Theism.net Options: home
| articles
| books | search
| webmaster
.gif){kind=small}
e-mail: j
Hallucinations:
From my debate with Temy Beal at http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/04jordan.htm
Please demonstrate the veracity of your claim that, "Mass hallucination is a well known and fairly common occurrence." Atheistic Harvard professor Michael Martin ("The Case Against Christianity," 1991, p. 92) wrote:
Is it really true that there is no such thing as mass hallucination? In fact, psychologists have studied a closely related phenomenon known as collective delusion or mass hysteria. In this phenomenon . . ..
Notice he shifts to a "closely related phenomenon [collective delusion]," not the phenomenon at issue [mass hallucination]. Charge me with splitting hairs. However, hallucinations are sensory experiences (e.g., "I see the Abominable Snowman sitting on my sofa drinking coffee, I hear his growl, and I feel his claws ripping my flesh"), whereas delusions are beliefs (e.g., "The Abominable Snowman is out to get me.")
Temy, Martin took a huge leap to explain sensory
phenomena using delusionary phenomena. You claim,
"Mass hallucination is a well known and fairly common occurrence."
First, define "common," then define "fairly." Mass
hallucination is not a common, a fairly common, nor an established phenomenon.
Notice Martin challenged the established scientific understanding that mass
hallucinations are non-existent. Further, your Conyers scenario [visions of
Virgin Mary in
Further, mass optical illusion phenomenon such as the Conyers, Georgia sightings are no indication of veracity of mass hallucinations, for all seers of such had to travel to Conyers to see it, unlike the phenomenon of the disciples. Mass optical illusions I can buy, or, for all we know, Mary was actually there. Personally, I would not know.
From: http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
Hallucinations
do play a major role in religious cultures, but they are induced either by
drugs or by the extreme deprivation of food, drink, and sleep (cf. E.
Bourguignon, "Hallucination and Trance: An Anthropologist's
Perspective," in Keup, p. 188). These factors
were not present in the various appearances of the risen Christ to his
disciples.
The details
of the varied epiphanies of Christ, which in several cases were to more than
one individual and on one occasion to more than 500, are not typical of
hallucinations. A visual hallucination is a private event; it is by definition
the perception of objects or patterns of light that are not objectively present
(ibid., p. ] 81 ) . The variety of conditions under
which Christ appeared also militate against
hallucination. The appearances to Mary Magdalene, to Cleopas,
to the disciples on the
And any
theory of hallucination breaks down on the fact (and if it is invention it is
the oddest invention that ever entered the mind of man )
that on three separate occasions this hallucination was not immediately
recognized as Jesus (Luke xxiv. 13- 31; John xx. 15, xxi. 4) [Miracles, 1947,
p. 1531.
Hugh Schonfield in The Passover Plot (1966) concedes: "We
are not dealing in the Gospels with hallucinations, with psychic phenomena or
survival in the Spiritualist sense" (p. 159). He further remarks:
"What emerges from the records is that various disciples did see somebody,
a real living person. Their experiences were not
subjective" (p. 173).
Finally,
what rules out the theory of hallucinations is the fact that the disciples were
thoroughly dejected at the death of Christ and were not, despite Christ's
predictions, expecting a resurrection of their leader. l
H. E. W. Turner remarks:
The
disciples to whom they [the women] finally report do not believe for joy. There
is here no avid clutching at any straw. Something quite unexpected had
happened, rather than something longed for having failed to occur [Jesus,
Master and Lord, 1960, p. 368].
More on visions from: http://clublet.com/c/c/why?VisionHypothesis
Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of
Jesus the Messiah (excerpted from and electronic version)Book
5 Chapter 16
The only other explanation [besides fraud], worthy
of attention, is the so called 'Vision-hypothesis:' that the Apostles really
believed in the Resurrection, but the mere visions of Christ had wrought in
them this belief. The hypothesis has been variously modified. According to
some, these visions were the outcome of an excited imagination, of a morbid
state of the nervous system. To this there is, of course, the preliminary
objection, that such visions presuppose a previous expectancy of the event,
which, as we know, is the opposite of the fact. Again, such a
'Vision-hypothesis' in no way agrees with the many details and circumstances
narrated in connection with Risen One, Who is described as having appeared not
only to one or another in the retirement of the chamber, but to many, and in a
manner and circumstances which render the idea of a mere vision impossible.
Besides, the visions of an excited imagination would not have endured and led
to such results; most probably they would soon have given place to corresponding
depression.
