Gosh Dr. Ehrman, That Argument Stinks!
A brief note on the Ehrman-Bass debate
The Resurrection of Christ
***
NT scholars Bart Ehrman and Justin Bass recently debated the resurrection of Jesus on the UK’s Premier Christian Radio. After hearing a bit of their conversation, I must confess that I was genuinely shocked at how weak Ehrman’s central argument was. To quote:
You asked me why I don’t believe [that the resurrection happened], and the reason I don’t believe it is that it violates the laws of physics, and I don’t think God can break the laws of physics any more than he can break the laws of mathematics.
Now, I know that Ehrman and Bass are not philosophers, and so perhaps we ought to cut them some slack. But does Ehrman genuinely believe that God (assuming he exists) is incapable of breaking the laws of physics? Why in the world should we think that? The vast majority of philosophers believe that the laws of physics are metaphysically contingent,1 and there’s no reason at all to think that an omnipotent being would be incapable of violating them. Ehrman’s reference to mathematics seems to imply that he ascribes some kind of quasi-logical necessity to natural laws, but if that’s his view, then I’m afraid he’s simply confused.
To make matters worse, it isn’t even clear that the resurrection would have to violate the laws of physics. There are plenty of accounts—both of miracles and of natural laws—which would not entail such a view.2
You might think that Ehrman is simply stating his opinion as a naturalist here, but you’d be wrong: he presents this as an argument against belief in the resurrection. He asks Bass if God can break the laws of physics, and then stares at him as if he’s just dropped the mic. It’s a bizarre sight to see, and I’m quite frankly shocked that somebody who’s spent the last twenty years arguing with Christian apologists would make such a flimsy argument the centerpiece of his case.
The more I have listened to these debates over the years, the more I have lost the interest of watching them. Ehrman's "scholarly historical method" will never accept any amount of data to prove beyond reasonable doubt the occurrence of a miracle. That's just plain old skcepticism à la Hume. We can have all the debates in the world, if Ehrman doesn't give up this criteria, he will never change his mind.
Surely some good philosophy would serve him good, we agree!