Skeptic » eSkeptic » February 1, 2012

The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine

Alfred Russel Wallace was a Hyper-Evolutionist,
not an Intelligent Design Creationist

In this week’s Skepticblog, Michael Shermer endeavors to enlighten modern thinkers on the perils of misjudging Alfred Russel Wallace as an Intelligent Design creationist, and at the same time reveal the fundamental flaw in both his evolutionary theory and that of this latest incarnation of creationism.



Daniele Bolelli

Daniele Bolelli

Interview with Daniele Bolelli

This week on Skepticality, Derek chats with Daniele Bolelli, the author of 50 Things You’re Not Supposed To Know: Religion. Daniele is an Italian skeptic and writer, a mixed martial arts (MMA) competitor, and a university professor. His book is part a series being produced by the people behind (a website, blog, and podcast). Bolelli currently lives in the United States.



Get the Skepticality App and enjoy your science fix and engaging interviews on the go! Available for Android, iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch iOS 3.0 or later.

Season 5: Mr. Deity and the Quitter, Part Deux


Can Hallucination Account for the
Post-Crucifixion Appearances of Jesus?

In this week’s eSkeptic, Gary J. Whittenberger applies the hallucination hypothesis to the alleged post-crucifixion appearance of Jesus summarized in three Gospel stories. Based on careful examination of the Gospels and our current knowledge of the human mind, is the hallucination hypothesis far superior to a resurrection hypothesis in accounting for the “facts” of the post-crucifixion story?

Share this eSkeptic with friends online. Click the + for more options.
Subscribe to Skeptic magazine for more great articles like this one.

On Visions and Resurrections

by Gary J. Whittenberger

In response to advances in higher biblical criticism, science, philosophy, and skepticism, over the past half century many Christian thinkers have retreated from biblical literalism, arguments from authority, and blind faith in scripture. Instead they have begun to rely more on arguments such as “inference to the best explanation” to defend some of their basic beliefs, including and especially the central dogma that Jesus rose from the dead. According to many modern Christian apologists, there are five “facts” surrounding the death of Jesus which must be explained:

  1. Jesus was crucified by the Romans in Jerusalem in 30–33 CE.
  2. It was believed at the time that Jesus had died on the cross.
  3. Jesus was placed in a tomb on a Friday afternoon.
  4. The tomb was found to be empty by one or more women on the following Sunday morning.
  5. It was believed that Jesus met with his followers on several occasions after the tomb was found to be empty.

Most modern Christian apologists not only think that the resurrection hypothesis explains these five “facts” better than any other hypothesis, but they believe it is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

The resurrection story became the cornerstone of the Christian faith early when Paul said “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (I Corinthians 15:14). By contrast, secularists think that other hypotheses explain the “facts” much better, that the resurrection hypothesis is extremely improbable, and that, at this stage in our knowledge, no rational person should believe it.

There are many explantations for the origin of the idea of the Christian resurrection, most notably the idea that it developed from the many earlier pagan traditions of dying and rising gods. But I will focus here on a hypothesis that has recently been the target of renewed Christian attack that can account for the “facts” mentioned at the outset. This hypothesis may be simply stated: After Jesus died from crucifixion and was placed in the tomb, his corpse was removed from the tomb by unknown persons who placed it in an unknown location. Furthermore, after the women discovered the tomb to be empty, one or more of the intimate disciples of Jesus had an auditory-visual vision or hallucination of Jesus, which he or they interpreted as the “risen Jesus,” which became the basis of the Gospel stories and the spreading resurrection belief.


Resurrection in the Bible: (from top left to right) The daughter of Jairus raised by Jesus (Mark 5:39–40); Lazarus, dead for four days raised by Jesus (John 11:1–45); The Widow’s son raised by Jesus (Luke 7:12–17); The son of the Widow of Zarephath raised by Elijah (1 Kings 17:21–24); Dorcus, or Tabitha raised by Peter (Acts 9:36–43); Eutychus, raised by Paul (Acts 20:9–12); A number of people raised around the time of the death and resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 27:51–53); A man whose body touches Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:20–21); The Shunammite’s son raised by Elisha (2 Kings 4:32–35); The resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28:5–7) (Luke 24:1–8) (John 20:1–9).

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that the hallucination hypothesis is a plausible explanation of the post-crucifixion “appearances” of Jesus, and to defend it against some of the current criticisms of Christian apologists.

In the Gospels there are eight stories about appearances of Jesus to his followers after his crucifixion. These appear near the ends of three of the Gospels—Matthew, Luke, and John. It is now acknowledged by most New Testament scholars that in the original Gospel of Mark there were no stories of Jesus’ post-crucifixion appearances. In this essay, for the sake of simplicity, I will address only three of the eight appearance stories —the ones in which Jesus appears to a group of most of the disciples, either 10 or 11 of them. These three stories in three different Gospels appear to refer to the same event. The other five stories are not replicated across all three Gospels.

In Matthew 28:16–20, it is said that Jesus met with 11 of his disciples (apparently excluding Judas) on a mountain in Galilee to which he had directed them. Even though some of the disciples had doubts about what was happening (unspecified in the text), Jesus supposedly instructed the disciples to go out into the world to preach and baptize. It is significant that in this account Jesus mentions the three persons who later came to be called the “Trinity.”

According to the second story (much more complex than the first), taken from Luke 24:36–53, Jesus met with an unspecified number of disciples in Jerusalem and nearby Bethany. He supposedly opened by saying “Peace be unto you.” Then, apparently to confirm his identity, Jesus drew attention to his hands and feet and urged the disciples to touch him. The story does not say whether they took him up on the offer. Then, apparently to confirm his corporeality, Jesus asked for food, received it, and ate it. Jesus told them that what had happened to him was a fulfillment of scripture that a special one should suffer, die, and be raised from the dead on the third day. Finally, he urged them to carry his message to the world, starting in Jerusalem, and then he ascended into the sky.

