William Lane Craig debated Bart Ehrman recently on the campus of Holy Cross University. The subject was the resurrection of Christ.
The resurrection of Christ is the central act in history.
If it happened, then Jesus Christ did something no other religious leader in history did. If he rose from the grave, his claims to divinity are authenticated. In short, Christianity is true.
Likewise, if he did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is the largest hoax ever foisted upon humanity.
Needless to say, I tune in when two scholars debate the issue.
The 38 page transcript is located .
This debate was unique in several ways. The first is the quality of the debaters. Dr. Ehrman, who argued against historical evidence for the resurrection, went to Wheaton College. Wheaton is a conservative evangelical college ... I believe Billy Graham is an alumni of Wheaton. Ehrman is now chair of religious studies at North Carolina Chapel Hill. Ehrman is one of the featured teachers on religion with the popular Teaching Company audio series. Ehrman, however, believes we can't know whether the resurrection happened or not. A guy from Wheaton arguing against the resurrection? Who'd a thunk it?
Dr. William Lane Craig is pretty much a rock star when it comes to debating the historicity of the resurrection. I have enjoyed studying his debates in the past. He makes cogent points, and demonstrates a gracious spirit.
The second thing that is fascinating about this debate is the prominence that probability calculus plays in the debate.
Ehrman argues that historians cannot make claims about improbable things like miracles because historians can only argue based on the probability that something occurred. In other words, since miracles are impropable, they fall outside the purview of historians. Craig uses Bayes Theorem (from probability calculus) to smack down Ehrman's argument (which is apparently a repeat of a mistake in logic that Scottish skeptic David Hume committed two centuries ago).
Probability plays a huge role in evidential apologetics. I have seen Bayes theorem used to defend Christian belief like Dr. Craig demonstrated. I have also seen it used to attack intelligent design. It can cut both ways. To make matters even more interesting, most purists in statistics reject the Bayesian approach altogether and opt for something called frequentism (also called the Fischerian approach).
I won't unpack which way I lean in this post ... but if you want to see an example of Bayesian statistics used in apologetics, check out the transcript of the debate (starting on page 14).
What a great read! Thanks for the link. There is a lot to digest in those pages and a lot to discuss. Whenever I see Bart Ehrman's name, my mind immediately goes to "Bartman."
Simpsons? The Cubs fan? I don't know ...
I have never heard of Dr. Craig before, but his arguments are powerful, and I resent the snide remarks by Bartman about "my institution vs. your institution."
I like UNC for sports, but the intellectual elitism is repugnant!
Later.
Posted by: BWB | June 14, 2006 at 16:16
I am looking forward to reading this. Although, Baysian reasoning is still a bit out there for me to understand cogently. I never was good at math. Somewhere someone is writing the book Baysian reasoning for dummies, and I will be the first to buy it. I seem to buy a lot of books for dummies these days :)
Posted by: Carl Holmes | June 15, 2006 at 08:17
Carl,
I will do some "Bayesian for Dummies" posts :)
If you are into statistics and numbers, it is quite an elegant formula. Numbers and equations have a beauty of their own.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | June 15, 2006 at 09:46
Interesting debate. Thanks for the link.
A few impressions:
I think issue of whether the gospels are contemporary eyewitness accounts is a bit of a red herring on both sides. We know that accounts written long after an event can turn out to be historically accurate. For example, the Icelandic sagas were originally thought to be largely ahistorical, but archaeology (in the case of the Vinland sagas) and genetics (in the case of Egil's saga) has demonstrated that they contain a good bit of genuine history. On the other hand, we also know that eyewitness testimony is frequently unreliable and that people (sometimes often even groups of people) can, for a variety of reasons, convince themselves that they have first hand knowledge of things that never happened. See for example the preschool sex abuse/satanism hysteria of the 1980's.
So, the date that the Gospels were recorded is not a very good indicator of whether they are historical.
