Critiquing: #011 Easter, the resurrection and thoughts on Jordan Peterson

April 9, 2019 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Biblical Resurrection — Resurrection Body — Jesus’ Departure — Jordan Peterson’s Influence — Christian Doctrine

---

Episode Assessment:

Metric	——	Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B	The podcast generally aligns with established biblical scholarship, though some claims lack sufficient detail.
Degree of Coherence	B+	The arguments presented follow a logical sequence and are easy to follow.
Absence of Fallacies	B	Minor logical fallacies are present, such as appeals to authority without substantial evidence.
Degree of Evidence	C	The podcast lacks comprehensive evidence to support some of its more contentious claims.
Degree of Testability	C	Many claims made in the podcast are theological and thus not easily testable.
Rational Confidence	B-	The confidence in the arguments is moderately justified, but some points need more substantiation.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Evidence:
   The podcast touches on various theological claims that require a more rigorous evidential basis. For example, the assertion about the physical resurrection of Jesus needs more than just scriptural references; historical and archaeological evidence would strengthen this point. In the transcript, it is mentioned,

“The empty tomb by itself without appearances would mean grave robbery. So only empty tomb plus appearances will do the trick of a physical resurrection.”

This claim, while central to Christian belief, requires additional historical evidence to be convincing to a skeptical audience.

2. Degree of Testability:
   Theological claims, by their nature, are often not subject to empirical testing. The podcast discusses the resurrection and the nature of Jesus’ resurrected body, which are inherently faith-based and not empirically verifiable. The statement,

“The empty tomb is really, really important, and this is why, because everybody in the ancient world knew perfectly well, anyone who thought about such things, that visions of recently dead people did happen from time to time,”

underscores the difficulty in testing such claims, though it does not prevent us from inductively assessing what explanations are most probable given our interactions with the world.

---

Argument #1: Jesus’ Resurrection

Premises:

1. If Jesus’ tomb was empty and he appeared to people after his death, he must have been physically resurrected.
2. The tomb was found empty, and people reported seeing Jesus after his death.
3. Therefore, Jesus was physically resurrected.

Counter-Argument:
The claim that an empty tomb and post-death appearances necessarily indicate a physical resurrection overlooks alternative explanations. Historical records indicate that grave robbery was not uncommon. Additionally, psychological phenomena, such as grief-induced visions, could account for post-death appearances. Without corroborating evidence beyond scriptural accounts, the assertion of a physical resurrection lacks empirical support. The historical and psychological context of the period provides plausible non-supernatural explanations for the observed events.

---

Argument #2: Jesus’ Ascension and Intercession

Premises:

1. If Jesus ascended and is now in heaven, he intercedes for humanity.
2. The New Testament describes Jesus’ ascension and intercession.
3. Therefore, Jesus intercedes for humanity from heaven.

Counter-Argument:
The idea of Jesus’ ascension and intercession is deeply rooted in Christian theology but is not substantiated by external historical evidence. Theological texts should not be conflated with historical documents; they serve to convey religious beliefs rather than empirical truths. Additionally, the concept of intercession relies heavily on a metaphysical understanding of heaven, which is not universally accepted or verifiable. Theological assertions, while meaningful within a faith context, cannot be objectively validated in the same manner as historical events.

---

Argument #3: Jordan Peterson’s Influence on Christian Doctrine

Premises:

1. If Jordan Peterson finds value in Christian doctrine, it must have contemporary relevance.
2. Peterson’s work acknowledges the significance of Christian narratives.
3. Therefore, Christian doctrine retains contemporary relevance.

Counter-Argument:
Jordan Peterson’s recognition of Christian doctrine does not inherently validate its contemporary relevance. Peterson’s perspective is one of many, and his psychological and philosophical framework differs from traditional theological interpretations. His analysis often abstracts Christian narratives to broader archetypal themes, which may resonate on a psychological level but do not necessarily affirm the doctrinal specifics. The contemporary relevance of any doctrine should be assessed through a broader sociocultural lens, considering diverse viewpoints and empirical evidence on its impact and applicability.

◉ Addressing Argument #2:

The Ascension of Jesus Lacks Documentation and Induction Should Be Foundational in Our Epistemology

The ascension of Jesus, much like his resurrection, encounters significant challenges due to the absence of contemporary, empirical documentation. For those who do not observe violations of physical laws in their daily lives, it is difficult to accept claims from religious texts that assert such extraordinary events. The principle of induction, which emphasizes knowledge derived from empirical evidence and logical reasoning, should be the cornerstone of our epistemology. In contrast, faith, which lacks empirical support, is a deficient method for understanding the world and should not guide those genuinely seeking the truth.

The ascension narrative, found in the New Testament, describes Jesus rising bodily into heaven. This account, however, is primarily based on religious texts written decades after the events they purport to describe. There is a conspicuous absence of corroborating historical records or physical evidence to support this claim. Historians and scholars often rely on multiple sources of evidence to substantiate historical events, yet in the case of the ascension, such corroboration is lacking. This absence raises serious doubts about the veracity of the narrative.

For those who do not witness supernatural phenomena regularly, the ascension of Jesus stands as an anomaly that contradicts the observed laws of nature. The scientific method, which relies on observation, experimentation, and replication, has consistently shown that physical laws, such as gravity, operate uniformly. The claim of a bodily ascension defies these well-established principles, making it implausible to those who value empirical evidence. As David Hume argued, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the ascension of Jesus does not meet this criterion.

Inductive reasoning, which forms conclusions based on observed patterns and evidence, should be the foundation of our epistemology. Induction allows us to build knowledge incrementally, testing hypotheses against the real world and refining our understanding based on what we observe. This method has proven remarkably successful in advancing human knowledge, from the natural sciences to everyday decision-making. Relying on induction ensures that our beliefs are grounded in reality and subject to revision in light of new evidence.

Faith, on the other hand, often demands acceptance of claims without empirical evidence. It encourages belief based on authority, tradition, or personal conviction rather than verifiable facts. While faith can provide personal comfort and community cohesion, it is an inadequate tool for discerning objective truths about the world. Faith-based beliefs are not subject to the same rigorous scrutiny as those derived from empirical evidence, leading to a fragmented understanding of reality where contradictory claims can coexist without resolution.

For an honest seeker of truth, it is essential to prioritize methods that yield reliable and testable knowledge. Faith, by its very nature, resists such scrutiny and often positions itself beyond the reach of critical examination. This makes it unsuitable for those who aim to understand the world as it truly is, rather than as they wish it to be.

In conclusion, the ascension of Jesus, like his resurrection, suffers from a lack of empirical documentation and contradicts the consistent laws of nature observed in daily life. Inductive reasoning, which builds knowledge on the foundation of empirical evidence, should be central to our epistemology. Faith, while meaningful to many, does not provide a robust framework for understanding the truth and should not be relied upon by those committed to seeking an accurate and honest comprehension of the world.