In the third story found in John 20:19–23, Jesus met with 10 of the disciples (apparently excluding Judas and Thomas) in a closed room somewhere near Jerusalem supposedly on the same day that the women had found the empty tomb. In this account Jesus also started by saying “Peace be unto you,” and he said this a second time during the meeting. He drew attention to his hands and side (not his feet). He urged the disciples to go into the world and preach, he assigned them the authority to remit sins, and he breathed on them the “Holy Ghost.” I am assuming that all three of these stories are referring to the same event, whether that event was an actual meeting of the risen Jesus with the disciples, the core of a vision, or the product of fabrication. This assumption is justified because all three of the stories share three elements:

  1. Jesus meets with a large group of disciples (10 or 11); they see and hear him.
  2. Jesus instructs the group to go out into the world and preach.
  3. The meeting occurs post-crucifixion.

Only one such meeting is mentioned in Matthew and Luke, but two similar meetings are mentioned in John, only the first of which is considered here. Any reasonable hallucination hypothesis must provide an adequate account of this basic narrative in which Jesus meets with the large group of disciples. A careful analysis shows that there are only two other elements that are common to two of the three stories (Luke and John)—Jesus says “Peace be unto you,” and he draws attention to his hands. All other elements are unique to the three individual stories.

Given that Jesus’ disciples lived with him for two or three years, loved him deeply, and were greatly bereaved upon learning of his crucifixion, it is highly likely that one or more of them had something like a “grief hallucination” shortly after his assumed death. Christian apologist Michael Licona, who dismisses any hallucination hypothesis, nevertheless provides some current data that supports this idea. He writes: “About 15 percent of the population experience one or more hallucinations during their lifetime” and “senior adults who are in the midst of bereaving the loss of a loved one belong to a group that experiences one of the highest percentages of hallucinations: a whopping 50 percent!”1 In a study from 1971, William Rees tallied different types of hallucinations within a bereaved sample, finding that 39% of his sample “felt the presence” of the deceased, 14% saw him/her, 13% heard him/her, and even 2% felt the touch of the dead loved one.2 In a more recent study from 1993, A. Grimby found that 50% of her grieving sample “felt the presence” of the deceased, 26% saw him/her, and 30% heard him/her.3 Given the conditions in which the disciples found themselves, it would be surprising if one or two of the 10 or 11 (9–20%) did not experience a hallucination of Jesus. This one hallucination (or two) probably formed the basis of the single appearance story discussed earlier.

Perhaps the most common objection to the hallucination hypothesis is that it is impossible or improbable that 10 or 11 disciples would have had the same hallucination of Jesus at the same time. For example, Licona says “Moreover, it must likewise be proposed that when these hallucinations occurred, they just happened to do so simultaneously.”4 Elsewhere he and Gary Habermas note “we know that hallucinations are private occurrences, which occur in the mind of an individual. They are not collective experiences. In a group, all of the people may be in the frame of mind to hallucinate, but each experiences hallucinations on an individual basis. Nor will they experience the same hallucination.”5 To support his position, Licona cites psychologist Gary A. Sibcy, who writes: “I…have yet to find a single documented case of a group hallucination, that is, an event for which more than one person purportedly shared in a visual or other sensory perception where there was clearly no external referent.”6

Apparently, Sibcy did not find the documented cases discovered by investigative journalist and paranormal researcher Joe Nickell: Eugene Barbadette, his brother Joseph, and others saw the Virgin Mary at Pontmain, France, on January 17, 1971.7 Lucia de Jesus dos Santos and her two cousins saw the Blessed Mary several times, including the sighting on July 13, 1817, in Fatima, Portugal.8 More recently, Maria Cruz Gonzalez and her three companions also saw the mother of Jesus in the little village of San Sebastian de Garabandal, Spain, on July 2, 1961.9 The reports of these three cases resemble our target story about Jesus’ meeting with the disciples in the sense that more than one person “saw and heard” another person, a religious figure, assumed to have been dead. In the three cases cited by Nickel, it can be assumed that there was “no external referent” since there were other persons present at the time who neither saw nor heard the Blessed Mary. Although a “conspiracy of deception” hypothesis might be a plausible alternative to the “shared hallucination” hypothesis for these cases, this is also true for the Jesus story. Suffice it to say, it is possible for more than one person in a group to have a hallucination with similar content.

Let us suppose for a moment that only one disciple had a grief hallucination of Jesus. Could this account for our target story? Yes, it could. Here’s how: While by himself, one disciple might have had an auditory/visual hallucination not only of Jesus but of his fellow disciples within the same perceptual frame. A report of this experience could be easily transformed into the story “The disciples met with the risen Jesus.” Another plausible alternative is that while in the presence of the other disciples, one disciple might have had the hallucination of Jesus only, but this was combined in the same perceptual frame with a sensing of the other disciples actually present. And still, the rumor which was passed around could have been “The disciples met with the risen Jesus.”

Now let’s deal with the possibility that two disciples in a group had the same hallucination of Jesus at the same time. Could this happen? Even Habermas and Licona admit, “In a group, all of the people may be in the frame of mind to hallucinate.”10 Different people in a group can hallucinate at the same time! This is more likely if the people share a common psychological context than if they do not. Surely, if the disciples were meeting together and grieving the death of their beloved Jesus, they would be sharing a common psychological context, and it would not be particularly surprising if more than one of them hallucinated Jesus within the same short period of time. But would their hallucinations be identical? Of course not! But might they be similar? Yes, they might. Two disciples might have had simultaneous hallucinations of Jesus which, if the reports of these experiences had been carefully compared in some kind of debriefing, they would likely show variation in details such as what Jesus was wearing, how injured he looked, what gestures he used, and what he said and did. The two disciples might have simply agreed afterwards that they saw/heard Jesus, but never compared their individual experiences in any detail. Any rumor that subsequently led to our targeted Gospel story might have been based on only a single report from one of the two simultaneously hallucinating disciples or on a melding of two reports.