The 'Vision-hypothesis' is not much improved, if
we regard the supposed vision as the result of reflection, that the disciples,
convinced that the Messian could not remain dead (and
this again is contrary to fact) had wrough themselves
first into a persuasion that He must rise, and then into visions of the Risen
One. This argument might, of course, be variously elaborated, and the account
in the Gospels represents as the form which it afterwards took in the belief of
the Church.
But (a) the whole 'Vision-hypothesis' is shadowy
and unreal, and the sacred writers themselves show that they knew the
distinction between visions and real appearances; (b) it is impossible to
reconcile it with such occurrences as that in St. Luke xxiv. 38-43
and
But were the Apostles such? Does not the perusal
of the Gospel-narratives leave on the impartial reader exactly the opposite
impression? Nor yet would it commend itself more to our mind, if were to assume
that these visions had been directly sent from God Himself. These two modes of
accounting for the narrative of the Resurrection: by fraud, and that Christ's
was not real death, were already attempted by Celsus,
1700 years ago, and the first, by the Jews long before that. Keim has subjected them, as modified by different
advocates, to a searching criticism, and, with keen irony, exhibited their
utter absurdity. In regard to the supposition of fraud he says: it shows that
not even the faintest idea of the holy conviction of the Apostles and first
Christians has penetrated hardened spirits. The objection that the Risen One
had only manifested Himself to friends, not before enemies, is also as old as Celsus. It ignores that, throughout, the revelation of
Christ does not supersede, but imply faith; that there is no such thing in
Christianity as forcing conviction, instead of eliciting faith; and that the
purpose of the manifestations of the Risen Christ was to confirm, to comfort,
and to teach His disciples. As for His enemies, the Lord had expressly declared
that they would not see Him again till the judgment, to attest the fact that
Christ lived. For, we have here to deal with a series of facts that cannot be
so explained, such as the showing them His Sacred Wounds; the offer touch them;
the command to handle Him, so as to convince themselves of His real corporeity;
the eating with the disciples; the appearance by the Lake of Galilee, and
others.
Besides, the 'Vision-hypothesis' has to account
for the events of the Easter-morning, and especially for the empty tomb from
which the great stone had been rolled, and in which the very cerements
[Exaggeration would, of course, be here out of the question.] of death were
seen by those who entered it. In fact, such a narrative as that recorded by St.
Luke xxiv. 38-43 seems almost designed to render the 'Vision-hypothesis'
impossible. We are expressly told, that the appearance of the Risen Christ, so
far from meeting their anticipations, had affrighted them, and that they had
though it spectral, on which Christ had reassured them, and bidden them handle
Him, for 'a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold Me having.' Lastly,
who removed the Body of Christ from the tomb? Six weeks afterwards, Peter
preached the Resurrection of Christ in
The most deeply painful, but also interesting
study is that of the conclusion at which Keim
ultimately arrives (Gesch. Jesu v. Naz.
iii. pp. 600-605). It has already been stated with
what merciless irony he exposes the fraud and the non-death theory, as well as
the arguments of Strauss. The 'Vision-hypothesis' he seems at first to advocate
with considerable ingenuity and rhetorical power. And he succeeds in this the
more easily, that, as he surrenders, although most arbitrarily, almost every
historical detail in the narrative of the Resurrection! And yet what is the
result at which he ultimately arrives? He shows, perhaps more conclusively than
any one else, that the 'vision-hypothesis' is also impossible! Having done so,
he virtually admits that he cannot offer any explanation as to 'the mysterious
exit' of the life of Jesus. Probably the visions of the Risen Christ were granted
directly by God Himself and by the glorified Christ (p. 602). 'Nay, even the bodily appearance itself may be conceded to those
who without it fear to lose all' (p. 603). But from this there is but a
very small step to the teaching of the Church. At any rate, the greatest of
negative critics has, by the admission of his inability to explain the
Resurrection in a natural manner, given the fullest confirmation to the
fundamental article of our Christian faith; and vision being thus impossible,
and the a priori objection to the fact, as involving a Miracle, being a petitio principii, the historical
student is shut up to the simple acceptance of the narrative. To this
conclusion the unprepared ness of the disciples, their previous opinion, is
their new testimony unto martyrdom, the foundation of the Christian Church, the
testimony of so many, singly and in company, and the series of recorded
manifestations during forty days, and in such different circumstances, where
mistake was impossible, had already pointed with unerring certainty.
Reuss (Hist. Evang.
p. 698) well remarks, that if this fundamental dogma
of the Church had been the outcome of invention, care would have been taken
that the accounts of it should be in the strictest and most literal agreement.
And even if slight discrepancies, nay, some not strictly historical details,
which might have been the outcome of earliest tradition in the
e-mail: j
Theism.net Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster