Once upon a time there was a misunderstanding. It lived a happy little life, wandering between various minds, back and forward, back and forward until one day it noticed that something terrible had happened to it. Every time it visited another, every time it displayed itself before whatever mind it intended to hold under its spell, it had sold itself out for the sake of vanity. “Look at me!” it had cried! “Come! Be enraptured by my beauty and consume me with your minds!” Well, the minds had come, and had eaten, and the misunderstanding was left with a little bit less of itself to share around each time. The misunderstanding is worrying now, striving to fuel itself with peripheral issues and the finite vision of its admirers, but as the haze lightens temporarily one addled mind perceives before it the following scene and flails at the mist desperately.

The reference to science and empirical method was irrelevant when it came to the core belief of the Christians. Whether by scientific analysis or just plain common knowledge, rational mankind has always known (by faith in rationality) that it is impossible for a man to rise up from the dead[1]. However we also know it to be impossible for a group of persons to consistently choose to die purely for something they know to be untrue. Unfortunately the “death and resurrection”[2] of Jesus must refute one of these impossibilities. Given that, we must assume that our knowledge/system of rationality is incomplete. That is the central point that this mind sees, so it has reached it quickly to allow itself the liberty of now discussing the matter at leisure without being accused of not getting to the point[3].

As it stands so far the point is quite simple. It can only become complicated when we try to remove one side of it, because then we must consider how logical our attempt is. Rather than wear myself out on outlining such complications when such an outline would probably still be incomplete (being one-sided) I wait in hope for comments. Remember also that it is illogical to weigh one gigantic improbability against another and expect the lower improbability to suddenly become probable. There is no such easy way out. We need something, some scenario perhaps, where one of the impossibilities becomes probable. If more detail is required by any reader in order for them to build such a case I will do my best to give it, because I have favoured brevity over detail in the lazy assumption that readers are already aware of the case.

I shall now go on to describe my own reconciliation of the two opposed impossibilities. One logical route to follow in expanding our rational system is to test the laws by which Jesus lived and died, given that they involve rules derived from outside our knowledge (allegedly from God’s kingdom), and also because since Jesus lived and died consistently by these laws, we might assume for the sake of making progress that the method by which he rose was also consistent with the method by which he lived. We might look to the explanation of the witnesses who gave up their lives as evidence of God’s faithfulness and the truth of their gospel. This is the route Christians take, leading them to repentance by turning from self-focus towards Jesus and God, who forgives them. It is one logical route.

Now I am not about to make a scientific point here, but I find an entertaining analogy in the scientific method: When the rational system known as Newtonian Mechanics was shown to be inconsistent in just one specific case, Einstein’s solution was to make time relative rather than constant. Essentially this allowed us greater freedom by making it possible for the fourth dimension (time) to bow before the Michelson-Morley experiment. Not only that, but with our new idea of relative time we predicted physical behaviour which was later empirically proven. When Einstein’s formalism proved to be unable to fully explain all known physical forces and we found ourselves unable to stretch the constraints of our four dimensions any further, Kaluza and Klein decided that the forces must be derived from outside this system and that the solution would therefore be to suppose another dimension from which our current knowledge could be derived. This worked reasonably well but couldn’t describe the entire range of known forces or their behaviour, and great scientists have since attempted to build a complex system involving many more dimensions. None of these have really been successful so far. String theory, Superstring theory, M-theory, no variant has managed to fit the pieces together so far, nor managed to predict any behaviour that experiment might validate, yet this is the only scientific theory (postulated so far) that looks as though it could succeed as an adequate holistic description of physics.

Of course we could just say that, well, God created each force separately, but there was no mention of God in our scientific formulism so far and it therefore seems natural to avoid using God to fill the gaps in our knowledge. In the case of the cross however the idea of God is a major part of the picture. We can’t say that Jesus rose from the dead as a probable result of science. However, His crucifixion and resurrection was already predicted as a solution (badly needed by myself) for mankind’s warped relationship with God, which perhaps fortifies the concept of man’s relationship to God as an explanation for this event. We have a solution from outside our system. God provides the extra dimensionality from which our limited knowledge is derived. God derived the rule that says that man dies and does not rise and God derived the rules that result in the exception.

But coming back to the point (second paragraph), every human is free to come up with their own reconciliation between the rest of their knowledge and the events surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. I have found only one that makes any sense but it is only desperation that leads me to accept it for my life.[4] I try not to look for miracles that don’t address my condition and thus miss the point[5]. In any case if everyone saw miracles in everyday life they would cease to be miracles. If for example people rose from the dead every day there would be nothing special about the cross. On the other hand if only Christians produced miracles they would be known as miracle workers rather than what they really are: bad people who need God’s forgiveness. If you read the bible without bias (probably impossible mind you) you might avoid skipping over the part where Jesus repeatedly offers forgiveness or describes God’s kingdom before giving a sign of what it looks like. These signs were miracles but they are just a stronger way of getting to the point. Please turn to God for healing.

