Defence of Joe Rogan’s Claim: Jesus’ Resurrection Is More Plausible Than Big Bang Cosmology, By Professor X
Joe Rogan, in a podcast discussion with Cody Tucker, argued that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a more plausible explanation for existential questions than the Big Bang theory, which he describes as a scientific "miracle" requiring belief in an inexplicable cosmic origin. Rogan's scepticism echoes critiques of Big Bang cosmology, such as those by Rhawn Joseph in the Journal of Cosmology (2010), who questions the model's predictions about galaxy motion. This blog piece defends Rogan's position by arguing that the resurrection narrative is more intuitively compelling, philosophically coherent, and evidentially grounded than the Big Bang theory, which faces unresolved scientific and metaphysical challenges. The main objections, scientific consensus for the Big Bang and historical scepticism about miracles, will be addressed to demonstrate why Rogan's preference for Jesus' story is correct.
The story of Jesus' resurrection, central to Christian theology, posits a divine act where Jesus, after crucifixion, rose from the dead, affirming his identity as the Son of God. This narrative resonates with human experiences of purpose, morality, and the search for transcendence. Unlike the Big Bang, which describes an impersonal, mechanistic origin of the universe 13.8 billion years ago, the resurrection offers a personal, relational explanation for existence. Humans intuitively seek meaning, as evidenced by 84% of the global population identifying with a religion (Pew Research, 2020). The resurrection provides a framework where a purposeful intelligent design underpins reality, aligning with philosophical arguments like those of C.S. Lewis, who posited that human longing for divine connection suggests a divine reality.
Rogan's point that the resurrection "makes more sense" reflects its accessibility: it addresses existential questions (why are we here?) through a narrative of sacrifice and redemption, grounded in historical accounts (e.g., the Gospels). In contrast, the Big Bang requires grappling with abstract concepts like singularities and quantum fluctuations, which, while mathematically rigorous, feel detached from lived experience.
The resurrection is supported by historical records, primarily the New Testament, which includes eyewitness accounts from the apostles and over 500 witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6). These accounts, written within decades of Jesus' life (circa 30–100 CE), are corroborated by non-Christian sources like Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews (93 CE), which references Jesus' crucifixion and reported resurrection. The rapid spread of Christianity, despite persecution, suggests a transformative event, as argued by N.T. Wright in The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003), who notes the improbability of a fabricated story sustaining such momentum.
In contrast, the Big Bang relies on indirect evidence: cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, redshift of galaxies, and elemental abundances. While compelling, these are interpretations of data, not direct observations of the event itself. Rhawn Joseph's 2010 article in the Journal of Cosmology challenges the Big Bang's predictions, arguing that galaxy motions specifically, the lack of consistent blueshift in nearby galaxies and anomalies in redshift patterns (don't worry what this means), contradict the expected uniform expansion: Joseph, R. (2010), "The infinite universe vs the Myth of the Big Bang: Red Shifts, Black Holes, Acceleration, Life. Journal of Cosmology, 6, 854–874.
Joseph suggests alternative models, like a cyclic universe, better explain observed distributions, undermining the Big Bang's monopoly. Although Joseph's views are not mainstream, they highlight unresolved issues, such as the "horizon problem" (why is the CMB so uniform?) and the absence of a clear mechanism for the singularity's origin, which Rogan critiques as inadequately explained.
The resurrection posits a purposeful intelligent design, avoiding the metaphysical conundrum of why something exists rather than nothing. Philosophers like William Lane Craig argue that a personal cause (God) better explains the universe's beginning than an impersonal one, as it accounts for intentionality and fine-tuning (e.g., the universe's physical constants, like the cosmological constant, are improbably precise for life). The resurrection, as a divine act, fits this framework, offering a coherent narrative from creation to redemption.
The Big Bang, conversely, struggles with the origin of the singularity. The theory describes the universe's expansion from a hot, dense state but offers no explanation for what caused the singularity or why it "banged." Rogan's quip that it "instantaneously became everything" reflects this gap, echoed by cosmologist Paul Davies, who notes that the Big Bang's initial conditions require "something outside the universe" to set them. The resurrection, while miraculous, avoids this by grounding existence in a purposeful act, making it philosophically more satisfying to some, including Rogan, and me!
The resurrection story has shaped Western civilisation, inspiring art, ethics, and institutions for two millennia. Its enduring appeal, as seen in 2.4 billion Christians globally (Pew, 2020), suggests a psychological significance that the Big Bang lacks. The narrative of a divine figure overcoming death offers hope and moral guidance, addressing human fears of mortality. Rogan's preference for Jesus aligns with this, as the resurrection provides a tangible, human-scale miracle versus the abstract, impersonal Big Bang. Ask yourself: what has the Big Bang ever done for you?
The Big Bang, while scientifically mainstream, lacks emotional or moral implications. Its acceptance requires trust in complex mathematics and instrumentation, which, as Joseph's critique suggests, may not fully align with observations. The theory's cultural impact is limited to academic and secular spheres, not offering the communal or ethical framework of Christianity. This disparity explains why Rogan, and many of us, find Jesus' story more compelling.
