This is a summary and commentary on a debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman on the evidence for the resurrection.
William Lane Craig's opening statement
Craig opened with his standard resurrection apologetic, almost exactly the same argument he used in his debates with J. D. Crossan and Gerd Ludemann: We can prove that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea, that the tomb was found empty, that people experience resurrection appearances, that they believed in the resurrection in spite of having all kinds of reasons not to. After supporting each of these points, he attacked what he understood to be Ehrman's reasons for doubting that the resurrection can be established on historical grounds. This part isn't worth describing in depth, because one of the first things Ehrman said in his presentation was this argument wouldn't exactly be what Craig said he would argue.
Bart Ehrman's opening statement
Ehrman began by explaining that the gospels are not ideal historical sources. They were written decades after the fact by noneyewitnesses. Ehrman describes in some detail how oral traditions were circulated, emphasizing just how many hands a story might have passed through before finally getting written down. At that point, he would have basically refuted Craig if he had simply said, as Richard Carrier has done, "Would it be even remotely reasonable to believe such a thing on so feeble a proof? Well--no." Ehrman couldn't quite do this, though, because he didn't really want to argue against the resurrection so much as that it couldn't be established on historical grounds. He's consistently said that one may believe it on faith or historical grounds. Still, his presentation would have been stronger if he had found some way to hit home the reliability of the gospels. He might have said something like, "Does it make sense to take such evidence and say tell people the have to believe it as rational persons? No." Still, with his blow-by-blow account of a hypothetical chain of oral transmission, my guess is many audience members got the point.
Then he argued that historians cannot establish miracles:
The problem with historians is they can't repeat an experiment. Today, if we want proof for something, it's very simple to get proof for many things in the natural sciences; in the experimental sciences we have proof. If I wanted to prove to you that bars of ivory soap float, but bars of iron sink, all I need to do is get 50 tubs of lukewarm water and start chucking in the bars. The ivory soap will always float, the iron will always sink, and after a while we'll have a level of what you might call predicted probability, that if I do it again, the iron is going to sink again, and the soap is going to float again. We can repeat the experiments doing experimental science. But we can't repeat the experiments in history because once history happens, it's over.Ehrman goes on to give a scenario explaining the empty tomb which he thinks not terribly probable, but more probable than a miracle. He finishes up by saying that miracles are theological questions, and trying to apply historical research to them is like trying to apply mathematics to literature.
What are miracles? Miracles are not impossible. I won't say they're impossible... I'm just going to say hat miracles are so highly improbable that they're the least possible occurrence in any given instance... No one on the face of this Earth can walk on lukewarm water. What are the chances that one of us could do it? Well, none of us can, so let's say the chances are one in ten billion.
Craig's first rebuttal
For his first rebuttal, Craig launched into a Power Point presentation citing a book called "Hume's Abject Failure," and which included slide titled "Ehrman's Egrigious Error" and "Bart's Blunder." His main point was that in assessing the probability of an event, one has to take into account background probability and specific evidence. This is almost completely irrelevant to Ehrman's presentation, because Ehrman argued that even explanations of the evidence that don't sound terribly plausible are more plausible than the resurrection. A large section of Craig's presentation was then wasted. He briefly made a claim that the resurrection is only improbable if the existence of God is improbable. This, though, fails address Ehrman's argument. Craig also attacked Ehrman's description of an ideal historical by saying "The only purpose it serves is a psychological purpose of setting the bar so unrealisticly high that the Gospels appear to fall short by comparison."
When I first read this section of the debate, I was puzzled by how weak it was. I feel I could have done a better job of arguing Craig's case than Craig himself, i.e. by seriously addressing the contention that miracles are improbable. This is not the first time I've felt I could have done a better job defending Christianity than one Christian apologist, but Craig has such a reputation as a debater I wondered how he could foul up so badly. Then I realized the key was in the Power Point slides: Craig had them prepared, and didn't want to waste them. He hinted at this in the first round when he'd said he'd wait on rebutting Ehrman's argument until Ehrman had presented it. He thought he knew exactly what Ehrman would say, and when Ehrman presented some slightly different arguments, Craig failed to adapt. On the other hand, Ehrman's presentation wasn't that different from things he's said elsewhere, so perhaps Craig's problem was he took one look at Ehrman's writings and pigeon-holed him as a defender of Hume.
At any rate, Craig fouled up on a massive scale.
Ehrman's first rebuttal
Ehrman began by reiterating that he respects Craig's personal beliefs about Jesus. This was just one of many examples of how he tried to be fairly polite throughout the debate, in spite of Craig giving him reason to do otherwise: the obnoxious alliterations, baseless accusations of ulterior motive, etc. After I had finished reading the debate, I was curious to get an audio to see if Ehrman showed signs of being annoyed at any point in the debate. When I raised this question on Internet Infidels, a moderator said "I've heard Ehrman on TV and other audio versions, and he comes across as relatively academic and unemotional." This has been my impression as well from seeing a video clip of him talking about the Gospel of Judas. Craig might have caused him to lose his usual composure, though.
Immediately after saying he respects Craig's personal beliefs, he said the claim that the resurrection can be proven is dead wrong and took Craig to task on many dubious points in his argument. His first major area is Craig's repeated use of appeals to authority. He points out that New Testament scholars tend to be believers, but also that most scholars don't think that we can prove Jesus rose from the dead. He goes on to attack other dubious claims, the worst of which is probably the claim that Paul provides evidence for the empty tomb, when Paul makes no mention of the tomb. A fairly solid rebuttal, all in all.
He reiterates points made previously, that the gospel stories were in circulation for a long time. Again, didn't quite knock it home as hard as he should have, but it was good to bring up. He also reiterates the point that historians can't make statements about God. His one mistake was failing to specifically bring up the "one in ten billion" point, and point out that, contra Craig, it would stand even if God existed.
He wrapped up by asking Craig to address three points: does he believe the Bible is inerrant? will he address competing miracle claims? and how is it that the religion he adopted as a teenager just happens to be the one that's historically well-supported?
Craig's second rebuttal
Craig, I think, made a temporary recovery from the charge of appeals to authority, by saying that he wasn't just appealing to authority, he was also giving the arguments, which must be refuted. He repeated the assertion about Paul, which just isn't a defensible claim, but by responding to specific claims of Ehrman he did somewhat better than the first rebuttal. He also repeated his irrelevant point about probability calculus. How well Craig did on the question of miracles is a bit debatable here--he didn't deal with it so well, but Ehrman had failed to restate his best point in the immediately preceding segment.
He only had enough time to address one of Ehrman's three questions, the one about other miracle workers. He argued that the evidence is late, and made some appeals to authority. With these, though, he can plausibly claim that he's not just making appeals to authority, but also giving arguments.
Ehrman's second rebuttal
Ehrman starts out with a defense of a neutral view of historical research as a neutral endevor, listing different groups of people that all have to be able to take part. He continues something he began at the end of his first rebuttal, using Craig's personal testimony against him. The resurrection makes sense to Craig because he's a Christian and only because he's a Christian.
Ehrman does get one major thing wrong in this rebuttal: he says Hume said miracles can't happen and disagrees with this point. This is a common mistake, made by some of Hume's critics. Hume was arguing against the implausibility of belief in miracles. If his argument wasn't similar to Ehrman's, it was closer than Ehrman allows. Hume even said that we may believe miracles on faith, just as Ehrman does, even if Ehrman isn't being as sarcastic as Hume.
Ehrman continued to press Craig on inerrancy. This is probably not the best press point; a better one would be Craig's declarations that evidence isn't going to change his views. Ehrman very likely hasn't seen these, though, and it was nice to see Craig pressed on one of the things that his hears generally don't see brought up.
Ehrman finishes by asking Craig to get to his questions, and stressing that miracles are a matter of faith.
Concluding statements
Craig's statement was basically a summary, but at the end was further personal testimony that ended with "I believe [Christianity] can change your life in the same way it has changed mine."
Ehrman took that testimony and called Craig what he is: "An evangelist who wants people to come to share his belief in Jesus... trying to disguise himself as a historian as a means to that end." He got in some other good points, in particular his best guess as to what really happened, but identifying Craig for what he is was the decisive move which makes it safe to say that Ehrman won.
Question and Answer
This section provides further confirmation that Ehrman won. The first couple questioners for him thanked him, while the ones for Craig were somewhat hostile, challenging him on Ehrman's questions and the use of probability. This surprised me at first, given that the debate was held at a religious college, though it's a Jesuit one, so we're not talking too hard-line.
I'm not going to do this in detail since I've been writing this commentary all morning. I will say that Ehrman got in his two main points, including the argument for improbability which had been somewhat neglected. Craig got in some nonsense that Ehrman didn't answer: another appeal to authority, along with the claim that Hume required people in the tropics to reject the existence of ice. This is nonsense, Hume said it made sense to reject the first relations of ice, just as it makes sense to reject the first reports of flying snakes and giant ants that travelers used to tell when travel was slower and mass communication nonexistent. Anyway, I don't think it matters in the end. The great William Lane Craig lost.