I am now speaking purely from the perspective of one who has faith[6]. The real problem is in our heart and Jesus constantly said so, berating the Pharisees for rejecting the spirit who sent him when they misinterpreted his signs and said that they were the devil’s miracles. It wasn’t just the Pharisees who misinterpreted signs. The Greeks thought Paul and Silas were Gods when they saw them perform a miracle and missed the point. Paul and Silas struggled to undo the damage. And at the same time, this isn’t really enough for me. At least they did perform miracles, and often enough that I would sometimes like to see a sign too. But I accept that I have been given enough to go on simply because I am already convinced by the cross. I hear of miracles in other Christians’ lives but why should I be convinced? I have seen God work in my own life but not by supernatural miracles, rather in ways too subtle to use as proofs[7]. Miraculous events are too few and far between by nature for us gather empirical evidence on them. Why should I expect them? I have been given enough, and therefore to put God to the test now would be taking a step backwards, defeating the heart of the matter: Relationships are built on trust, and the whole point is to renew our relationship with God.

“Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles..”

And so in the same way I try not to let my own “wisdom” interfere with my understanding of God. This is harder for me than not looking for miracles (Deut 6:16). Leaning not on my own understanding does indeed help in making my path straight (Proverbs 3:6) but this isn’t to say that it is illogical for me to believe in Christ. If it were not for the witness of Jesus’ apostles I would have to concede that at best the crucifixion and resurrection was mere symbolism, but it is not so straightforward[8]. Their witness challenges me and my faith has been justified by the healing I’ve experienced. It is perfectly logical to believe in the resurrection unless you can find a more likely alternative. So where is faith in this? Just because it is logical does not make it necessary. Faith is in the desperation of a sinner[9] who reaches out to someone above himself, the finite submitting to the infinite. A man of faith knows that faith is not his to lose because he belongs to the greater[10]. A man without faith knows that his lack of faith is his to lose if he were convinced enough to wish it so, because he does not yet belong. Nevertheless the convincing is done by God, and faith is still granted by God. If there were no resurrection I would have no basis for my belief, but the resurrection was granted by God and so then is my faith. So too have I been cursed by my fall, been moved to see my need and been redeemed by the cross, all done by God, and I believe that this faith, this destiny is available to all.[11]

[1] Thanks Jabercrow

[2] Thanks to Zoomtard we can appreciate the validity of historical and other non-empirical events.

[3] Thanks QMonkey for insisting that we cut the cogent contortions out.

[4] Thanks Zoomtard and Jabercrow for raising the point that faith in Jesus should not be purely a result of rigorous proofs.

[5] Thanks QMonkey for raising the question of whether the fact that we don’t see miracles every day has some relevance to whether we believe or not.

[6] Thanks QMonkey for pointing out that some beliefs only make sense from the point of view of someone who does believe. It helps to be clear on where I leave the neutral realm of debate and move into arguments about the consistency of the Christian mindset, which may only reassure the believer.

[7] Uncanny psychological healing gained as a child through prayer, that turn out to mirror the latest thought of psychologists when I am an adult. You might explain this away if you knew the detail but I’m not giving it away. Leaving my financial situation up to God by living with less means than expenses, but on any occasion when I needed money, it came in (just the right amount). Only once did I get money when I wasn’t actually going to be in trouble, and at this time I had decided to make a concerted effort to pray for it anyway. It could be a coincidence though, right, every time? Coincidences do happen. Generally I haven’t been in a position to take such a step of faith in life, but I can’t count the number of times that I have not been able to come up with an answer until I (sometimes quickly, sometimes after exhausting myself) gave up and prayed. These aren’t proofs. They are just a small part of a learning curve in relating to someone who is beyond amazing, who is God.

[8] Thanks to QMonkey for raising the question of what criteria we use for deciding whether supernatural event happened or whether it was mere metaphor.

[9] This desperation should not be used as fuel to suggest that Christians are people confused by subjective emotion. For one thing proper fuel must burn the argument itself rather than casting doubt on the arguer. For another, the desperation is central to our faith (Blessed are the poor in spirit) and if it is a real state and not just something dreamed up, surely it is more logical to acknowledge our wretched nature than to pretend it isn’t there, regardless of any objective explanation.

[10] Thanks Zoomtard for the Barth reference

[11] The availability of the gospel to all must surely stretch the conceptions of many Christians and is worthy of a debate in itself, but I ask that we consider the resurrection argument first, given that it is not in any way a faith based argument even if my solution requires faith.