A Common Error

David Gordon, as usual, has written a brilliantly perceptive, neutral, un-emotional review of Brian Leiter's book Why Tolerate Religion?.

While I won't rehash any of Gordon's points here, I will take a brief look at one of the premises Leiter suggests in his book:
"Ancient testimonial evidence in favor of events that are inconsistent with all other scientific knowledge about how the world works is nowhere thought to constitute evidence for belief in a particular proposition, and that is exactly the status of the putative evidence in support of the resurrection of Christ."
Mr. Leiter's assertion here is most certainly not unique to him, and some variation of it is widely held by self-proclaimed skeptics of many stripes. As we will see, there are a variety of problems with it.

To start with, we have a straw-man fallacy. Specifically, that Leiter is putting "Ancient testimonial evidence" in the same context as "scientific knowledge". The proper context would be to put "historical knowledge" with "ancient testimonial evidence". (I'll take a look at his argument about proper scientific context in a bit.)

When we look at an event purported to take place in the past, we are using historical knowledge. Think about it: when scholars were ascertaining the probability of Caesar crossing the Rubicon, they did not appeal to science, but to the historical arts. In a high school text book recounting that JFK was assassinated by a rifleman while riding in a car, supporting evidence in the article will likely be pictures, articles from newspapers at the time, and interviews with people who witnessed the event. What will not be included are articles on how rifles work, the metallurgy of bullet slugs, how fast motor vehicles are able to travel, etc.

In the interest of brevity, I won't rehash here the enormous volume of work that has already been done by those far more qualified than either myself or Leiter, with regard to verifying the veracity of the life of Jesus Christ. Take a look here, here, and here for example.

But what if we look at the story of Christ's resurrection within the context of science? If he would permit me the liberty, I certainly think that Leiter would conclude that the resurrection of someone who is fully dead* is scientifically impossible. And, I agree one-hundred percent. In this case it appears the argument under consideration proceeds something like this:
1. It is scientifically impossible for people to rise from the dead.
2. It is claimed that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
3. Therefore, that claim (2.) must be false.
Did you catch what went wrong? Historians and theologians hold that Christ rising from the dead was never claimed to be a result of natural (i.e. scientific) processes, but was... wait for it... a super-natural (i.e. miraculous) process. So now we have four options:
1o. Super-natural processes may not occur.
2o. Super-natural processes may or may not occur.
3o. Super-natural processes may occur.
4o. Super-natural processes must occur.
Option 4o may be pretty tough to defend, since its acceptance would bring with it a whole host of other questions that must first be answered before moving on, and is as such beyond the scope of this article.

Which leaves us with three corresponding potential assertions when considering the ressurection of Christ:
1o-1. Super-natural processes may not occur.
1o-2. It is claimed that Christ rose from the dead by a super-natural process.
1o-3. Therefore, the claim (1o-2.) is false.

or

2o-1. Super-natural processes may or may not occur.
2o-2. It is claimed that Christ rose from the dead by a super-natural process.
2o-3. Therefore, the claim (2o-2.) may be true or false.

or

3o-1. Super-natural processes may occur.
3o-2. It is claimed that Christ rose from the dead by a super-natural process.
3o-3. Therefore, the claim (3o-2.) may be true.

Clearly, the result hinges not upon whether or not Christ's resurrection is scientifically possible, but whether it is possible for super-natural events to take place.

(It is worth noting that 2o-3 and 3o-3 contain "may be true" rather than "is true". This is because the mere possibility of something having happening does not mean that it has happened. In this case, we would then move on to the historical knowledge context to try to determine the probability of something actually being true.)

So it is possible to start with a premise that prohibits super-natural processes. But that proposition will necessarily be one that is arrived at, either correctly or incorrectly, a-priori. This is necessary because by definition, super-natural processes (at least those in consideration in the context of Christ's resurrection) cannot be considered experientially on demand (if you know of something otherwise, i'm all ears). In other words, if you want to decide that the supernatural doesn't exist, and then use that as a foundation to dismiss everything that purports to be supernatural, you are starting with a premise that is not known to be true, and as such may or may not result in a true conclusion.

Interestingly, of the two options remaining, you still may not conclude that Christ did rise from the dead. This is because starting with a proposition that includes supernatural processes maybe being possible, you will not conclude that they did take place at every single opportunity. Using Occam's razor or whatever other process of epistemological ratiocination, one will decide, on a case-by-case basis, reality is best known when a purported event is best believed or dis-believed.

So, if you start with the premise that the supernatural is impossible, then you have already reached a pre-determined conclusion before you even pretend to make a logical consideration. If you do not start with that premise, then you rely on other information as to the probability of whether or not any given event occurred.

*By fully dead, I mean not only not mostly dead but also not unconscious  not in a "swoon", etc. By "fully dead" I mean to rule out circumstances similar to those of stories of people returning to life after having medically died (most of which take place w/in a few hours of being pronounced dead), such as this, this, or this.