Is she really dead?Christian apologists like William Lane Craig and Lee Strobel like to use the following argument, "Why would the apostles die for a lie? The reason that they died for their beliefs is because Jesus rose from the dead! No one would die for a lie!" Lee Strobel fails hard in this video:
Besides the obvious objection of there being no good evidence to suggest that the apostles were actually martyred, here are some easy refutations.
This argument of "why would someone die for a belief...the belief must have been true because they died for it" seems appealing, but it easily fails when you start to think of examples and understand potential motivations...
- Members of a religious sect want their ministry and doctrine to continue, so they actually die (whether or not they actually believe) for their beliefs.
Imagine that a member of a fringe religious sect is captured by members of a majority religion. The fringe member is asked to recant his beliefs or be killed and decides not to recant. Because of this death, the person is thinking that the belief will be spread because someone was willing to die for it.
- A person dies for a lie in order to protect others.
Consider the following situation. A mother and her son are involved in gangs and drug dealing. They are often in trouble with many gangs and the law because they steal weapons and drugs from others. One day, while a mother and her son are home, a gang member breaks into the house, places both the son and mother at gunpoint, and says, "I want to know who stole my drugs. I'm going to kill whoever did it and then leave. If no one says anything, I'll shoot you both." Although the mother had nothing to do with the theft, she speaks up to protect her son and is then killed. The gang member walks away as promised.
- A person believes that martyrs will enter the afterlife.
The almost exclusively religious suicide bombing community believes that martyrdom is a good thing that will send one to a very pleasant paradise.
- People think that they will die for "reason x" and take their lives instead.
Consider a mafia member who is captured by vigilantes. If the mafia member rats out the mafia boss, he knows that he'll be killed by the mafia boss and the organization would crumble. Instead of being killed by the mafia boss and destroying the organization, the mafia member tells the vigilantes a lie in order to deflect attention away from the mafia boss's location. Unknown to the mafia member, the vigilantes know that this is a lie and kill the mafia member.
- Heaven's Gate Cult
Members of the Heaven's Gate cult who thought that a UFO from behind a comet would kill them decided to take their own lives before the comet passed them. They clearly died for a belief that wasn't true.
- People make up a story to add credibility to a claim
Perhaps the apostles were killed in a skirmish and people who wrote the stories later on decided to embellish and make up the story that the apostles died for a lie. There's a great deal of embellishment already in the Gospels, for example, that really hurts their credibility as historical sources free from myth and extreme bias. The Gospels were written so that people would believe them, not to objectively report happenings.
Regardless of all these objections, the argument of "People died for a belief, so the belief must be true" is a total non-sequitur. Dying for a belief does not suddenly make the belief true. All throughout history, people have been martyrs for ideas, religions, and other people...and we view these deaths as wasteful and silly. Think about Nazis, Aztecs, Egyptians, etc. If a solipsist were to be martyred for his belief, would solipsism suddenly be plausible?
I think the argument fails because it hinges on the bible as "proof" of something. How do we really know what happened 2000 years ago with any certainty?
ReplyDeleteThere is also the outside shot they actually believed the lie themselves, and thus, died for an errant cause... all the more tragic, if not ironic.
ReplyDeleteI believe your first possibility is a bit of a stretch as I would think that a charlatan is generally into his craft only for himself and not the greater good of ANY cause.
Keep up the good work. If the minority doesn't make noise, no one tends to seek out their position. In addition, I would like to see an educational blog from you. You have a lot of resources there at the college and I'd like to see you use them to make a case for some of the effects of religion, i.e., the modern dangers of faith in spite of fact or something along those lines. Anyway...
Speak Up, Fight Back!
I would like to respond to your objection. The objection in which you raised is not wholly successful; in part, it is a red herring. In principle, you have successfully refuted the generalization that for every individual they would not die for a lie or, generally, false belief. The counterexamples in which you provided demonstrate as much. What is more, you have successfully refuted the generalization as it is pertinent to the actual world. (I think so, at least.) That is, you produced an actual world counterexample to the generalization. Though I do believe that there are better, more so demonstrable counterexamples to be had, it verily suffices to show the generalization false. In sum, what you have shown is that the generalization is, in principle and actuality, false.
ReplyDeleteDoes this, however, suffice to show that the apostles died for a lie or false belief? No; it neither shows it of any other Christian who has similarly died for that matter. The fact of the matter is that the counterexamples are irrelevant to the aforementioned argument. Showing that the Heaven's Gate Cult died for a lie or false beliefs does not show that the apostles, or whoever, died for a lie or false beliefs. (Even in showing it possibly it will be of no matter unless that possibility is relevant to this world.) In sooth, it is a red herring. Of course, you may object that in so refuting the generalization you refute every nameable instance in principle and actuality. Such an objection is unfounded, for the counterexamples do not generate the antithetical generalization i.e. one in which would show that there is not some individual who would not die for a lie or false belief. There are some individuals who would not die for a lie or false belief; which is to say that there is at least one individual who would die only if their belief were not false or founded upon a lie. One could just as well devise counterexamples like you have to show that there are some individuals who would die. But this would only show that the particular generalization is true; not that the apostles did not die for a lie or false belief.
