Theism.net
Options: home |
articles | books | search | webmaster
.gif){kind=small}
e-mail: j
Robert Greg Cavin’s
mass-hallucination comments presented in his debate Dead or Alive with William
Lane Craig:
"A mass hallucination is
extremely improbable yet a resurrection from the dead is even more so. A mass
hallucination to Jesus’ followers only would have involved 500-plus individuals
having the same hallucination. The resurrection of Jesus would have required
bringing back to life five trillion cells. There's a big difference. So, I want
to challenge Dr. Craig to show us that the resurrection theory is more probable
than even the hallucination theory. So my point so far is, even if my
"Dave" theory (as he calls it) is wrong, the resurrection theory is
less probable than the hallucination theory; it's less probable than even the
swoon theory. After all, what's more probable? That someone who hasn't actually
died on the cross should recover within a few days and appear and fool his
followers? Or, that a man who's died should actually come back to life
again?"
"We know that mass
hallucinations are extremely improbable given the psychological state of the
disciples after the crucifixion, their despair plus the number of people who
claimed to have seen Jesus alive after his death. So, the hallucination theory
has a very low final probability as well as a low initial probability. I have
argued that the revivification theory has a lower final probability than the
hallucination theory."
"We've lopped off the
hallucination theory in general and any kind of theory of Jesus coming back to
life."
". . . what
about a mere look-a-like? Someone who kind of looked like Jesus the way some
people look like Elvis? No, because here we're dealing with
Jesus’ family members like James and people who were with Jesus day in and day
out."
". . . by
the process of elimination that we are led first by rejecting the hallucination
theory."
". . . mass hallucinations
are obviously improbable. . ."
“Dr. Craig and I agree that the
New Testament accounts are historically accurate, ah, overall."
In personal e-mail communication with
me, Dr. Cavin presented:
Regarding the quotations you have listed from my debate
with Craig: Yes, these are accurate (although you have typos) of
some of the things I said in the debate. However, you leave out many
important points I made against Craig in the debate, and you have also taken
the last quotation out of context (I had been agreeing with Craig only for the
sake of argument). Moreover, you must also understand that, due to the
constraints of time and, even more, the unsophisticated nature of the audience,
what I stated in the debate was a highly water-down version of a very technical
argument. If you want your readers to gain an accurate representation of
my position, then you should summarize my arguments against Craig in my Faith
& Philosophy article and my APA paper -- especially the latter.
As I am working hard on a book on the resurrection right now, I do not have
time to summarize these for you. After you have done so, please e-mail me
the entire section of your website on my arguments for my approval.
To
which I honored:
1) If you or your staff are able (time constraints, etc.) to send me corrections on the typos, it would be appreciated.
2) My reference to your work is regarding hallucinations. You are a non-Resurrection advocate (of scholarly caliber) who rejects mass-hallucinations. Beyond that realm of my Resurrection debating, your work has served its purpose. That is not to say you are not welcome to provide me a link for readers to learn more about your work. You are. Or, send me contact information, purchasing materials information of your papers referenced above, Web or e-mail links. I will make it all available to my readers. Currently, I only have Craig’s link available to offer readers purchase information.
3) Your statement of concerns (as you can see) has been added to the quotations. Let the readers do with them what they will.
4) I have provided you the links to my mention of your agreement with me regarding hallucinations. I have no pages refuting your “arguments.” Craig has already done so successfully. Again, readers will be welcome to review your extended writings on the matter should you provide them. I reject your Twin Theory on the same basis as Craig. My mention of you pertained to your professional opinion of the mass-hallucination hypothesis. I thank you for your contribution.
5) Professor, with all due respect, what I seek from you is confirmation of my quotations, challenges of any failures on my part to clearly differentiate my opinions from facts. I am out to present accurate information and keep it in harmony with those whom I quote. I am not one of your students. It is not my aim to acquire your “approval.” Please, save your red ink for your students.
e-mail: j
Theism.net Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster