Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Aquinas argued that if the Incarnation did not really happen, then an even more unbelievable miracle happened: the conversion of the world by the biggest lie in history and the moral transformation of lives into unselfishness, detachment from worldly pleasures and radically new heights of holiness by a mere myth.
As has already been point , conditions that might have favored another religion, but that happened to favor Christianity.[/b]
As has already been pointed out, Christianity need not have come into being as a conspiratorial lie, but rather as a shared illusion.
But what historical proof do you have which backs this idea?
In comparison, I have several corroborating accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) attesting to the apostles having been
eye-witness to the resurrected Christ. Paul, whose letters predate the synoptic gospels, recorded that on one occasion more than
five-hundred people had witnessed the resurrected Christ.
For the early church the divinity of Christ was not something believed based on the accounts of others; they did not have to
believe that Christ was divine, they witnessed his divinity first-hand and
knew the reality of his resurrection.
Again, if the divinity of Jesus were a foreign concept foisted on a merely human Jesus after his death, then where is the historical evidence of any followers of the merely human Jesus refuting his subsequent "divinization"? There isn't any such evidence. In light of this fact, the best explanation of the historical data remains: the first generation of Christians, those who witnessed the earthly ministry of Jesus and his innumerable miracles, were already witness to his divinity and that his divinity was therefore already widely known throughout Judea.
There is no historical evidence which refutes this. Even the enemies of Christ, the Scribes and Pharisees, admitted that Christ performed miracles and claimed to be God. If Christ's divinity was a shared illusion, then it would not only be inconsistent with the historical data, a shared illusion would be more improbable than the miracles which Christ reportedly performed.
You have to ask yourself: was it more probable that this man fooled both his enemies and allies within an entire nation, subsequently transforming the lives of billions of people throughout history, or that Christ was indeed who he claimed to be and clearly demonstrated his authority as the Son of God through his miracles and through the resurrection, as the historical data suggests?
Ockham's razor: All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. As soon as one departs from the Christian explanation of the historical data, you begin to encounter more and more inconsistencies and improbabilities. Again, what evidence do you have to support the idea that the early church was under the sway of a shared illusion? Respectfully, none.
Can anyone be certain that there is not in human nature, independent of God, the potential for Christianity to emerge as a collective illusion? Do we know enough of human nature to exclude this possibility? I submit that it would be presumptuous to assume as much. Indeed, there is plenty of collateral evidence that human being are capable of imagining any number of impossible things before breakfast, of misunderstanding the causes of their psychological states, of tending to acquire belief in disincarnate spirits, of linking morality to such beliefs, etc.
I understand your point, but again, does the historical data bear out this possibility? Does your theory explain what we know of ancient history better than the orthodox view? Remember Ockham's razor...
(Aside 1: Suppose we concede that the effects of Christianity are inexplicably potent naturalistically, but note that they are not uniformly positive. Would that count as evidence for or against Christianity being true?)
It's awfully difficult to comment on this, because neither of us have at our fingertips knowledge of the true overall effect of Christ on the world. Yes, there were the crusades, which were and are scripturally unjustifiable. But what are the effects of
accurately applied Christian teaching? At least according to my limited knowledge I can't recall anything negative.
(Aside 2: Suppose an alternative religion to Christianity--like Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam--also had extremely potent and good effects, verging on the otherwise inexplicable, at least according to the intuitions of some. By the same argument, these effects would suggest these religions were true. However, there exist, at the very least, substantial incompatibilities between the tenets of these different religions and Christianity, and indeed, between the tenets of these different religions themselves. How are these incompatibilities to be resolved? Or suppose that Islam gained ground, and Christianity lost it, in terms of numbers. Would that imply that the true values associated with the propositions asserted by one religion or the other would switch?)
The point is, it is more improbable that something good can be attributed to a lie than that something good can be attributed to a truth. Aquinas, no doubt, did not mean this as the sole proof of Christianity's truth; a subjective consideration, I agree. If the founders of every religion were merely men, Christianity included, then any given religion's overall effect would be the only proof of its validity.
But that which distinguishes Christ from the founders of other religions is his claim to divinity, a claim which, if true, makes his demands upon humanity universally applicable. That means you, me, and everyone we meet, must all be ultimately responsible to Christ -- if he is Lord. Therefore, Christ's divinity remains the central issue, and the historical data happens to show evidence of his claim to divinity (i.e., his miracles and resurrection).
The histories of Alexander the Great were written four-hundred years after his death, yet no one discounts their historical validity. The record of Christ was written within the first several
decades after his resurrection, and yet his record is considered by some to be dubious. All things being equal, this inconsistency can only be attributed to either prejudice or ideology.
Third, there is a strong Darwinian-style argument against the arguments for potency and positivity adduced in favor of Christianity. Suppose, over the course of history, you had N number of self-styled gurus. These would then arguably exhibit a (possibly skewed) Gaussian distribution of success in attaining converts. A few, perhaps the least charismatic with the least receptive audiences, would give up after a week; most would exhibit a degree of success due to their native talents and the enthusiasm of followers, but still only sufficient to found an evanscent cult; but a few, in the positive tail of the distribution, would manage to found a major world religion, because the other manifold conditions necessary for it to take permanent root would be, out of sheer luck, present. So basically, Christianity struck it lucky. There were lots of other losers in the religion race, but we never hear from them, because they are lost in the sands of time. Hence, it isn't the case that the intrinsic merits of Christianity are entirely responsible for whatever potent and positive effects can be justly attributed to it, but rather also, and probably to a huge and unappreciated extent, that the extrinsic conditions were ripe for its emergence, conditions that might have favored another religion, but that happened to favor Christianity.
In a vacuum devoid of historical record, this theory of religious evolution might be tenable. But there
is a historical record. What does it show? Does is it bear out your hypothesis? What is the simplest explanation for the data?