Particularly striking is the alleged statement of Jesus “Peace be unto you” which appears once in the Luke version and twice in the John version of the post-crucifixion story. Because it is short and pithy and it is the type of thing that Jesus might have said to his disciples over and over again when he was alive—as a greeting or as a good-bye—it is a good candidate for inclusion in a grief hallucination. My hypothesis is that during the week after the crucifixion of Jesus one influential disciple (perhaps two) had an auditory-visual grief hallucination of Jesus who said “Peace be unto you.” This hallucination either included the other disciples in the perceptual frame or was experienced in their presence. I suspect that a report of this hallucination formed the core of our target story and that the other details of the three Gospel versions of the story are embellishments, primarily designed for theological, pedagogical, or apologetic purposes. My hypothesis accounts for the “facts” of our case and is far more likely to be true than the hypothesis that Jesus died, came back to life, met with his disciples, and ascended into the sky.

In their critique of the hallucination hypotheses, Habermas and Licona contend “hallucinations do not account for the empty tomb.”11 Well, of course they don’t! They aren’t supposed to. The empty tomb is explained by a different hypothesis— unknown persons removed the corpse from the tomb and placed it in an unknown location. Habermas and Licona fail to connect the right hypothesis to the right “fact” to be explained. On the other hand, there are good reasons to believe that grief hallucinations about Jesus would be more likely to occur if the tomb were found to be empty than if it were found to still contain the body of Jesus. The knowledge of the empty tomb would set the stage for one part of the mind of a bereaved disciple to subconsciously create a hallucination of Jesus and interpret it as support for the “risen Jesus” idea.

On this matter, the prominent Christian apologist William Lane Craig has commented: “The disciples were not psychologically disposed to produce hallucinations. Visions require either a special state of mind or artificial stimulus through medicines in order to occur. But the disciples after Jesus’ crucifixion were utterly crushed and in no frame of mind to hallucinate.”12 In point of fact, in the grief hallucination hypothesis, it is because the disciples were “utterly crushed” they were in a “special state of mind” which made them highly “disposed to produce hallucinations.” Setting aside cases of extreme mental illness and substance intoxication, profound grief may be the special state of mind most often associated with the experience of hallucinations.

Craig has asserted that a hallucination hypothesis cannot account for several facts, but he appears to be mistaken in all respects. He writes, for example, “it cannot explain how in so short a time hallucinatory experiences could be completely transformed into the gospel appearance stories.”13 First, the experiences would not have been completely transformed into the gospel narratives, but would have formed the core of the narratives and been embellished. Second, the actual time gap between hallucination and gospel narrative would not have been “so short a time,” but would have been 40–70 years! As well, Craig asserts that the hallucination hypothesis cannot explain “why the eyewitnesses to those experiences should have had absolutely no control on the development of the accounts of what had really happened.”13 In this case we must assume that the “eyewitnesses to those experiences” are identical to the hallucinating persons. However, Craig presents no evidence to support his assumption that they “had absolutely no control on the development.” They probably had some control, especially if they repeated the report of their hallucinatory experience. Further, there would be a very good reason why they might have lost control over their initial reports— they were probably dead by the time the Gospel narratives were written! A disciple only 20 years old in 30 CE—roughly when Jesus was crucified—would have to have been between 60 and 90 years old when the three Gospels were written. According to a life expectancy table presented by historian Richard Carrier, the probability that a person would have been this old in the first century would have been less than .02.14 But even if they were alive, the disciples were probably too far removed in terms of geographical distance and competence in the Greek language from the actual Gospel writers to have significant influence after rumors had spread. Finally, Craig proclaims, “The theory cannot account for the early believers’ distinguishing precisely between a mere vision and an actual appearance of Jesus.”15 Surely some who experience grief hallucinations conclude afterwards that they were hallucinating, but some do not—they sincerely believe that their loved one was present. There probably was a mixture of opinion about the appearance of Jesus among the disciples, and this conclusion is supported by the words in Matthew “but some doubted,” which will be discussed in greater detail below.

Craig, the most prolific of the hallucination critics, has noted, “Hallucinations would never have led to the conclusion that Jesus had been raised from the dead…in a hallucination, a person experiences nothing new. That is because the hallucination cannot exceed the content of the person’s mind. But as we shall see, the resurrection of Jesus involved ideas utterly foreign to the disciples’ minds.”16 In a hallucination, as well as in a dream, a person can experience something new in the sense that he/she may creatively combine snippets of past perceptions into a unique combination. In this process the hallucination does not “exceed the content of the person’s mind.” However, given the content of a hallucination in which Jesus is seen and heard to say to his assembled disciples “Peace be unto you,” there is nothing new or “utterly foreign” here to the disciples’ minds. Craig seems to be confusing the raw hallucination experience “That is my Lord standing there!” with the conclusion “Jesus must have come back to life.” The two are not the same, even though they are related. If a disciple believed that Jesus had died during the crucifixion, knew that the tomb was empty, and then “saw and heard” Jesus in a grief hallucination which he thought was “real,” then it would be easy or natural for him to conclude that Jesus had come back to life.

Craig thinks that because the disciples were Jews they would never have come to this conclusion because their religion required them to believe that no resurrections would occur before all persons were raised from the dead at the end of times.17 However, on close examination, this makes little sense. The disciples already believed in the possibility—or even the reality—of individual resurrections. Didn’t they know that some Jews thought that Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead (Mark 6:14)? Didn’t they have the example of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1–46)? Didn’t they hear the stories of individual resurrections described in their scriptures? Didn’t Jesus repeatedly tell them that he would come back to life in roughly three days (Mark 8:31, 10:34; Matthew 12:40, 16:21, 17:23, 20:19; Luke 9:22, 18:33; John 2:19)? Another possibility is that the disciples might have believed that Jesus was the first to be resurrected at the end of times about to commence. Adding these familiar ideas of individual and final-days’ resurrections to their knowledge of the crucifixion and the empty tomb, and to an intense grief hallucination taken as “real,” it is probable that at least one or two of the disciples would have concluded that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Had these disciples been leaders, such as Peter or John, most of the others would have gone along with them. Heightened emotion, pressures to conform, group loyalty, and wishful thinking would have facilitated the adoption of the resurrection belief by most of the group.