You may further object that insofar as the argument is based upon the generalization you refuted the argument will fail. This is merely conditionally so. So as long as the argument is predicated upon the refuted generalization it will fail. Consider the argument:
(1) No individuals would die for a lie or false belief.
(2) If the apostles died for their beliefs then it is not the case that they died for a lie or false beliefs.
(3) The apostles died for their beliefs
-----
(4) It is not the case the apostles died for a lie or false beliefs
(5) If their beliefs were false then they would not have died for their beliefs.
(6) The apostles died for their beliefs.
-----
(7) Their beliefs were not false.*
The argument is obviously founded on the generalization; and so by refuting it you thereby remove the force of the argument. But any such argument need not include the generalization to be sound. It need only be the case that there are some individuals who would not die for a lie for false. To show the argument false you could show that the particular generalization is false. It is doubtless the case that you would succeed in so doing.
So, how would you go about in properly responding? By dealing with the argument particularly. The most successful way would be to show that their beliefs were after all false or founded upon a lie. Accordingly, it would show the counterfactual to be false.
...
☞ Dying for a belief does not suddenly make the belief true. ☜
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion is correct - albeit not for an unmissable reason, perhaps. For, the event in which one dies for their belief is not itself the truthmaker for that which they believe. If such were the case then its truth would be contingent upon the occurrence of the event viz. expressed negatively, if no event were to occur such that one died for their belief then their belief would not be true. This is anomalous; pestilential even.
Whilst there are individuals who (foolishly) aver as much, the characterization you put forth is not properly representative of the argument you initially essay to object to; not even in sum. The argument is, for instance, representable as such:
(1) If the apostles died for their beliefs then it is not the case that their beliefs were false.
(2) If their beliefs were false then they would not have died for their beliefs.
(3) The apostles died for their beliefs.
-----
(4) Their beliefs were not false.*
* To arrive at the further conclusion that their beliefs were true bivalence must be presupposed. Otherwise, arriving at the further conclusion would require additional premises to show that the negation of falsity, in this argument, is truth.
Their beliefs were not made true upon their demise but rather their demise was a consequence of their beliefs not being false. This argument simply would not work if the event in which they died was the truthmaker for their beliefs, as their beliefs would not be true prior to the event. For, if a truth value assignment were to be had prior to the event, as it is a truthmaker so thought, then what value would their beliefs be given? Certainly not that of true. If not that, though, then what? More importantly, would they have even died for their belief upon this condition?
- Andrew
Andrew-- What?
ReplyDeleteJustin-- what's with the chick?
Oh, hi Christian, you haven't commented in a while...nice to see you back!
ReplyDeleteThe pic above is the internet meme "Perfection Girl." It's quite relevant to the discussion and a humorous tie in.
I would object to the use of the Heaven's Gate Cult as showing that someone would knowingly die for a lie. As far as I know they died fully believing that they had the truth. OTOH, I think it's a good counter-point to the claim that the apostles must have been right, since it clearly shows that people can and do die for false beliefs that they think are true. The example I usually use is suicide bombers.
ReplyDeleteI've re-clarified the focus of this short post. I should not have used the title "On Dying For a Lie."
ReplyDeleteThanks for the criticisms.
Why the picture of the woman in her underwear?
ReplyDeleteThe pic above is the internet meme "Perfection Girl." It's quite relevant to the discussion and a humorous tie in.
ReplyDeleteYou miss an important part of WLC's usage - the disciples died not for a belief they hoped was true - but for a claim that they had experienced something. It is very much more plausible that something happened which convinced them of their claimed experience than that they invented it and then died for that claim.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, it's not the necessarily the case that they 'made it up' or were intentionally lying, but rather that they thought that what they believed was true. Conviction, by no means, guarantees truth value. For example, many Scientologists are quite filled with zeal and are very dedicated to donate tremendous amounts of money to their church, but this doesn't mean their beliefs are true.
ReplyDeleteYou miss an important part of WLC's usage - the disciples died not for a belief they hoped was true - but for a claim that they had experienced something. It is very much more plausible that something happened which convinced them of their claimed experience than that they invented it and then died for that claim.
ReplyDeleteI think the argument fails because it hinges on the bible as "proof" of something. How do we really know what happened 2000 years ago with any certainty?
ReplyDelete