Christian Doubt

Can Jesus’ resurrection from the dead be proven? This depends on the definition of what constitutes proof. Proof of the resurrection will not be found in the more reliable “hard scientific” field. Scientist will not be able to set up laboratory experiments to determine if the resurrection did or did not occur. There are not multiple occurrences of the resurrection in which to test. The evidence is limited to a singular resurrection of Jesus which occurred some 2000 years ago.

It is important to know that this does not mean that the task is impossible. Historians, paleontologist, archaeologist, evolutionist, criminal investigators, and cosmologist all examine the data of the past and make hypothesis that best fits the data. These fields also use the process of inference – using observations of the present to infer what happened in the past. This inference relies on some assumptions. Assumptions that are necessary, otherwise science has no meaningful framework in which to operate. Two of these assumptions are: 1)The principle of cause and effect, and 2) The universality of science. I’ll discuss both of these in a future blog.

History uses these principles as well as other historical tools to get at a probability, a degree of historical certainty. Like other fields of study, a 100 percent certainty is not possible, however one can reach a certain level of certainty. This level of certainty can cover a wide spectrum from the very doubtful to the very certain.

The problem with such a scale is that it is extremely subjective. What constitutes “somewhat certain”? How is it different from something more certain? At what point is it reasonable to accept a historic claim? Do we need proof beyond a reasonable doubt or does the reasons for accepting something just have to outweigh the reasons for not accepting it?

I have noticed that Christians tend to accept Christian claims based on minimal evidence. I’m not saying no evidence, just minimal evidence. They say a claim is demonstrated when the reasons for accepting it “significantly” outweighs the reasons for not accepting it. One of the problems with this is what constitutes “significant”. Who is the judge of this? Another problem is what data is included in the reasons for accepting a claim. I have also seen the Spirit card being played, in which the Holy Spirit testifies to the believer reassuring them what is true.

Agnostics I have found, lean more toward proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They also bring up that extraordinary claims such as the resurrection require extraordinary evidence. But is this criteria for proof unrealistic?