The Argument from Resurrection

In arguments among Mormons regarding science and religion (or among Christians in general), it is not uncommon to see what I call "the argument from resurrection." It usually takes the following general form:

1. You claim that X is scientifically untenable.
2. However, the resurrection is also scientifically untenable.
3. We believe that the resurrection is (or will be) a reality.
4. Therefore, I am justified in believing X.

Something about how the argument from resurrection is often used bothers me, and I'll try to explain why. (Of course, my comments are based on an acceptance of #3 above.)

I think the fundamental problem lies in the difference between X and the resurrection--a false equivalence. Practically speaking, the resurrection is a future event or state, and it can be framed as a technological problem. Somehow, God can put us back together. It may seem impossible from our perspective, it may raise some tough questions, and perhaps our understanding or mental picture of the resurrection is not very accurate, but who is to say that such a technological achievement cannot be made. After all, God is God.

In contrast, the point of contention in #1 above usually involves a matter of history. The issue then is not what God could or could not do, but what the surviving evidence suggests. If the evidence contradicts X, then God's power, as exemplified by the resurrection, is really irrelevant. The question must turn to whether God would tamper with the evidence, which is not a scientific question.

Sometimes people slip into arguing over technical feasibility, which--with some exceptions--I think is a mistake [1]. So, for example, the issue with a global flood is not where all the water came from, or where it went, or whether Noah and his family could care for all of those animals. Although those are important questions, they are resolvable by appealing to miracles (i.e. God's superior technologies). The real issue is why geology, biogeography, and genetics do not give any support to such a flood.

Another example (if I recall correctly) is a certain book in which the author employed the argument from resurrection to support a literal interpretation of Joseph Smith's statement that

...the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile is to purge out the old blood and make him actually of the seed of Abraham.

If this is to be taken literally (and I don't think it need be), it is totally disconnected from modern biology. Again, the issue is not what God can do, but what we find if we look into the matter [2].

So when you see the argument from resurrection take a step back and determine what is at issue. Is it God's ability to do something, or is it the nature of the evidence? If it is the latter, then the argument from resurrection has probably been misapplied.


Notes:
1. The general exception to this is when someone makes a specific non-miraculous proposal. You can then follow-up on what the consequences of that proposal would be (i.e. what predictions it makes).

2. Remember that the mechanism of heredity was not known for another hundred years. The notion that blood was involved goes back to the ancient Greeks. Having said that, I doubt if a study has ever been done that compared the genetics of a Gentile pre- and post- reception of the Holy Ghost.

---