The above was written yesterday, and accidentally saved when I meant to post it. The below is an "update" of sorts
I started a discussion on this over at Christian Forums. Here's the comment of one Christian poster: "Clearly Craig won the debate. Erhman was back pedaling the entire time"
What to make of this? All I can think of is the fact that Ehrman ignored Craig's irrelevant counterpoints, which Craig wasted half of his time on. Given that Craig benefited from it in the minds of one person who read the transcript, might Craig have been spouting nonsense intentionally? I wouldn't put it beyond him. His standard strategy for debates on the existence of God is to throw out five arguments, complain if his opponents don't rebut every last one of them, and also insist that they provide arguments against the existence of God. Clearly, this is absurd: given a 70 minute debate, there would only be 7 minutes apiece per argument, and that's if the opponent failed to meet Craig's demand to provide arguments against the existence of God. He has to know that this makes serious discussion impossible. He may very well have intentionally avoided Ehrman's points and attacked straw men as a debating tactic.
Real update:
John W. Loftus is commenting as well:
Comments on Craig's first rebuttal
14 comments:
My biggest problem with your commentary on the debate is your claim that Craig engaged in "obnoxious alliterations, [and] baseless accusations of ulterior motive." It seems to me that the harshest thing Craig said was that Ehrman's rebuttal was mostly bluster and little substance. I don't really know when Craig accused Ehrman of ulterior motive, although perhaps I missed it.
On the other hand, you say that Ehrman seals the victory by "identifying Craig for what he is was the decisive move which makes it safe to say that Ehrman won." Yet, Ehrman only "identified Craig for what he was" precisely by attempting to expose ulterior motives. Thus, after arguing against Craig's supposed use of motive to undermine Ehrman, you praise Ehrman's use of the same tactic.
See this post over at the Carnival of the Godless! Thanks for the submission!!
The point about ulterior motive comes from this: "He said that there is a sort of wish list that he would offer for historical sources and that the Gospels are not as good as we would want. Let me simply say that this wish list is so idealistic as to be practically irrelevant to the work of the practicing historian. The only purpose that is serves is a psychological purpose of a setting the bar so unrealistically hight that the Gospels appear to fall short by comparison."
The point is baseless. Obviously his wishlist is what we want. We want eyewitness testimony, and modern historians generally try, if at all possible, to get things not just written within a few decades but immediately after the event. But Craig attacks this and says it serves a "psychological purpose."
Ehrman, on the other hand, had Craig's own statements to use against him. I suppose I also sympathized somewhat more with this line given that Craig his said that his views are not open to being changed by evidence. I'm not sure Ehrman is aware of this, in which case Ehrman was more on target than he realized.
Hallq,
For what it is worth, I do think that Craig is correct in his assessment. Ehrman should know as well as anybody that most ancient documents do not satisfy these (admittedly) desirable qualifications. But, I'll let this pass, and I will agree with you that Craig illegitimately accused Ehrman of ulterior motives.
However, how are you going to avoid inconsistency, when you claim that Ehrman's tactic of calling Craig an evangelist is not only a good strategy, but one that "sealed the victory?" I actually agree with Ehrman, that Craig IS an evangelist and that his primary concern is bringing others to Christ. But what does this have to do with the debate? Ehrman's statement is, at best, an ad hominem fallacy of the poisoning the well variety. As an objective reviewer you should realize that this is an attempt to make accusations of ulterior motive. If you criticize Craig for doing so, it is simply inconsistent to praise Ehrman for doing the same.
You say you sympathize with Ehrman's claim because Ehrman had Craig's statements to use against him. What is this supposed to mean? An ad hominem fallacy (or an accusation of ulterior motive) is a fallacy whether or not, ultimately, Craig actually is just an evangelist trying to bring people to Christ and with no respect for the historical evidence. But even if I am incorrect about this, Craig's statements do not prove an ulterior motive anyways. After all, Craig only spent one paragraph out of the entire debate discussing the experiential approach to Christ. So, on the basis of the debate alone, Ehrman is unable to really establish his claim that "Bill is, at heart, an evangelist who wants people to come to share his belief in Jesus
and that he’s trying to disguise himself as a historian as a means to that end."
Sincerely,
Kyle.
Part of the reason I cheer this move of Ehrman's is he touched a serious problem of Craig's. Craig regularly attacks those who reject Christianity as irrational, accusing them of ulterior motives bigotry and such. In his debate with J.D. Crossan he went so far as to ridicule belief by faith. Much of what he says in this vein is nothing more than ad hominem itself. However, he's said he wouldn't reject Christianity if all evidence were against it. He's a hypocrite, a poser. His hypocrisy needs to be pointed out, even if isn't doesn't strictly to his arguments.
Back to Ehrman's ideal--it's an atainable one. You may say it's only attainable for modern history, but it counts against Christianity's miracle claims all the same. If God wanted to reveal himself through miracles, why not work them today, when they can be well docummented?
Craig ran away from Ehrman's questions about pagan miracles for one very good reason: he can't reveal his skepticism about pagan miracles without revealing that his belief in the resurrection is entirely based on faith, and not based at all on evidence. There is nothing to choose from between Vespasian's healing touch, Apollonius of Tyana disappearing from a Roman court scene, the miracles of the god Asclepius recorded at Epidaurus, and the supposed "evidence" for the resurrection...
Nobody BUT NOBODY not already convinced of the resurrection would possibly be convinced by the likes of William Lane Craig. His argument comes down to saying that a far-fetched story must be a miracle of God because...because...because
Why? Because William Lane Craig cannot imagine any more plausible explanation?
THAT is a real failure of imagination. He doubtless has no trouble writing off lots of other far-fetched stories of antiquity.
All Ehrman's argument was is the following:
1) We should be biased against all reports of miracles, because they can't happen
2) Nope, that's it
Amazing argument. That's really got the Christians scared.
"There is nothing to choose from between Vespasian's healing touch, Apollonius of Tyana disappearing from a Roman court scene, the miracles of the god Asclepius recorded at Epidaurus, and the supposed "evidence" for the resurrection."
Nothing to choose from? But Antony Flew admits that all the basic facts e.g. the empty tomb, the post-mortem experiences, the sudden deeply held conviction that Jesus was raised from the dead, are all true. Whereas the other stories have nothing like the same evidence (and as Christian I'm entitled to believe they may be true as well). Pinchas Lapide, the Jewish historian believes it's true purely based on the 'evidence'. There's none so blind as those that will not see.
Rob said...
"All Ehrman's argument was is the following:
1) We should be biased against all reports of miracles, because they can't happen
2) Nope, that's it
Amazing argument. That's really got the Christians scared.
Nothing to choose from? But Antony Flew admits..."
Who in the world is Anthony Flew? This was supposed to be a debate about history, the only historian that showed up was Bart Ehrman. You Christians just lump every person who's ever debated against a Talbot faculty member as being in the same class. Anthony Flew is not a historian, you might as well have thrown in what George W. Bush thinks about the historical evidence to support your point.
Are you going to honestly contend that an objective historian should not have a bias against a miraculous claim? Should scientists as well? How did we get here? A Miracle! How was JFK assassinated? It must have been a Miracle! Where are the thousands upon thousands of other bodies that were crucified under Pilate? Can't find them, must all be in heaven. What world do you people live in?
I cannot believe that any sane human being could read that transcript and think that Craig won. Craig didn't even know what century those other miracle workers Ehrman mentioned lived in, did you not catch that? Craig is nothing more than an articulate christian; historians don't cite him and publishers don't ask him to review their latest historical publications. Why? because nobody's ever heard of him before and nobody cares about him. Ehrman had never even heard of Craig before this debate and I'm sure he's nearly forgotten about him now.
"Craig didn't even know what century those other miracle workers Ehrman mentioned lived in, did you not catch that? Craig is nothing more than an articulate christian; historians don't cite him and publishers don't ask him to review their latest historical publications. Why? because nobody's ever heard of him before and nobody cares about him. Ehrman had never even heard of Craig before this debate and I'm sure he's nearly forgotten about him now."
Huh? Craig and Ehrman did their undergraduate studies together at Wheaton College..
Also, like it or not, Craig is an academic heavyweight later trained in secular "Babylon" in the context of German liberal N.T. historical criticism. I do agree that he spent too much time on Hume. He should have emphasized more the fact that Ehrman spoke only of an ideal with his stated historical methodology. There is no such thing as "objectivity" in historical investigation. All bring their baggage and view it through preset lenses. The is seen most glaringly in the existence of liberal and conservative history professors. I`ve yet to see one convert to the other side... So Ehrman in essence dismisses a priori (miracles defy natural law) Craig`s reasoning and documentary evidence from the start while setting up a false dilema, eg. "if you believe that you have to believe in big foot," etc... Why Craig didn`t move more with this tact I do not know as it`s at the heart of his article against "The Jesus Project." Truth though is that both bring biases as do those who make their assessments of who won...;-)
I’m not convinced that the victor of the debate is as obvious as haqll takes it to be. As I read through the transcript, I had the same visceral reaction to Craig’s probability calculus as Ehrman did – “What is this poppycock?”
