“Who
would believe what we have heard?”
—Isaiah 53:1
The
Resurrection of Christ certainly makes for a riveting story, but is it
reasonable? In the end what is
reasonable or unreasonable depends on the base premises involved. For many, the
Resurrection generally adheres to one of three premises—lies, lunacy or legend.
- The early Christians intentionally deceived others about the risen
Christ.
- Or they were delusional enough to actually believe it.
- Or stories about Jesus were exaggerated over time into an elaborate myth.
Remember
that early Christians were not converted by the sword. In fact, it was the
precise opposite. If you did convert, you would face “the sword” or at least by
ostracized from your already established culture and community. In the logic of
the human condition, people will follow the path of least resistance without a
strong impetus to do otherwise. Would mere stories convince so many without
other compelling evidence? There are exceptions to every rule, but it’s easier
to do nothing than to turn your life upside-down listening to the legends of
liars and lunatics. But suppose they already felt ostracized by their culture
and were desperately looking for a revolution and a savior? This would have plausibly
appealed to the “fight or flight” instinct, but the new Christian faith was not
about taking up weapons or running away from problems.
The
other leg of “legend” or “myth” was covered in my last post. I think the myth theory runs into a serious problem with “time”. Some
may still dispute the first-century date for the Gospels, but no one disputes
that Paul's letters were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Christ.
If so, there is not even one generation with which to build-up such a fantastic
myth as the Resurrection, which was indispensable to the early Christian faith.
The
Resurrection might still be dismissed as not credible simply because that sort
of thing just doesn’t happen. The paradigm that says “that just doesn’t happen”
is one reason for using analytical problem solving, which trains people to go
wherever the data leads, and on occasion it leads us to places in spite of our
intuition and our experience. One of the case studies we review in a problem
solving class I teach where I work is the Apollo XIII disaster. I’m more
familiar with accident than the average person and one aspect of it reminds me
of the Resurrection.
Apollo
XIII was well on its way to the moon when at fifty-four hours and fifty-two
minutes into the flight the origin of that famous phrase was born; “Houston, we
have a problem.” The word “problem” is an overgeneralization; the first
specific deviation reported to Houston was “Main Buss B undervolt”. This meant
that one of the two main power distribution panels for the command module had
fallen off in electrical output. A “large bang” was another deviation reported
at the same time as the first. A few minutes later another deviation was
reported; Main Buss A undervolt. Apollo XIII was suddenly losing electrical
power and no one knew why.
Engineers
on the ground immediately began some incident management (action to the effect)
by reducing electrical consumption on the ship. About thirteen minutes after
reporting the first deviations more came in. There was a sudden loss of oxygen
in one of the two main cryogenic oxygen tanks and a gradual loss of oxygen in
the other (oxygen was used on the ship not only for breathing, but also to
generate electricity. I’d imagine this was because batteries powerful enough
for the ship would have had been too heavy to take into space). The ship’s crew
also reported that the ship was “venting” something out into space. With the
ship rapidly losing both electricity and oxygen 205,000 miles away from earth
the situation could hardly have been any more critical.
While
putting contingents in place to deal with the problems effects, NASA engineers
also began analytical problem solving to find the cause. This was done even
though they had no possibility of amassing all the data they would have liked.
After analyzing whatever relevant data was available, the number two oxygen
tank suddenly bursting was a possible cause that explained all the observed
deviations better than anything else suggested. There was one difficulty with
this proposed root-cause. NASA engineers knew that their equipment was the best
and safest ever invented. The very idea of a main oxygen tank just bursting in
deep space was simply not credible;
this is what their experience and intuition told them.
Faulty
instrumentation or what we might call “bad data” was another proposed cause.1
This idea may have made some people feel better. If true, it would mean that
the gauges and alarms were just malfunctioning. If the gauges and alarms were “lying”
or “acting crazy” so-to-speak, then there was no real danger and the mission
could probably continue. Although I’ve never dealt with a life and death
situation at work, I can relate to the true cause of a complex and costly
problem eluding us because it was counter intuitive; it flew in the face of our
knowledge, experience and intuition. When this happens the natural tendency is
to pick a theory you like better and then build-up assumptions until it fits
all the available facts. Preferred possible causes tend to be under scrutinized, while unwelcome
possible causes tend to be over scrutinized.
The
cause was indeed a rupture of the number two cryogenic oxygen tank. This cause
could have been easily dismissed because “that just doesn’t happen”, but this
is where all the data lead and the engineers were disciplined enough to go
there. Clear-headed logic in a crisis saved the crew. Had the true cause
remained unknown much longer, it would have delayed the planning to get the
crew back home and there was no time to spare.
 |
| Houston celebrates the return of the Apollo XIII crew. |
If
there were no oxygen tanks on board, one bursting would truly be impossible.
Someone insisting that the tanks did not exist would first need to be shown
otherwise. Once it is made clear that the tanks are actually there, one
rupturing could be at least considered. I think the same can be said in regard
to Christ, His followers and the Resurrection. Even if you believe in God you
can still ask questions. Were they liars, lunatics, legends or speaking
“Truth”? One could answer “I don’t know”, but those willing to believe a
particular theory would do well to remember the purpose of the historical
method and a principle of analytical problem solving. An historian or problem
solver cannot always “prove” or recreate past events. In such a case, he or she
works to present a theory that will best explain the most data.
Without
being either gullible or cynical, which theory explains the most data given no
possibility of amassing all the data you would like to have?
“Thought is dangerous. Thought can bring you to the
door of truth. There are all kinds of reasons for wanting that door to stay
shut. Men cannot endure the light.”
—Anthony Esolen
1 Jim Lovell and Jeffrey Kluger, Lost Moon, (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994), p. 96.
