Are Skeptics Being Unreasonable for not Accepting the Evidence for the Resurrection?
Here is something for Christians to think about. Are we skeptics of the resurrection of Jesus really being unreasonable and biased or are we applying the same reason, logic, and skepticism to your Resurrection claim that we would apply to ANY very extra-ordinary claim, supernatural or natural?
Well, let’s talk about extraordinary claims for a moment. One such extraordinary claim that interests me deeply is this idea that life originated on this planet through an extraordinary act of abiogenesis where nonliving natural processes were supposed to give rise to amino acids: the very building blocks of life. Yet, scientists have never once observed in nature, without human help, any event of amino acids forming due to purely natural causes. What was observed, quite to the contrary in 1953, is that through an act of intelligent design, by Stanley Miller and Herald Urey, was that amino acids could easily be intelligently designed into place in a lab even if the scientists did not have the composition of the early earth’s atmosphere correct. Of course, what Miller and Urey did was not an act of abiogenesis, but rather, because life created the building blocks of life in this case, the evidence is more favoring an act of biogenesis.
With that in mind, one need to only venture outside into what some call “nature” and witness literally the millions of acts of life giving rise to living offspring across numerous species every day on this planet. With such abundant evidence in hand, it truly begs the question of why the skeptics still resist the introduction of a scientific theory for life giving rise to life as an explanation for how life originated on this planet. Can the skeptics so easily ignore billions upon billions of pieces of evidence like that supporting the process of how life gives rise to life? Or, is skepticism just a code word for, “If it supports the Christian faith, we must resist it with all our might no matter what?” I only ask because those billions of pieces of evidence of life giving rise to life that occur on this planet support the Biblical account of Genesis where a living God, in a more direct fashion, gives rise to life on this planet.
Since the dawn of the Enlightenment, one Christian teaching regarding our universe after another has fallen to the wayside as myth and superstition under the scrutiny of the scientific method. It is always Christianity that is forced to revise it’s interpretation of its inerrant holy book/worldview and not science. Although it is true that as of this moment in time, science cannot tell us the answer to the origin of the universe, I see no reason to throw up our hands and say, “a god must have done it!”. We have plenty of experience of that claim being wrong in the past.
Secondly, if the skeptics of Christianity believe that nature can manage to assemble a body through first an act of abiogenesis and later evolutionary steps and that life can arise from nonlife, why is it so incredibly hard for them to believe the dead can raise back to life with the body already still assembled? It’s not like the naturalists doubt that you can go from nonlife to life, because their origin of life theories depend on that as a primary premise, else they would not be searching for a viable explanation of naturally occuring abiogenesis in their origin of life research. The only real way I see that the skeptics can make good on attacking the resurrection here is if they argue that it is impossible for life to arise from nonlife and abandon the search for abiogenesis altogether as being an equally rediculous matter. Else, for the skeptics of Christianity in the naturalist camp to continue to persue how life can arise from nonliving processes will only suggest that the skeptics never really had a solid objection to begin with as they seek to convince themselves that life really can arise from a nonliving state to explain how life originated on this planet.
Science bases its hypotheses on evidence obtained by the scientific method. Christians on the other hand, base their beliefs on some evidence but also a lot of “faith”. To me, faith is nothing more than wishful thinking.
I’ll stick with science.
Much better track record of being correct.