If a risen Jesus actually met with his disciples, it is not likely that we would see the differences in major details that we actually see in the three versions of the story from the different Gospels. In Matthew, Jesus allegedly meets with the disciples in Galilee, but in Luke and John, he supposedly meets with them in or near Jerusalem. In Matthew, Jesus specifically mentions the three components of the Trinity, but not in Luke and John. In Luke, Jesus draws attention to his hands and feet, in John he focuses on his hands and side, but in Matthew he mentions none of these. Jesus ate food in Luke’s account, but not in Matthew’s and John’s. Jesus discusses the fulfillment of scripture in Luke, but not in the other two versions. In John, Jesus gives his disciples the authority to forgive sins and breathes the Holy Spirit onto them, but this does not happen in the other two versions. These differences are not about piddling details; they are about major points! If a risen Jesus had actually met with his disciples, we would expect that the Gospel writers would have done careful research and gotten the major details correct, yielding a more consistent story from Gospel to Gospel. The different details point to competing theologies, attempts to fill in gaps, and/or to efforts to answer or silence critics.

Unfortunately, the Gospel stories about the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus constitute poor evidence for approaching a confirmation or a disconfirmation of either the hallucination hypothesis or the resurrection hypothesis. Why? These stories were written 40–70 years after the crucifixion. The authors clearly identify neither themselves nor any sources they might have used. The stories are written in the third-person rather than in the first-person, which would have been the likely reporting mode of an actual eyewitness or hallucinating subject. The specification of places, dates, and times is unreliable. There are no good reasons to conclude that these stories were written by any of the disciples or actual contemporaries of Jesus. If all 10 or 11 disciples had written (or even dictated) clear and comprehensive independent first-hand reports about their experience of, or connection to, the alleged appearance of Jesus, then we’d have some good evidence to work with. If we had this kind of evidence, then we’d be able to compare the reports and come much closer to the truth. What we can firmly conclude with the evidence we have is that the hallucination hypothesis cannot be ruled out, and it certainly has a much greater a priori probability than does the resurrection hypothesis.

A detail cited earlier tips the balance of evidence in favor of the hallucination hypothesis and against the resurrection hypothesis. Referring to our same target story, Matthew 28:17 states “And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.” This means that at the same time in which the disciples saw and worshiped Jesus, some in the group doubted! But how many doubted and who were they? What did they doubt? Did they doubt that Jesus was actually present? Did they not have a hallucination that others had? Did they have a hallucination that others had but concluded that it did not represent the real presence of Jesus? Did they think that a man in front of them was not actually Jesus but somebody else? We can’t answer these questions. However, if the resurrection hypothesis were true and Jesus was really standing among his disciples, it is very unlikely that some would doubt. On the other hand, if one or two disciples experienced a hallucination of Jesus and the others did not, then it is very likely that some would doubt.

Christian apologists often say that most of the disciples were eventually killed because they refused to recant their belief in the resurrection of Jesus and that this would not have occurred if they knew their belief had come from their own or someone else’s fabrication.18 It is not clear from the record that all those disciples who were executed were killed specifically because of their belief in the resurrection, but let’s suppose that some of them were. Although it does seem unlikely that they would die for a lie, it seems plausible or even likely that they would die because of a hallucination which they were unable to distinguish from reality. It is not uncommon for people to be willing to become martyrs on account of their sincerely held religious beliefs. The 9-11 terrorist attacks are ample evidence of this.

The hallucination hypothesis was applied here to only one alleged post-crucifixion appearance of Jesus summarized in three Gospel stories. It may or may not apply to the other five appearance stories. Secular or naturalistic hypotheses must be, or have already been, developed to account for them. For the most part, attacks on hallucination hypotheses by Christian apologists have been ill conceived and uninformed by modern psychology. Based on careful examination of the Gospels and our current knowledge of the human mind, it appears that a hallucination hypothesis is far superior to a resurrection hypothesis in accounting for the “facts” of the post-crucifixion story. Secular or naturalistic hypotheses easily account for the data we have, the resurrection hypothesis is “superimprobable,”19 and thus at this state of our knowledge we should be skeptical of it. END

  1. Licona, Michael R. 2010. “Were the Resurrection Appearances of Jesus Hallucinations?” Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science. William Dembski and Michael R. Licona (Eds.). Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 177.
  2. Rees, W. D. 1971. “The Hallucinations of Widowhood.” British Medical Journal 4.37: 37–41.
  3. Grimby, A.1993. “Bereavement Among Elderly People: Grief Reactions, Post-bereavement Hallucinations and Quality of Life.” Acta Psychiatrica Scandanavica 87.1: 72–80. Cited in Archer, John. 1999, The Nature of Grief: The Evolution and Psychology of Reactions to Loss. New York: Brunner-Routledge, 79.
  4. Licona. 177.
  5. Habermas, Gary R., and Michael R. Licona. 2004. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 106.
  6. Licona. 178.
  7. Nickell, Joe. 1998. Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures. Amherst, New York: Prometheus, 174.
  8. Nickell. 176–177.
  9. Nickell. 181–182.
  10. Habermas and Licona. 106.
  11. Habermas and Licona. 107.
  12. Craig, William Lane. 2000. The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 120.
  13. Craig. 119.
  14. Carrier, Richard C. 2004. “Reply to McFall on Jesus as a Philosopher.” Accessed September 7, 2011.
  15. Craig. 120.
  16. Craig. 121.
  17. Craig. 129.
  18. Habermas and Licona. 59.
  19. Whittenberger, Gary J. 2010. God Wants You to be an Atheist: The Startling Conclusion from a Rational Analysis. Denver: Outskirts Press, 98.
Skeptical perspectives on Jesus and the Bible…
cover Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind
Who Changed the Bible and Why

by Bart D. Ehrman

An excellent introduction to modern bible scholarship by one of the world’s leading experts. Dr. Bart Ehrman explains how the New Testament texts have changed over the centuries and describes the methods scholars use to determine what has changed. Changes have occurred both through scribal errors and through deliberate alterations made for cultural and political purposes. While some of these changes are inconsequential, others have profoundly affected religious doctrine… GET THE BOOK.