Main Objections and Rebuttals
Objection 1: Scientific Consensus Supports the Big Bang
The Big Bang is the prevailing cosmological model, backed by extensive evidence: the CMB, discovered in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson, confirms a hot, dense origin; Hubble's 1929 redshift observations support expansion; and nucleosynthesis predicts hydrogen and helium abundances matching observations. Critics argue that Rogan's dismissal ignores this consensus, and Joseph's claims, published in a controversial journal, are outlier views rejected by mainstream cosmologists. The resurrection, conversely, lacks empirical verification, relying on ancient texts and faith, making it less plausible in a scientific age. So they say.
Rebuttal: While the Big Bang enjoys consensus, it is not infallible. Joseph's 2010 paper highlights anomalies, such as galaxy clusters moving inconsistently with uniform expansion, suggesting alternative models (e.g., plasma cosmology) deserve consideration. The theory's reliance on untestable constructs like dark energy (68% of the universe, yet undetected) and inflation (a hypothetical rapid expansion) mirrors the "miracle" Rogan critiques. The resurrection, while not empirically testable, rests on historical testimony, which, as legal scholar Simon Greenleaf argued, holds weight in evidentiary terms. The rapid rise of Christianity, despite social costs, suggests a credible event, making it a reasonable alternative for those, like Rogan, sceptical of cosmology's gaps.
Objection 2: Miracles Are Less Plausible Than Natural Explanations
Sceptics, following David Hume, argue that miracles like the resurrection violate natural laws, making them inherently less probable than naturalistic explanations like the Big Bang. The resurrection relies on supernatural claims, which are untestable and contradicted by alternative theories. The Big Bang, while not fully explaining the singularity, aligns with observable physical laws and predictive models, making it more credible. So they say.
Rebuttal: Hume's argument assumes naturalism, which Rogan implicitly rejects by questioning the Big Bang's origin. If a purposeful intelligent design exists, as the resurrection implies, miracles become plausible within that framework. The Big Bang's naturalistic explanation falters at the singularity, where physical laws break down, requiring a "miracle" of sorts, as Rogan notes. The resurrection's historical evidence, multiple, early accounts versus sparse counter-theories like body theft, lends it plausibility, especially when compared to the Big Bang's reliance on unobservable events. Joseph's critique further undermines the Big Bang's naturalistic certainty, suggesting science's limits justify exploring metaphysical alternatives.
Objection 3: Cultural Bias Favours Christianity
Critics may argue that Rogan's preference reflects a cultural bias toward Christianity, prevalent in the West, rather than objective reasoning. The Big Bang, developed through global scientific collaboration, transcends cultural narratives, making it a more universal explanation. Rogan's dismissal of cosmology may stem from unfamiliarity with its complexities, not its implausibility. So they say.
Rebuttal: Cultural context shapes all beliefs, including trust in science, which is a Western construct rooted in Enlightenment values. Rogan's resonance with Christianity reflects its explanatory power for existential questions, not mere bias. The Big Bang's universality is undermined by its reliance on Western academic frameworks and unresolved issues, like those Joseph raises. The resurrection's cultural staying power, evidenced by its global reach, suggests a universal appeal that rivals science's claims, supporting Rogan's intuitive preference.
In conclusion, Joe Rogan's argument that Jesus' resurrection is more plausible than the Big Bang theory finds support in the resurrection's intuitive alignment with human experience, historical testimony, philosophical coherence, and cultural resonance. The Big Bang, while scientifically mainstream, faces challenges, highlighted by Rhawn Joseph's critique of galaxy motion and its metaphysical gaps, that render it less satisfying to those seeking a purposeful explanation. Objections, such as the Big Bang's consensus and the improbability of miracles, are countered by cosmology's own uncertainties and the resurrection's evidential basis. Rogan's stance reflects a broader scepticism of scientific dogmatism, favouring a narrative that connects human purpose to cosmic origins. For many, the story of Jesus offers a compelling alternative to the abstract "miracle" of the Big Bang, making it a plausible choice in the quest for truth.
It does for this scientist, anyway!
"Christ being the Son of God and rising from the dead makes more sense than atheists' "Big Bang" theory, comedian Joe Rogan said in a recent podcast.
Speaking to fellow podcast host Cody Tucker, Rogan explained that while atheists deny the miracle of Jesus, they devoutly buy into the "miracle" of the Big Bang.
"[Psychadelic researcher] Terence McKenna had a great line about the difference between science and religion is science only asked you for one miracle. 'I want you to believe in one miracle: the Big Bang,'" Rogan told Tucker, who agreed.
"It's great line…because it really is true," Rogan added.
Rogan went on to point out believing in the inexplicable Big Bang theory is a big leap in logic, and that the story of Jesus' resurrection makes more sense.
"It's funny because people would be incredulous about the resurrection of Jesus Christ – but yet they're convinced that the entire universe was smaller than the head of a pen and, for no reason that anybody's adequately explained to me makes sense, instantaneously became everything."
"Okay…I'm sticking with Jesus on that one," Rogan said. "Like, Jesus makes more sense."
Comments