Christian apologists such as Gary Habermas have argued that the hallucination theory is not plausible. The primary argument given by Habermas and other defenders of the resurrection against the theory is that hallucinations are experienced by individuals not groups. Since the NT records Jesus appearing to groups of people at various times, those appearances cannot be hallucinations. Habermas poses the following question: If, as most psychologists assert, hallucinations are private, individual events, then how could groups share exactly the same subjective visual perception?
First, and most importantly, Habermas is presupposing that the accounts in the NT are true in every detail. The school where he teaches, Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, has in its doctrinal statement the following: We affirm that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, though written by men, was supernaturally inspired by God so that all its words are the written true revelation of God; it is therefore inerrant (emphasis added) in the originals and authoritative in all matters. If one begins by assuming that the gospels are without error, then of course one is going to conclude that Jesus arose literally from the tomb. One is going to find it impossible to explain what is recorded in the NT on a purely naturalistic basis if one begins with the prior faith commitment that the Scriptures are absolute truth. But that is simply begging the question.
Second, one could theorize that perhaps Peter was the first to have a vision of Jesus and then as he told the other disciples about his experience, some of them also had a similar experience. It is not necessary to suppose that they all had the same experience at the same time unless one presupposes the inerrancy of the gospels. The same holds true of the 500 to whom Jesus is said to have appeared. Since Paul give no details about the alleged appearance--not the time, not the place, not the circumstances, not the names of the people involved, nothing--then, it is impossible to evaluate the claim.
Third, contrary to Habermas' claim, it is possible for a group of people to hallucinate at the same time. Hallucinate may not technically be the best word to describe group appearances, but regardless, we know that groups of people have all claimed to see the same apparition at the same time. The best examples are the cases of Marian apparitions which have occurred throughout history and today in settings where groups of people claim to have seen the Virgin. In recent times, these group visions of Mary have taken place in Conyers, Georgia and Medjugorje, Bosnia.
The Skeptic's Dictionary defines collective hallucination as:
a sensory hallucination induced by the power of suggestion to a group of people. It generally occurs in heightened emotional situations, especially among the religiously devoted. The expectancy and hope of bearing witness to a miracle, combined with long hours of staring at an object or place, makes certain religious persons susceptible to seeing such things as weeping statues, moving icons and holy portraits, or the Virgin Mary in the clouds.
Those witnessing a "miracle" agree in their hallucinatory accounts because they have the same preconceptions and expectations. Furthermore, dissimilar accounts converge towards harmony as time passes and the accounts get retold. Those who see nothing extraordinary and admit it are dismissed as not having faith. Some, no doubt, see nothing but "rather than admit they failed...would imitate the lead given by those who did, and subsequently believe that they had in fact observed what they had originally only pretended to observe...."(Rawcliffe, 114).
Not all collective hallucinations are religious, of course. In 1897, Edmund Parish reported of shipmates who had shared a ghostly vision of their cook who had died a few days earlier. The sailors not only saw the ghost, but distinctly saw him walking on the water with his familiar and recognizable limp. Their ghost turned out to be a "piece of wreck, rocked up and down by the waves" (Parish, 311; cited in Rawcliffe, 115).
The Rawcliffe cited above is the psychologist, Donovan H. Rawcliffe, who in 1952 wrote a book entitled: Illusions and Delusions of the Supernatural and the Occult . On page 113 of that book, he writes:
The same factors which operate for a single individual in the induction of hallucinations or pseudo-hallucinations may become even more effective in an excited or expectant crowd, and on occasion may result in mass hallucinations. This is not to say that any two people are capable of having precisely the same hallucination identical in every respect. But similar preconceptions and expectations can undoubtedly result in hallucinatory visions so alike that subsequent comparisons would not disclose any major discrepancy. . . . Accounts of comparatively dissimilar hallucinatory experiences often attain a spurious similarity by a process of harmonisation in subsequent recollection and conversation.
Since we know that the reports of the post-mortem appearances of Jesus were passed down by oral tradition for many years before they were ever recorded, it is quite reasonable to assume that the various accounts were harmonized as they were retold.
Habermas is right to argue that its impossible for a group of people to have precisely the same hallucination at the same time but its not necessary to believe that is what actually occurred unless one presupposes the inerrancy of the written gospels. Thus, Habermas dismissal of the hallucination theory on the grounds that mass hallucinations is impossible is misguided.