cover Secret Origins Of the Bible
by Tim Callahan

Many intelligent and otherwise well informed readers will find much of the material in this book new and quite startling, although Bible scholars, and anyone with a background in comparative mythology will be familiar with it. Callahan gathers material together from many sources — literary analysis, archeology, and history — and uses comparative mythology to demonstrate how Bible stories that do not make much sense when taken literally can be understood when their mythic content is revealed…

Upcoming Lecture at Caltech:
Dr. Andy Thomson

Dr. Andy Thomson (photo by Mike Cornwell)
Why We Believe in God(s):
A Concise Guide to
the Science of Faith

with Dr. Andy Thomson
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 2 pm

IN THIS LECTURE BASED ON HIS NEW BOOK, psychiatrist Andy Thomson examines the evolution, history, anthropology, sociology, and psychology of religious beliefs and provides a brief and accessible guide to the exciting new discoveries that allow us to finally understand why and how the human mind generates, accepts, and spreads religious faith and god beliefs. Dr. Thomson is a staff psychiatrist at the University of Virginia’s Student Health Center and the Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, and maintains a private practice of adult and forensic psychiatry in Charlottesville, Virginia. He serves as a trustee of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

Tickets are first come, first served at the door. Seating is limited. $8 for Skeptics Society members and the JPL/Caltech community, $10 for nonmembers. Your admission fee is a donation that pays for our lecture expenses.



Sam Harris to Speak about
Free Will for Skeptics at Caltech

Beckman Auditorium, Caltech
Download Map

Don’t miss Sam Harris’ lecture on the topic of Free Will, based on his new book. Harris presents at 3:45 pm, right after the debate scheduled at 2:00 pm. The price of admission covers both events: $10 Skeptics Society members/ Caltech/JPL community; and $15 for everyone else.

This lecture is

Please call between 12:00 and 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. The Caltech ticket office asks that you do not leave a message.


Help Send Skepticism 101 into the World!
  1. Click here to read our new plan to take Skepticism to the next level!
  2. Click here to make a donation now via our online store.

Monthly Recurring Donation Options Now Available

We encourage you to choose the monthly recurring donation option. Simply tell us how long you want your donation to recur (using the drop-down menu on the donation page) and we’ll set up automatic withdrawal for the amount you select.

Just for considering a donation, check out our free PDF download
created by Junior Skeptic Editor Daniel Loxton.



  1. Gary says:

    Confabulation would explain how some hallucinations which were shared grew over time into similar stories. That, plus the later imperfect memory and later editing, would provide more cohesive narratives for the resurrection story.

  2. Dr. Sidethink Hp.D says:

    Gary J. Whittenberger is a professional psychologist and amateur skeptic.
    His article is a boring rave on a non-issue.

    Shermer has examined the issue of faith vs. hallucination .

    I gather that he thinks that when asked to believe that the stuff in a a hallucination did not happen, most folks will abandon reason to faith.

    I suppose it is politically incorrect to examine the possibility of Cannabis- inspired semi-historical events?

    Ceci n’est pas un BUD?

    Pope Bobby II
    69th Clench of the Stark Fst of Removal
    Refomed Church of The Subgenius

    • gary sibcy says:

      When I stated that “no documented case,” I should qualify that to mean no scientifically documented cases, where we can verify that what the person claims to have seen was in fact a hallucination. We would also need to distinguish between those who have hallucination with and without insight. the former is very common. Without insight suggest a more serious mental illness.

      • Gary Whittenberger says:

        In the cases cited by Joe Nickell, there were hundreds of people who did not “see” what 2-4 people “saw” at the same location and time. What more evidence would you require to document that those 2-4 people were hallucinating? What are your standards for verifying a hallucination?

    • Gary Whittenberger says:

      Approximately two billion Christians do not think the alleged resurrection of Jesus is a boring nonissue. They seem to take it very seriously.

      How much does one have to get paid to become a professional rather than an amateur skeptic?

  3. Chuck Glenn says:

    Why would I care about what makes the best explanation (hallucinations versus resurrection) within a fictional work?

    • Dr. Sidethink Hp.D says:

      You wouldn’t be reading/commenting if you were completely
      uninterested in the subject.
      I think that it is more appropriate to ask if the article has suffficient depth or interest value for this particular forum.

      “fiction” doesn’t seem to be the right word for the Bible.
      The word is loaded to imply the work of one author admittedly fabricating in part.

      Bob Pease

    • Gary Whittenberger says:

      You are begging the question — assuming from the outset that you know that the Gospel stories are works of fiction. That is simply one hypothesis which must compete with other hypotheses, including the hallucination hypothesis which I presented and defended.

  4. Bob St. John says:

    I wn’t able to finish thus article, but since the gospels were all written by people who were not there they aren’t exactly eye-witness accounts. So one person had a hallucination and tradition and embellishment added more details.

    But, then again, who cares

    • Gary Whittenberger says:

      Who cares? About two billion Christian persons and many million other persons who think they are mistaken.

  5. John Vezina says:

    My personal opinion is that although I do not believe in the resurrection (I am an atheist), the suggestion that hallucination is the better explanation is just an iota better than the resurrection claim. I absolutely do not accept the hallucination claim. The hallucination claim is a cop-out lazy explanation. Assuming that any of the characters and events in this part of the Bible are true, a much better claim is that, having enjoyed a sense of importance and a sense of their place in a hierarchy, they just made shit up to continue that.

    Look at modern people. They make shit up all the time based on mythologies of the past. They feed on each other’s bullshit all the time. Look at the “modern” phenomena of crystal children, reincarnation, channelers, and people who claim special mental and spiritual powers. Follow the money.

    And for those who claim that the apostle Paul and others did not take any money from donations, or enjoy special privileges, well maybe they were just like modern humble and poor Evangelists today who live on a shoe-string. Yeah, right!

    • Gary Whittenberger says:

      If you examine my article more closely, you will see that in regard to the post-crucifixion appearance stories, my hypothesis combines the idea of hallucination and fabrication. So, I agree with you half-way. Grief hallucinations are very common, so I think you underestimate the importance of this phenomenon in the resurrection stories.

  6. Doug says:

    Here’s my theory:

    [1] The tomb was not empty. In Matthew, when the women arrive at the tomb, it is still sealed. Then the women watch as an angel rolls the stone away, revealing the empty tomb. In this version, Jesus escaped from the tomb while it was still empty. In the other gospels, the entrance is already open when the women arrive. This is not a minor point! Either the women saw an angel rolling the stone away, or they did not. The fact that the Gospels differ on such a major point leads me to believe that this story was a later invention.

    [2] If the tomb was not empty, why did the apostles believe that Christ had risen? 1 Peter 3:10 says ”. . .He being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive again in the spirit.” Although this is a minority view, some Christians believe that it was Jesus’s SPIRIT that rose from the dead, not his body, and the early followers may have believed the same thing. There would be no need for the tomb to actually be empty. Stories of the risen Jesus eating and showing his wounds, etc. could be later embellishments.

    [3] According to John 20:15, the first person to see the resurrected Jesus was Mary Magdalene. Contrary to popular belief, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest that she was a prostitute, nor the “woman caught in adultery” whom Jesus saved from stoning. The Bible says that she became a follower of Jesus after he exorcised 7 demons from her. As Isaac Asimov points out in ”Asimov’s Guide to the Bible,” this could mean that she had a history of mental illness. It is interesting that when she first sees the risen Christ, she thinks that he is the gardener. Is it possible that it WAS the gardener, and that she only later convinced herself later that it was Jesus? A similar story appears in Luke 24:13-35, in which some of Apostles see a man whom they do not recognize, and later ”realize” that he is Jesus. Perhaps Jesus’s followers saw various people and, due to wishful thinking, later decided that they were Christ. Again, the stories of Jesus showing his wounds, etc., could be later embellishments; notice that they vary from author to author.

    I realize that there is no proof of any of this, but it seems as likely as any other explanation.

    • Doug says:

      Correction: I meant to write “Jesus escaped from the tomb while it was still sealed.” I always catch these flubs AFTER I hit “submit.”

    • Gary Whittenberger says:

      1) Three of four of the Gospel stories say that the tomb was already open when the women arrived and it was empty. The Matthew variation is almost certainly a fabrication. An empty tomb is more probably true than the appearance of an angel.

      2) An empty tomb would make it easier to infer a physical resurrection, especially after having a grief hallucination, as I mentioned in the article. Everything fits together better if there was an empty tomb than if there was not.

      3) As I mentioned in the article, different stories of Jesus’ post-crucifixion appearances require different explanations. Hallucination is not the best for all of them. The stories about the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene and to the men on the road to Emmaus are best explained by mistaken identity plus wishful thinking.

  7. E Soderberg says:

    Never heard of this “hallucination” theory before, although it is a quite throughout one.
    As mentioned by Chuck G Above, “resurrection vs hallucination” seems rather pointless in both ends, but at least they´ve now been explored and somewhat “debunked”.
    Would like to add some other ideas, first one is based on Johns comment;
    – What if someone else pretended to be Jesus for his own profit, appeared 3 days later, and then the pretender was killed by romans, or someone else?
    (I do not have proof, its just a thougt…)

    About the Bible being fiction;
    Very much of the bible is (probably) quite altered and made up to fit the religious context, but those “rumors/citations/actions/happenings/etc…” has probably some amount of truth/historical correctness, why else would people accept it in the first place?
    Sure, they didnt have internet or books to actually confirm it, but i find it hard to believe that non-skeptics would accept something without ever requiring proof of any kind.

    Does age matter in this topic?
    I hope this wont be referred as minor to something, since im yet only 16…

    • Gary Whittenberger says:

      Your hoax hypothesis is legitimate, but I think it is much less likely than a hallucination hypothesis (with a little fabrication thrown in for good measure).

  8. Dathan says:

    Why affirm the testimonies then suppose they’re hallucinating? Why not accuse them of lying? Joseph Smith probably lied, why couldn’t a group of radicals? This is fruitless hogwash. Either you take the testimony or you don’t, you can’t second guess the state mind of the testifier. You have bigger issues, like is there a God that COULD do this Jesus ordeal to clue us into the divine but not take control of our lives? God wants you to have faith that makes sense in your world view and theory of how everything works, not to have facts, probably because that kills essential reasons for there to be an existence. 

    • Gary Whittenberger says:

      As I said in the article and in another comment, my hypothesis combines hallucination and fabrication. Yes, we can “second guess” the mental state of the persons described in the stories. Because grief hallucinations are so common after the death of a loved one, one or more of the disciples probably experienced them, and this would account partly for the Gospel stories we have.

  9. Dr. Strangelove says:

    Mr. Whittenberger,

    You don’t need to invent an alternate hypothesis to disprove the resurrection hypothesis. It’s a no-brainer. The resurrection hypothesis is falsified by the obvious fact that the dead does not go back to life. If there is even a single reliable observation that dispute that fact, then the issue of Jesus’ purported resurrection becomes debatable. But in the absence of such evidence, it is a non-issue. Its falsity is self-evident.

    • John Vezina says:

      Completely correct. This ridiculous story is based on no evidence whatsoever of any kind. No need to invent an elaborate hypothesis to justify non-belief. We don’t believe it for the same reason we don’t believe in magical flying pixies that push everything to the ground thus giving the illusion of gravity.

      • Gary Whittenberger says:

        I agree with you that the resurrection hypothesis is extremely unlikely to be true; I call it “superimprobable.” My hallucination hypothesis is meant to give a better explanation for the origin of the Gospel stories.

    • E Soderberg says:

      Im quite new to the skeptic thing, so i might not be able to see it all completly rational yet. I now believe that what you said about that there is no need for another (stupid) theory is true. I did not intentionally use one theory to disprove the other, and as you mentioned people do not rise from the dead.
      Sorry if i caused you inconvenient trouble proving me wrong.
      At least, i wont make the same mistake again.

      • JustALurker says:

        @E Soderberg:

        “Sorry if i caused you inconvenient trouble proving me wrong.
        At least, i wont make the same mistake again.”

        Perhaps you mis-read Dr. Strangelove’s remark, which he addressed to the author, “Mr. Whittenberger,” not to you.

        Nothing wrong with your earlier response, and nothing wrong with being 16 years old. When I saw that at the end of your previous comment, my first thought was “Way to go, kid!” It’s a good time in life to begin exercising your critical thinking abilities. :)

      • Gary Whittenberger says:

        I don’t think you can rationally say that it is impossible for a person to come back to life. All you can say is that there is no verified case of a person coming back to life in over 100 billion opportunities to do so in the last 50 thousand years. Hypothetically, there must be some level of evidence which would persuade us that a person did come back to life. But the Gospel accounts come nowhere close to this.

    • Gary Whittenberger says:

      I think that it is not “self-evident” that Jesus did not come back to life, but it is superimprobable that he did. (For more on this idea, buy and read my book, described at

      The Gospel stories that we have require a hypothesis alternative to actual resurrection.

  10. A. Sepulveda says:

    The soldiers did not break Jesus’ legs because they thought that he was dead, but maybe he wasn’t and the man Joseph that took him to his own tomb may have realized it. Everyone went home and he was left alone with Jesus. Heavens knows what happened after that, but if he appeared for sure it is because he was never really dead. The disciples expected Jesus to return after he went away somewhere to prepare a place for them. It was not in heaven. He promised to return right back after he prepared a place for all of them somewhere, but Jesus never came back. The rumor was that he was the first fruits of the resurrection because they thought that the end resurrection was ocurring right then since Jesus always spoke of the kingdom of God to come soon; at hand.

    • Gary Whittenberger says:

      Your survival of crucifixion hypothesis is far superior and more likely than the resurrection hypothesis. I discuss it in detail in my book which is discussed at

      I think, however, that a hallucination plus fabrication hypothesis is probably a little stronger than the survival hypothesis.

  11. Another Point of view says:

    This article was poorly reasoned. There was the statement, treated as fact that the apostles had already witnessed Jesus making others rise from the dead so it was not unreasonable for them to have that be part of their hallucination. That would say that rising from the dead is established as fact, but Jesus rising from the dead is a hallucination. Anyone who needs this baloney to explain things like this cannot claim to be rational.

    • Gary Whittenberger says:

      No, my article does not assume that resurrections had already occurred. It assumes that the disciples believed that resurrections had occurred and could occur before the the matter with Jesus.

  12. andyman409 says:

    I think he would aruge that Jesus’ ressuisitations were psychosomatic

    • Gary Whittenberger says:

      It is possible that Jesus went into a coma while on the cross and then came out of it while in the tomb. This is the basis of a survival hypothesis, which is of course much more probable than the resurrection hypothesis.

  13. Thomas Larsen says:

    The trouble is that first-century Jews knew that people often had experiences of recently- (and still-)dead people, and had the language to express them. For example, take Acts 12.12–17:

    When he [Peter] realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. And when he knocked at the door of the gateway, a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer. Recognizing Peter’s voice, in her joy she did not open the gate but ran in and reported that Peter was standing at the gate. They said to her, “You are out of your mind.” But she kept insisting that it was so, and they kept saying, “It is his angel!” But Peter continued knocking, and when they opened, they saw him and were amazed. But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, “Tell these things to James and to the brothers.” Then he departed and went to another place.

    If Jesus’ disciples experienced hallucinations, they wouldn’t have said, “Jesus has risen,” given Jewish beliefs about bodily resurrection from the dead at the end of time; rather, they would have said, “Jesus has been taken into heaven.” In other words, we’d have the Ascension but not the Resurrection. N. T. Wright’s books The Resurrection of the Son of God (academic) and Surprised by Hope (smaller and written for a popular audience) are worth reading.

    • Gary Whittenberger says:

      I disagree with you on this. If the disciples knew (or believed) that Jesus had died on the cross and that the tomb was empty, and if they had compelling grief hallucinations of Jesus, then it would have been natural for them to conclude that Jesus came back to life — that there was a physical resurrection. This is completely compatible with the Jewish worldview at the time. The idea of ascension is a separate idea and is presented as a separate event in the Gospels.

  14. john says:

    He has no evidence that it was one event, he keeps pointing out the diferences in the three. But most of the diferences are between matthew’s story and the other two’s. Matthew says it happened in Galilee, while Luke and John say it happened in Jerusalem. and so on and so forth. By reading his speech on it it sounds like it was two seperate events and he would have been better off just comparing the diffrences between Luke and John. But if he had just compared the differences between those two his “theory” would easily be shot down by the fact that no two people experience the same event the same way. As for people coming back from the dead it happens decently often that somone is determined legally dead then there heart starts up again and their fine, therefore they “Raised from the Dead”.

    Someone mentioned that they broke his legs, that was common for them to do if someone was taking to long to die, it put more strain on the muscles in the upper body and made it very hard to breath causing them to suficate.

    • Gary Whittenberger says:

      1) Yes, there is evidence that it was one event. I described this evidence early in the article. The three stories have three core elements in common, despite their differences in details.

      2) There are apologetic or propagandistic reasons for the different authors to have located the meeting in Galilee vs. Jerusalem. Read Bart Ehrman’s Jesus Interrupted for more on this.

      3) Of course, no two people experience the same event the same way, but this does not “shoot down” the hallucination hypothesis. Two disciples could have had grief hallucinations of Jesus at the same time, but if they had compared their hallucinations in detail they probably would have seen that they were not identical. I point this out in the article.

      4) There is no clear and strong evidence that any of the resuscitations to which you refer were resurrections. Has anyone revived after rigor mortis set in? I know of no such case.

      5) One or more of the Gospels say that the soldiers broke the legs of the other two prisoners on crosses but not the legs of Jesus.

  15. Todd F says:

    Those interested in Christian mythology should check out The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer. I read this in college over 40 years ago, and was impressed by it’s rationality. He was a surprisingly subtle and logical thinker. I remember it as an impressively exhaustive survey of all existing evidence for proof of the existence of Jesus. Schweitzer applied standard scientific historical methodology and concluded that the factual existence of this person could not be proved. This is infinitely short of any kind of proof of miracles. He ends with the advice that belief should nevertheless be maintained on the basis of faith alone. Now this is a respectably honest position! It’s not a rational one, but so be it.

