A Case for Christianity James Fodor, March 2014

My Argument It is probable that a creator God exists If it is probable that a creator God exists, then it is likely that Christianity is true Therefore, it is likely that Christianity is true and naturalism is false Valid argument (modus ponens)

My Argument 0. Inference to the best explanation is valid It is probable that a creator God exists If it is probable that a creator God exists, then it is likely that Christianity is true Therefore, it is likely that Christianity is true and naturalism is false Valid argument (modus ponens)

0. Inference to Best Explanation If a theory explains some phenomena much better than alternatives, we have reason to believe that theory is ‘true’ Example: electromagnetism very successful, so electrons probably exist Example: footprints provides evidence for existence of intruder If theism explains what naturalism cannot, there is reason to accept theism

My Argument 0. Inference to the best explanation is valid It is probable that a creator God exists If it is probable that a creator God exists, then it is likely that Christianity is true Therefore, it is likely that Christianity is true and naturalism is false Valid argument (modus ponens)

1. The Cosmological Argument The universe is contingent Principle of sufficient reason: contingent things require a cause/explanation Naturalism cannot explain the ultimate origin of the universe Theism provides such an explanation Therefore (from IBE), it is likely that theism is true

a) Contingency Contingent: ‘could have been different’ Most facts are contingent: e.g. time of this debate, that water is H2O Maths and logic are necessary: must necessarily be the case that 1 + 1 = 2 The universe is contingent – it could have been different, or not existed at all

Rebuttal: Universe is Necessary “The Universe is necessary, so needs no cause” Everything in the universe is contingent – seems odd the totality would not be The universe just is the total collection of things in the universe God is not in the universe, so doesn’t apply

b) Principle of Sufficient Reason Any contingent state of affairs must have a reason for why it is that way Example: what caused the coin to land tails? Why is grass green? Rejecting this principle leads to nonsensical notions – things happen ‘just because’ It could have been either way, so what made it turn out that way? Also underpins all scientific inquiry

Rebuttal: Quantum Mechanics “Quantum Mechanics shows that things can happen without cause (two slit experiment)” Not necessarily – depends on your interpretation (e.g. Bohm vs Copenhagen) In QM outcomes may be uncaused, but probabilities are not Merely alter principle of sufficient reason, not reject it

c) The Failure of Naturalism Big Bang Theory does not explain the origin of the universe, only early development Other theories (e.g. Lawrence Krauss ‘A Universe from Nothing’) only explain by appealing to other contingent facts This leads to infinite regress Cannot offer an ultimate explanation

Rebuttal: Uncaused Universe “The Universe came from nothing/caused itself” Naturalistic explanations operate through physical laws and events But physical laws and events did not exist ‘before’ the universe Any materialist explanation will suffer this problem

d) God as an Explanation Theism states that an intelligent agent created the universe Properties of this creator: powerful, purposive, self-sufficient, non-material “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” – Gen 1:1 God was the ‘prime mover’; “who created God” is not a sensible objection God is an agent; doesn’t need physical laws or events like naturalism does

Rebuttal: Minds are Complex “A being able to create the universe would be immensely complex, so explains nothing” This is true only if one assumes materialism Theism posits a simple, non-material God God doesn’t have internal parts or complex mechanisms that require explanation God is an agent with ‘free will’ No a priori reason to suppose physical explanations are better than mental ones

Comparative Explanatory Power Theism naturally explains why the universe is suitable for life – God made it that way deliberately Naturalism cannot explain this fact Chance? Overwhelmingly unlikely given the number of possibilities Multiverses? Unproven and unparsimonious

1. The Cosmological Argument The universe is contingent Principle of sufficient reason: contingent things require a cause/explanation Naturalism cannot explain the ultimate origin of the universe Theism provides such an explanation Therefore (from IBE), it is likely that theism is true

My Basic Approach 0. Inference to the best explanation is valid It is probable that a creator God exists If it is probable that a creator God exists, then it is likely that Christianity is true Therefore, it is likely that Christianity is true and naturalism is false Valid argument (modus ponens)

2. The Resurrection of Jesus Certain facts about the Resurrection of Jesus are widely agreed on by historians These facts cannot be explained through any naturalistic means If God exists, then Christianity can provide an explanation for these facts Therefore, if God exists, then Christianity is likely to be true

a) The Minimal Facts As discussed by Robert: Jesus was crucified Various disciples claimed to see Jesus after his death The disciples suffered considerable persecution for their claims Sudden conversion of Paul from persecutor to Christian evangelist

b) Naturalistic Explanations Most common is mass hallucination Problem is that there is no such thing! Hallucination is an individual phenomenon Given expectation and group influences, people can interpret ambiguous stimuli in particular (miraculous) ways However, these effects cannot lead to an actual mass hallucination

b) Naturalistic Explanations Another explanation is fraud or conspiracy This is difficult to reconcile with the fact of persecution Also does not fit many details, like the notion of a bodily resurrected Messiah or women finding the empty tomb Like most conspiracy theories, collapses under its own implausibility

Rebuttal: Other Religions “All religions have their own miracle claims, so we know that groups of people can claim to see things that aren’t real” Need to look at the details of the claims Resurrection accounts are far superior to those of other religions Some examples…

Comparison with Islam The Quran contains essentially no accounts of historical miracles ‘The Quran itself’ is the miracle, but not objectively verifiable Hadith contains some miracles, but not written until two centuries later

Comparison with Buddism Nothing written about Buddha until centuries after he lived Modern claims of miraculous statues, etc can be explained by expectancy and other natural phenomena A man rising from the dead cannot be so explained

Comparison with Virgin Mary Many cases of large groups reporting to see visions of the Virgin Mary Can be explained as expectation effects, ambiguous stimuli, crowd reinforcement, memory biases, etc Meeting a person who died is very different to seeing a vision in the sky or in a window

Back from the Dead Very rare to have contemporary sightings of a person back from the dead Elvis, Anastasia, and Hitler allegedly sighted after death, but not by anyone who actually knew them A few odd claims in other religions, but not well documented Other accounts are mythological (e.g. Horus, Dionysus), not historical accounts

The Resurrection Challenge Multiple accounts (Synoptic Gospels, John’s Gospel, Paul’s Epistles) Written within years or decades of event Accounts are historically grounded Clearly tell of unambiguously supernatural occurrence Multiple witnesses on many occasions Challenge naturalists to find any comparable instances of this in history!

c) Christianity as an Explanation If God exists, supernatural explanation is plausible Christianity naturally explains all facts: God raised Jesus, risen Jesus appeared to his disciples, then appeared to Paul No implausible assumptions needed (e.g. identical twin!)

2. The Resurrection of Jesus Certain facts about the Resurrection of Jesus are widely agreed on by historians These facts cannot be explained through any naturalistic means If God exists, then Christianity can provide an explanation for these facts Therefore, if God exists, then Christianity is likely to be true