Craig's claim that the Gospels are independent sources also seem questionable. The Gospels may be based on eyewitness accounts (Luke's Gospel is the only one that explicitly makes that claim), but they don't specify their sources. So, more than one Gospel could be based on the same eyewitnesses and we don't know whether or not the Gospels are actually (i>independent accounts.
As far as debate tactics go, I thought that Ehrman gave far too much imaginative detail in his alternative scenarios. It made him look as though he was making sh*t up. It would probably have been more effective to briefly outline other possible reasons for a corpse to vanish from a tomb.
Similarly Craig's use of statistics seemed to me a tactical blunder. I have very little statistical knowledge, so when statistics are used for anything other than quantitative data, it looks fishy to me. When someone puts up a statistical equation but doesn't assign values to the variables, that really looks like BullSh*t. And saying that someone else plugged in the numbers and got a good answer really doesn't help. Craig's use of Bayesian statistics may have been entirely valid, but I'll bet it looked to a large portion of the audience as though he was making stuff up.
mrdawntreader:
A guy from Wheaton arguing against the resurrection? Who'd a thunk it?
I don't think that's a very good characterization of Ehrman's position -- at least in this debate. He didn't argue against the resurrection. Rather, he claimed that we can't authenticate the resurrection on the basis of historical arguments. Both Ehrman and Craig outlined other methods by which one could know that the resurrection occurred (e.g. Craig mentioned the experiential approach and Ehrman mentioned theological arguments). Ehrman was rather coy, however, about stating whether he was convinced by those other methods, so we don't actually know whether or not he believes in the resurrection.
BWB:
I resent the snide remarks by Bartman about "my institution vs. your institution.
Calling him Bartman isn't snide? Possibly Ehrnam's comments seemed harsh, because you were reading a transcript that lacks tone of voice and facial expressions. On the other side of the coin, I found Craig's comment that he was saddened by Ehrman's intellectual trajectory to be more than a little condescending, and his labeling of arguments as "Bart's Blunder" and "Ehrman's egregious error" to be both snide and unprofessional. But since MrDawntreader has characterized him as having "a gracious spirit," perhaps that is also a problem with reading a transcript.
Posted by: Nick | June 15, 2006 at 09:49
Nick,
"I don't think that's a very good characterization of Ehrman's position -- at least in this debate. He didn't argue against the resurrection. Rather, he claimed that we can't authenticate the resurrection on the basis of historical arguments."
Your point stands.
"On the other side of the coin, I found Craig's comment that he was saddened by Ehrman's intellectual trajectory to be more than a little condescending, and his labeling of arguments as "Bart's Blunder" and "Ehrman's egregious error" to be both snide and unprofessional."
I was surprised by reading this too. "Bart's Blunder" is an off hand reference to "Berra's Blunder" ... which is an oft quoted mistake in reasoning used in creation -vs- evolution debates.
I have watched Craig debate ... he is very gracious even to the most obnoxious people ... my hunch is that the transcript is two dimensional and we are losing the delivery. It is very uncharacteristic of Craig to be edgy and snarky -- doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I am giving Craig the benefit of the doubt. When I see the video of the debate perhaps I will change my mind.
"So, the date that the Gospels were recorded is not a very good indicator of whether they are historical."
In and of itself, you are right ... the date alone does nothing.
But which would you give greater credence too -- eyewitness reports of an event written close to an event -- or reports about an event written hundreds of years later?
I think it is self-evident that the earlier the dates of the eye witness testimony, the better.
Biographies of Jesus written two to three hundred years after Jesus walked the earth -- by people 7 to 10 generations removed from the eyewitnesses -- are not only going to be taken less seriously, but they are going to show signs of legendary accretion.
Indeed, what you find with the so called gnostic gospels (written in the third century) is exactly that -- a bizarre larger than life view of Christ -- obviously embellished.
Regarding the statistics, I disagree with your assessment. Ehrman's argument is based on probabilities -- basically, that historians are forced to apply methodological atheism in their analysis because of probabilities. Craig had to show that Ehrman's probabilistic argument was faulty.