There is an interesting post on Jim Spiegel's blog about the NDE of atheist philosophy A. J. Ayer. Spiegel uses this as "proof" of his contention that every man has the knowledge of God and those who deny it are just suppressing it (Rom. 1:18-19).
ReplyDeleteThe full account of Ayer's NDE can be found here.
As I commented on his blog, I don’t kow the particulars of Ayer’s experience but I don’t find it that surprising. Neurologists can explain many types of hallucinations . While Ayers may not have believed in a divine being, he was aware of the concept and thus used that concept in an attempt to understand his experience.
Its important to note, however, that Ayer's did not renounce his atheism. Spiegel would no doubt say that was because of his immorality .
Even though I don't consider myself an atheist, I'm always irritated by know-it-alls who suppose that people stop believing in God so they can wallow in sin. I'd like to see some statistics accompanying these confident statements of fact. For example, show me a survey that reveals atheists are more likely than theists to visit houses of prostitution or shoplift or become gluttons. I'd like to see the prison numbers that show a disproportionate number of atheists serving sentences. Where's the evidence? Am I asking too much here?
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteGood point. In addition, the Scripture has a lot more to say in condemnation of pride, envy, gossip, failure to take care of widows and orphans, and so on that it does other sins more commonly associated with being really bad deeds.
I'd like to see the prison numbers that show a disproportionate number of atheists serving sentences. Where's the evidence? Am I asking too much here?
ReplyDeleteIt's quite the opposite, in fact. Self-identified atheists, agnostics, humanists and generically "secular make up about 1% of the prison population. They make up a much larger percentage of the actual population.
Link here: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm
Now, this might be slightly skewed, as this ignores the 13% with a "non-religious" affiliation. However, according to a Pew Report(http://religions.pewforum.org/reports), just over 16% of the population is non-affiliated with religion. So even if we take that entire 13% and dump it in the non-affiliated category, those who report lack of religious affiliation at all are still under the population statistic.
Looking at the Pew report v. the CUNY study of prison population, we also see that 1.6% of Americans self-identify as atheists, whereas .5% of American prisoners do. Ergo, atheists have a lower overall incidence. That ~1% of atheist/agnostic/humanists also undercuts the overall 4% of Americans who identify as such in the Pew Report.
I hope that answers the question.
Yes, Ken, I listed a few "biggies" from the traditional catalog of sins. But you're so right: Jesus makes a bigger deal out of neglect for the poor, for example, than he does any of the common evangelical taboos. (The ethics of Jesus sail over the heads of so many evangelicals.)
ReplyDeleteStill, it's funny to imagine someone becoming an atheist just so he can gossip or practice envy. If anything, apostasy has got to be over the prominent sins of the flesh.
Thanks for the info, Geds. That's helpful. I doubt it will silence the arrogant assertion that "you just stopped believing so you could go crazy on sin." But it helps counter it.
ReplyDeleteDid the disciples hallucinate? In my experience, people who have been dead three days don't get up--except in dreams and visions. Which is one reason the dream-making mind, the "unconscious," intrigues me so. Can one say that the dream-making mind, Mother Nature if you will, not only created Christianity--the resurrection apparitions having given birth to Christianity in the view of some--but also created Judaism and Islam, etc., as well?
ReplyDeleteI doubt it will silence the arrogant assertion that "you just stopped believing so you could go crazy on sin." But it helps counter it.
ReplyDeleteI like to point out that the primary difference between my church days and my post-church days is that I no longer go to church. In terms of my day-to-day life there's really no way of telling that I do much of anything in a more exciting and sinful way.
But that doesn't seem to help much, either. What I've found is that the Christians I know of that mindset have a particular narrative they want me to follow. So they give me the narrative, reality be damned...
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteYou say: "First, and most importantly, Habermas is presupposing that the accounts in the NT are true in every detail. The school where he teaches, Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, has in its doctrinal statement the following: We affirm that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, though written by men, was supernaturally inspired by God so that all its words are the written true revelation of God; it is therefore inerrant (emphasis added) in the originals and authoritative in all matters. If one begins by assuming that the gospels are without error, then of course one is going to conclude that Jesus arose literally from the tomb. One is going to find it impossible to explain what is recorded in the NT on a purely naturalistic basis if one begins with the prior faith commitment that the Scriptures are absolute truth. But that is simply begging the question."
No he does not. When he is looking at the evidence of the resurrection he does not assume that the Gospels are inspired nor does he assume the Gospels are reliable, but he simply treats them as other ancient books of literature.