But the reality is that one must, in fact, consider the likelihood of an event’s occurrence relative to both background information and evidence, whereas Ehrman simply wants to myopically focus on the unlikelihood of the resurrection. Of course the resurrection is highly unlikely, but one must consider it in the context in which it took place and the sort of evidence there is for and against its happening.
Haqll, I take it, finds this to be a moot point, since any scenario (including those offered by Ehrman) are more substantial than the notion of a physical resurrection having occurred. But, again, this perspective is wholly contingent upon whether or not one believes in God’s (Yahweh’s) existence. In other words, if your background information includes a belief in God’s existence, and you couple this with the four basic historical facts proffered by Craig, then perhaps the best explanation of the evidence is indeed that the resurrection took place.
Now, the (rather obvious) response one might give is that a historian does not and should not bring his/her theological background to bear on historical analyses. But, in all earnestness, I find this notion hard to digest… When studying the construction of the American constitution, the historian is not confronted with a substantial theological dilemma as when s/he is considering the historicity of the resurrection. In reflecting upon this latter event, why should the historian automatically assume an atheistic point of view? It would seem to me that the most robust analysis is the one which remains open to the possibility of a miracle having happened.
Q: Why shouldn’t the historian present both positions?
A: Because a miracle is by definition an extremely improbable event, and therefore can never be as historically supported as an alternative, naturalistic explanation.
Rebuttal: Not so. The likelihood of a miraculous event having occurred would depend upon whether or not the historian believes that miracles ever happen, and in what sorts of circumstances. Perhaps Historian A believes that miracles cannot happen, and therefore no evidence could sway him to believe in the resurrection. But perhaps Historian B believes that miracles seldom happen, and he could be swayed if there was a formidable body of evidence.
Personally, I would be more interested in Historian B, since he does not dogmatically disregard the possibility of miracles. Of course, if Historian B wants to convince me a miracle happened (Jesus was raised), he had better have some thoroughly convincing evidence.
In the final analysis, it is Ehrman that I perceive to be futilely clinging a weak faith-claim. He basically says that all historians should be academic atheists with regard to the possibility of miracles. It wouldn’t matter if a million people in Times Square tomorrow witnessed the miraculous healing of a paraplegic; Ehrman would disregard their testimonies. This signifies to me that Ehrman a dogmatic individual completely closed off to the possibility of the supernatural…
"His main point was that in assessing the probability of an event, one has to take into account background probability and specific evidence. This is almost completely irrelevant to Ehrman's presentation, because Ehrman argued that even explanations of the evidence that don't sound terribly plausible are more plausible than the resurrection."
Ok, maybe im missing something here but I really do not see how Craig's response was irrelevant to Ehrman's argument.
Ehrman argues: Miracles are so unlikely that they are the most improbable explanation. Therefore, other explanation, even improbable ones themselves, are more probable than a miracle explanation. Again, this is bc, at all times, no matter what, miracles are always the most improbable explanation.
Craig responds: In determining the probability of a miracle you can not just examine the likelihood of a miracle itself. You must consider other factors. Namely, background probability and specific evidence. If there is solid evidence it increases the probability of the miracle.
If Ehrmans argument is that other explanations are more probable than a resurrection and Craig responds by saying that you havent done a very good job in assessing the probability of a resurrection bc you havent considered the other factors that affect the probability of a resurrection, than how is Craig's response irrelevant to Ehrman's argument? It seems to me to be completely relevant bc Craig is addressing how Ehrmans went about determining the probability of a resurrection. And that is central to Ehrmans argument.
The bottom line is whether Ehrman wants to admit it or not, he fell into a trap that he did not need to fall into. Ehrman is a historian and Craig is a philosopher. No matter how much Ehrman tried to get around it, when he used the argument of the "improability of a miracle" he turned this into a philosophical debate and was then out of his league. I agree with your opening statement that if Ehrman would have just stuck to arguing that oral tradition was passed down, he would have probably won this debate. I also would have liked to hear some evidence from Ehrman as to how he knows the disciples could not have known Greek and therefore could not have been the authors of the Gospels. I think if he would have kept the argument focused on that, he would have kept within his field of expertise and probably would have won the debate.
cheap wow gold buy wow power leveling cheap cheap wow gold
my wow gold cheapest wow power leveling cheap wowgold
"Huh? Craig and Ehrman did their undergraduate studies together at Wheaton College.."
According to Wikipedia, Craig graduated seven years before Ehrman. Craig earned a BA in communications; Ehrman's BA isn't described on any page I can see.
Are you sure they studied together?
Post a Comment