Notice Ehrman did absolutely nothing to rebut Craig on this point -- absolutely nothing. Ehrman shifted away from his initial argument because he was check mated.
Now, Craig probably went a little overboard with the "Bart's Blunder" attempt at humor -- it may have come across as snooty -- even if delivered with tact. Again, I need to watch the video and sense the audience reaction to that to see.
I thought Ehrman's comment about Swinburne's probability for the resurrection being laughable was arrogant and condescending. I think Ehrman lost points there.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | June 15, 2006 at 10:32
But which would you give greater credence too -- eyewitness reports of an event written close to an event -- or reports about an event written hundreds of years later?
Given two competing accounts and the absence of any other corroborating evidence, I would tend to favor the account written closer to the time of the event, but it would be only weak support. I'd give reports actually written by an eyewitness (e.g. Pliny the Younger's account of Vesuvius' eruption) more credence than a report written by someone who wasn't an eyewitness but claimed to base his text on eyewitness reports. When determining the historical content of any ancient document, I would like to see it correlated with independent, non-textual data no matter what claims the document makes about itself. The best conclusion that one can reach from the sort of textual arguments that Ehrman and Craig use is "not disproven." I.e. You can probably demonstrate that a text is unreliable or internally inconsistent, but you can't demonstrate that it is reliable.
Thankfully, as Craig pointed out, I don't have to depend on historical analysis to determine whether the Gospels are reliable. It occurs to me that with any non-Christian document, I would take accounts of miracles like resurrection to be good evidence that the document is unreliable at that point, regardless of how reliable it is on other subjects.
I agree with you that Ehrman's probablistic arguments also smelled fishy.
Posted by: Nick | June 15, 2006 at 11:10
I thought Ehrman's comment about Swinburne's probability for the resurrection being laughable was arrogant and condescending. I think Ehrman lost points there.
Agreed, but Craig didn't win any points by vaguely referring to Swinburne instead of defending the point himself. He didn't give the audience enough data to know whether or not Swinburne's numbers were reliable.
Posted by: Nick | June 15, 2006 at 11:12
Nick:
I did not mean the "Bartman" post in a snide manner. Perhaps because ESPN was running a "You Can't Blame" show on the Cubs not making it to the World Series when Mr. Bartman caught the ball at Wrigley Field. I often get fuzzy vision when looking at a laptop screen too long (scratched glasses combined with really poor eyesight, etc.) and I kept thinking to myself Bart + Ehrman and my brain kept thinking "Bartman." I had to slow my reading down to get it processed correctly. Then I had a chuckle and posted it ...
Intellectual trajectory refers, I think, to the path that one follows in an arguement or in coming to a particular position. I can clearly trace my intellectual trajectory in coming to a position where I consider the Bible to be God-breathed, and in a literal, historical, and bodily resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Some may be disappointed in my trajectory, but so be it.
The notion of the "intelletual power" of a certain university versus another is a point that many of the academicians I know LOVE to fall back upon. I did my doctorate here or there and that person teaches here or there. Some of the best teachers I know teach at community colleges and did doctoral work at small schools. Others who teach at University of Somewhere USA are lousy. I happen to know a fellow who did his PhD at Harvard and I simply cannot understand ANYTHING that comes out of his mouth (including his story of how he stood in the middle of a football field while a tornado approached because he wanted to see if the birds were calling "warnings" to each other!).
Bottom line, facial expressions certainly are important in dialogue, and the whole thing may have been in jest. Point taken. It just jumped out at me in more than one place.
Later.
Posted by: BWB | June 15, 2006 at 12:00
I read this a few days ago. It was an interesting debate and it was the first time I had seen the probability refutation of hume.
Bart, I think, has lost objectivity in his historical investigation. This seems clear as the criteria he is using to discount the gospels would mean that we no nothing about most events from antiquity. Historians just can't operate on his principles.
One thing to remember is that Debating is not a simple conversation. You are setting out to show where you opponents mistakes are and as such, it isn't as cordial and gracious as many expect it to be.
Posted by: Alan Grey | June 15, 2006 at 21:53