasy to be for reals. Just my two cents. There used to be a lovely site that discussed these issues under the rubric "Alpha Christianity" but lately that seems to have disappeared.

Or gone behind a paywall. Theology is getting expensive.

[Leontius]

22. Could you be a little more detailed as to what you consider 'the west' as opposed to 'original'

I think I get your meaning but don't want to assume too much .

[dimbear]

24. The original church is the Jerusalem church. The church in the west is what became

the Catholic church over time. More properly said, the proto-orthodox part of the church in the west became the Catholic church.

We can only guess what the Jerusalem church believed, but they would have been very much more a reformed Judaism than was the church in the west. There is a story that the fathers in Rome at a late date sent an emissary to try to recover some traces of the Jerusalem beliefs, but they were naturally repelled by what they found--and chose to ignore it.

Of course this is all just pieced together out of the testimony of hostile witnesses.

[Leontius]

25. Actually we know quite well the beliefs and practices of early Christians

in Jerusalem and the tensions between Jewish Christian converts and Gentile Christians during the period. It was not so much ignored as superseceded by a fuller understanding of Christ's message and the revelations of Peter and Paul and his teachings

[dimbear]

27. We'll agree to disagree on that point.

Tumultuous era, gravely lacking in history. Credible history, anyway.

[Flabbergasted]

26. I recommend the book "The Jesus Dynasty"

It deals with this subject.

[rug]

15. An anathema is not a curse.

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

[dimbear]

21. It's also one of those very rare words which is more or less its own opposite.

(In one of its rarer meanings.) It can mean a thing that is blessed or a thing that is cursed.

[rug]

23. Here, it was meant as a condemnation of the Arians.

Since the Council was called to settle that dispute, I suspect Athanasius was feeling his oats and had it thrown in there. Even patriarchs are not above giving a square kick in the testicles.

[intaglio]

28. It wasn't a curse to be condemned the Church?

I think it might have been given the power that the Church exercised and their view of the supernatural effect of such condemnation

I suppose it depends on whether you think a curse depends solely upon supernatural action.

Not intended as an argument just as a POV

[rug]

29. No. Neither is excommunication. Technically, it's a corporate act.

But in the fourth century it had serious consequences.

[intaglio]

30. Yes, the resurrection

Which one? I rather like Matthew with so many other dead rising as well. Somehow that never seems to be emphasised.

[SarahM32]

39. The Resurrection Myth and how it developed over time.

"Who, after all, takes the resurrection to be truly a historical fact?"

There are more than a billion Christians in the world. Christianity is the largest religion in the world. Most Christians regard the "resurrection" as a fundamental "proof" that Jesus was a divine being, so that's who takes the resurrection story to be historical fact.

Therefore, there is need to set the record straight, and dispel the myth.

However, I agree that it doesn't take a whole book to do it. In fact, that myth has been pretty well debunked in an article titled The Resurrection Myth. It explains how the myth developed over a long period of time, well into the second century when the last canonized Christian works were produced. And it shows how the story changed from the first writer, Paul, to the second, Mark, and so on.


.

[rug]

40. Well, I wouldn't say that article is a cleareyed refutation.

Now, even though the message cites Judeo-Christian scriptural evidence because Christianity is the largest religion in the world and the most powerful, the message is universal in scope and appropriate for all religions. However, because the messenger has declared his prophetic prerogative and mission, religious people dismiss and label his work as heretical, others dismiss it as either naive or wrong, and the rich dismiss it as sour grapes. And this too was expected, and prophesied.

While the messenger is rejected, spiritually blind leaders lead their blind flocks astray, and we are in this state of tribulation because the greatest refuge of a scoundrel is patriotism, and the greatest refuge of a hypocrite is religiosity. And the proud and militant who have claimed that their religion or nation or race or culture is superior to all others, or that their wealth entitles them to rule, are woefully wrong.

The messenger’s mission to deliver his work before him may now be fulfilled, but even though his work has earned him the right for the message to be read and heard by the nations, he may have to die of old age and natural causes before the message can be widely accepted and recognized for what it is. God only knows.

Whatever the case, please understand that it is the truth, and nothing but the truth, that shall set us free, and the messenger was sent to provide true counsel and liberate and empower you all.

http://messenger.cjcmp.org/sitemap.html

The Good News

According to most of the prophecies of the world, the humble, gentle, kind, generous, peaceful and meek people of the world shall indeed inherit the earth.

However, in order for the humble and meek to inherit the earth, the proud and militant few and the political and religious leaders of this world who think they are entitled to rule must be exposed, rebuked, and put in their place, and face the judgment of a true, chosen servant-messenger of God.

Believe it or not, this is the judgment he has delivered before him, from behind the scenes and "hidden," according to prophecy. That's why he delivered the message anonymously under a pen name (Joseph J. Adamson), and has not caused his voice to be heard as an orator in public from behind a podium or pulpit. For it is the truth, and nothing but the truth, that shall set us free. And the truth lives on while the messenger withers and dies like a blade of grass.

He serves in the new name of the Christ in heaven, as was prophesied, but his given name is not important. And even though the title and name people use for him are different according to their religion, he is the awaited one, the expected one who is unexpected.

http://messenger.cjcmp.org/

[Jim__]

41. I wonder why he would care about other people's belief in the resurrection.

The claim in the article about it being due to things like Rubio's remarks on the age of the earth makes no sense. The scientific arguments about the age of the earth are overwhelming. Comparatively, an argument of insufficient evidence is no argument at all. People who are not convinced by the overwhelming scientific arguments as to the age of the earth, are not going to be impressed with an argument of insufficient evidence.

If McCormick is actually arguing the moral advantages of atheism, particularly the benefit of being able to think through problems on the basis of facts, instead of wishful thinking then McCormick is actually arguing a false dilemma. The reality is that while reason is one method that evolution has given us to solve the problems of survival, religion may well be another.

[rug]

44. Good observations.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

42. The book seems basically to be same-old, same-old from the atheists

While I was reading the article in the link, what kept going through my mind was 1 Corinthians 15:12-20:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died.