Is Resurrection of Jesus Real?

Summary

The speaker emphasizes the broad nature of evidence, both forensic and non-forensic, in criminal investigations and applies these principles to religious inquiries, such as the resurrection of Jesus and the existence of God. They argue that both what is present and absent in evidence can be crucial. The speaker also challenges the notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, explaining that ordinary evidence can suffice for extraordinary cases, including in legal contexts and theological debates. They conclude by critiquing philosophical naturalism and discussing the implications of scientific explanations for the universe and life.

Takeaways

• 🔍 Broaden the definition of evidence when investigating any case, including the resurrection or the gospels.
• 🕵️‍♂️ Both physical and non-physical evidence can be valuable in a criminal investigation.
• 🗺️ The location of where an event occurred, and where it could have occurred but didn’t, can both hold evidential value.
• 🧩 Missing items from a crime scene can be just as valuable as items that are found at the scene.
• 👂 What a suspect says and what they fail to say are both crucial pieces of evidence.
• ❌ Actions not taken by a suspect can be as important as the actions they do take.
• 🧐 When examining the resurrection or Christianity, both textual evidence from scripture and external non-textual evidence are essential.
• 📚 Absences in the gospel narrative, like what the author left out, can be as evidentially important as what is included.
• ⚖️ Extraordinary claims, like the existence of God, don't require extraordinary evidence but can be supported by ordinary evidence, just as extraordinary crimes are solved with standard forms of evidence.
• 🌌 The belief in naturalism, that all things can be explained by space, time, matter, physics, and chemistry, also requires strong evidence, and these claims might be even more extraordinary than those for God or Christianity.

Q & A

What is the main argument the speaker makes about evidence in the investigation of the resurrection and gospels?

The speaker argues that we need to broaden our understanding of evidence, as both physical and non-physical evidence can be valuable in investigations. This broad approach is applicable not only to criminal cases but also when investigating the resurrection and the gospels.

What types of evidence does the speaker say can be used in a criminal investigation?

The speaker mentions that both forensic physical evidence and non-forensic evidence can be used. Additionally, things like what was said or left unsaid by a suspect, actions taken or not taken, and even the absence of certain items at the crime scene all hold evidential value.

How does the speaker apply this broad view of evidence to the case for Christianity?

The speaker applies the same principle of broad evidence to Christianity, suggesting that both the textual evidence in scripture and external, non-textual evidence, such as events that did or did not occur, should be considered. Even what is missing or left out in the texts can be evidentially significant.

Why does the speaker reject the notion that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' in the context of Christianity?

The speaker rejects this notion by explaining that extraordinary cases, like the murder case he worked on, can be solved using ordinary evidence. Similarly, the extraordinary claim of Christianity can be supported by ordinary types of evidence, just as in any other case.

Can the absence of something still hold evidential value in an investigation? Give an example.

Yes, the absence of something can still hold evidential value. For example, the speaker highlights that the location where a victim was not attacked or items missing from a crime scene can provide crucial clues about what happened.

What example does the speaker use from his own work to demonstrate the importance of ordinary evidence in solving extraordinary cases?

The speaker uses a murder case from 1981 where a woman was killed, but there was no body, no crime scene, and no cooperation from the suspect's family. Despite these challenges, the case was solved using ordinary evidence like what the suspect said or failed to say, and actions he took or did not take.

How does the speaker explain the significance of what gospel authors left out in their accounts?

The speaker explains that what gospel authors left out of their accounts is just as important as what they included. This can help in understanding what might have influenced their writings and what was considered important or unimportant at the time.

How does the speaker connect philosophical naturalism with the idea of extraordinary claims?

The speaker, reflecting on his time as a philosophical naturalist, argues that the belief that everything can be explained through space, time, matter, physics, and chemistry without a designer is an extraordinary claim itself. He suggests that this requires just as much extraordinary evidence as the claims of Christianity.

What does the speaker say about using 'ordinary evidence' in proving the existence of God?

The speaker argues that proving the existence of God does not require extraordinary evidence. Instead, ordinary evidence—such as the nature of the universe, what we observe, and what is absent—can be used in a similar way to how other extraordinary cases are solved.

What is the speaker's view on the moral implications of philosophical naturalism?

The speaker challenges the idea that moral obligations can arise from a purely naturalistic worldview. He questions how a deterministic system, like the universe governed solely by physics and chemistry, could account for immaterial aspects such as consciousness, free will, or moral obligations.