2010-02-22
|
Have I got this right?
|
|
The trouble is, I can't think of any possible evidence that could prove that the resurrection was an historical event. This is because the Biblical story claims much more than history can record. The unhidden part of the story may be historical and yet the interpretation a fantasy. I do believe, however, just for the record, that the story is important and that believing in its message would be a minimum condition for being a Christian (or a Buddhist, Muslim etc.).
The point about uncertain beliefs, that one can believe that the resurrection actually occurred but nevertheless concede the possibility that it it didn't, seems to shows up rather nicely the ambuiguity of the word 'belief.' I'd say this sort of Christians is 'confident,' with or without good reason, where confidence admits the possibilty that it is misplaced and so stops short of either knowledge or dogmatism.
..."Wittgenstein did not hold that “Christians must believe in the story of the resurrection as if it were a historical event.” He did, I think, hold that at some ‘level of devoutness’ this belief is conducive to salvation – perhaps even (in some cases?) is necessary for salvation."
Okay. But if belief in the historical story is sometimes necessary for salvation is this not to say that it must be believed? After all, how would we know we are one of the exceptions who don't need to believe it? By not believing we'd be taking a huge risk. The problem would be how to believe on demand. It's not something I can do. My view would be that such a belief may actually be detrimental to salvation, as Keith Ward suggests in his God - A Guide for the Perplexed.
I'm not disagreeing with Wittgenstein since I'm unclear as to his precise position on this, just with the idea that an historical resurrection is necessary to Christianity.
..."Some of the best present day philosophers are Christians who, I suspect, believe in the resurrection (as a historical event, among other things.) In philosophy, at least, ‘this kind of medievalism’ is alive and well."
Again, I think the problem may be the word 'believe'. Few people who would say they believe that the story is historical would claim to know that it is.
What I meant by 'medievalism' is the idea that we must believe this or that instead of conducting our own investigation and making up our mind accordingly. This idea is a heresy in my opinion, and does a great deal of damage.
|