    I’d find Christianity easier to stomach if more of it’s adherents would follow his example and simply say that I believe it because I choose to believe it and for no other reason. That’s a conversation stopper, a good thing in this arena. I’ve since read translations of Schweitzer’s sermons including those developing his concept of Reverence for Life and found real value in them. I can’t say the same for any of the evangelical Bible pounders of our current age.

    • Gary Whittenberger says:

      I disagree totally with Schweitzer’s conclusion that belief should be maintained on the basis of faith. What an irrational idea! I can’t have any respect for that idea or for Christians who embody it today.

  16. Harold says:

    Not sure that the hallucination hypothesis gets us anywhere. In the Bible, people often speak to God or angels in a state that we would call an “hallucination.” Peyote and similar substances are deliberately ingested to achieve this same state. To a believer (or tripper), to call an experience an “hallucination” explains (or disproves) nothing, because to the believer the experience does not need to have a rational explanation to be “real.” In response to your claim that people nowadays experience the same communication with the dead as did the disciples is likely to evoke from the believer the response: “Of course!”

    • Gary Whittenberger says:

      I disagree. The hallucination hypothesis provides us with an explanation of the Gospel stories of the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus, an explanation far more likely than the resurrection hypothesis.

      Hallucinations are real! They just aren’t objective. I will not believe that a person came back to life on the basis of somebody’s hallucination.

  17. paul hill says:

    In none of the sightings of Jesus after his death was he at first recognised by his disciples. I would suggest that the reason for this was that the person was NOT Jesus but one or both of the following. The disciples were in a very frightened state as they too were fearful of arrest and crucifixion and thus hypersuggestable. Clutching at straws at being leaderless they felt extremely vulnerable and desperate for Jesus to be risen. Thus the individual who they ‘recognised’ as being Jesus, frightened of their hysteria, went along with the role until he could escape their clutches.

    The other, more probable reason is that the ‘recognised’ individual was in fact a Jesus look alike actor set up by the Romans to get the disciples to lead them back to their hiding place so that everyone there could be arrested as suspected insurgents ‘terrorists’. Many people, even Romans, believed that people could be resurrected but didn’t look exactly like their former selves. A clue here is when ‘Jesus’ said “Touch me not for I have not yet received my mortal body.” knowing that if anyone got that close and maybe hugged him they would realise that it was NOT him.

    The very last thing that the Romans would have wanted was a funeral cortage on the Day of the Passover, the day of Jewish ultra nationalism when tempers would have been at their hottest, with the possibility of riots that could have escalated out of control and even spread to other parts of the Empire. So they stole his body from the tomb and disposed of it. Jesus was primarily executed because they feared that he would lead such an insurrection, having planned it well before. The reason that he was whipped and bashed before being executed was to force him to reveal the whereabouts of the other disciples who had gone into hiding as there could be one or more alternate leaders among them. This was what Judas was most terrified of, hence swapping sides to curry favour with the Romans when he lost his leadership challenge at the Last Supper which was held in a secret location.

    There was reason for this suspicion by the Romans as Jesus’s Party was a Provisional Govt with a military wing as well as political. Simon the Zealot, who cut off the ear of a Roman soldier at Jesus arrest, was an example. This militarism was not something that Jesus wanted but what he inherited from his step father Joseph. Jesus, as peacemaker, was trying to negotiate a peaceful settlement between ALL of the insurgent groups and the Romans with a Roman withdrawal to follow and no barriers to trade along the Silk Road.

    Judas had other plans, with Jesus to be the bait to draw all of the Jewish leaders into a trap by coming to his trial to judge him. His rebels would surround the Little Sanhedrin, capture it and execute all of the leaders whilst Jesus would ‘accidently’ be killed. Pilate and other Roman leaders would be executed simultaneously.

Get eSkeptic

Science in your inbox every Wednesday!

eSkeptic delivers great articles, videos, podcasts, reviews, event announcements, and more to your inbox once a week.

Sign me up!

Donate to Skeptic

Please support the work of the Skeptics Society. Make the world a more rational place and help us defend the role of science in society.

Detecting Baloney

Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic) by Deanna and Skylar (High Tech High Media Arts, San Diego, CA)

The Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic)

For a class project, a pair of 11th grade physics students created the infographic shown below, inspired by Michael Shermer’s Baloney Detection Kit: a 16-page booklet designed to hone your critical thinking skills.

FREE Video Series

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Understanding the difference could save your life! In this superb 10-part video lecture series, Harriet Hall, M.D., contrasts science-based medicine with so-called “complementary and alternative” methods. The lectures each range from 32 to 45 minutes.

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths of Terrorism

Is Terrorism an Existential Threat?

This free booklet reveals 10 myths that explain why terrorism is not a threat to our way of life or our survival.

FREE PDF Download

The Top 10 Weirdest Things

The Top Ten Strangest Beliefs

Michael Shermer has compiled a list of the top 10 strangest beliefs that he has encountered in his quarter century as a professional skeptic.

FREE PDF Download

Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (paperback cover)

Who believes them? Why? How can you tell if they’re true?

What is a conspiracy theory, why do people believe in them, and why do they tend to proliferate? Why does belief in one conspiracy correlate to belief in others? What are the triggers of belief, and how does group identity factor into it? How can one tell the difference between a true conspiracy and a false one?

FREE PDF Download

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

Do you know someone who has had a mind altering experience? If so, you know how compelling they can be. They are one of the foundations of widespread belief in the paranormal. But as skeptics are well aware, accepting them as reality can be dangerous…

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths About Evolution

Top 10 Myths About Evolution (and how we know it really happened)

If humans came from apes, why aren’t apes evolving into humans? Find out in this pamphlet!

FREE PDF Download

Learn to be a Psychic in 10 Easy Lessons

Learn to do Psychic “Cold Reading” in 10
Easy Lessons

Psychic readings and fortunetelling are an ancient art — a combination of acting and psychological manipulation.

Copyright © 1992–2017. All rights reserved. The Skeptics Society | P.O. Box 338 | Altadena, CA, 91001 | 1-626-794-3119. Privacy Policy.