Reading Time: 4 minutes

This is a psychological problem in which a person experiences symptoms or deficits to one’s senses that are not intentionally produced and may have neurological origins. Typical symptoms: Blindness, paralysis, loss of voice, pain, uncontrolled vomiting, tics and seizures. Was Paul’s conversion from Judaism to Christianity a result of some neurological malfunction or other medical cause rather than divine visitation? The technical definition of conversion disorder is “the presence of symptoms or deficits affecting voluntary motor or sensory function that appear to have a neurological or other medical origin and are not intentionally produced”.

A conversion disorder does not refute Jesus’ resurrection because of the following crucial reasons

1. Even if plausible, at best a conversion disorder could only account for the single appearance to Paul. It cannot account for the appearance to James or to the disciples.

See the evidence based articles

2. It cannot account for the empty tomb

See the evidence based articles

3. Paul does not fit the character of someone who is likely to experience a conversion psychosis. 

See the evidence based articles

4. Paul does not fit the definition of Conversion disorder

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSMIV, the primary source used by professional psychologists and psychiatrists for diagnosing psychological conditions, women are more likely than men to experience conversion psychosis by as much as a 5:1 ratio. Adolescents pms military persons in battle, those of low economic status, and those with a low IQ are likewise more prone to experience the phenomenon. Paul does not fit into any of these categories. This puts Paul far from being of the mind to suffer such conversion disorder.

Not only does Paul fall outside of the typical profile of those who experience conversion disorder, but we have no evidence that he experienced any of the most common symptoms in males who suffer from conversion disorder, which are “non-headache pain, paresis [i.e., slight or partial paralysis], anesthesia [i.e., partial to total loss of sensation], headache, and mock heart attack”. One might suggest that Paul’s frame of mind while he severely persecuted the church might have been equivalent to that of a soldier in combat. However, even if Paul could be made to fit a single profile for a conversion disorder, this would only suggest that the bright light he claimed to have seen might have been a visual hallucination. A visual hallucination would still not account for the accompanying auditory hallucination of Jesus’ voice, nor would it answer the fact that he does not seem to have suffered from any of the most common symptoms experienced by males with the disorder.

 5. Conversion disorder cannot explain other details of Paul’s account of the Risen Jesus appearing to him 

Such examples would be the voice and his belief that God wanted him to tell others something. This would required additional auditory hallucination, since he claimed he heard a voice speak to him. Paul hated Christians and saw the enterprise as a movement against God. He was not of the frame of mind to hallucinate about a Risen Jesus. Similarly the same mindset would make conversion disorder difficult.

Conversion Disorder also requires Paul’s experience to include another psychosis often referred to the “Messiah Complex”. Here a person really believes that God spoke to him and told him to tell others something.

Visual hallucinations, auditory hallucinations and a Messiah complex to be experienced simultaneously all at the same time? Is this possible? 

The data says no, since he does not fit the psychological profile for conversion disorder.

If the critic says he does not trust the accounts in the Book of Acts of the appearance to Jesus and Paul then out goes their theory for bright light and voice command and we are just left with Paul’s physical association in the 1 Corinthians 15 early creed. Therefore, any critical data for conversion disorder disappears also.

6. Conversion disorder as an explanation to account for Paul’s experience of Jesus is that it requires the adding of multiple explanations to account for the event. 

Such a combination theory appears extremely Ad Hoc (It appears to have been manufactured in order to make everything fit, not because this appears to have been what happened).

Conclusion

Conversion disorder does not explain the known facts, in fact it barely explains any of them. In a national TV Debate in April 2000 between Atheist Philosopher Anthony Flew and Christian philosopher Gary Habermas, conversion disorder was one of Flew’s main objections to Jesus’ resurrection. However, when Habermas brought up the above problems, Flew Commented that he was glad to give up the objection and never found it helpful anyway.

Structured response

1. Point out first that famous atheists in the past gave up on this theory such as Anthony Flew mid debate vs Gary Habermas

1. CD can only account for the single appearance to Paul
   1. This does not explain the appearance to James
2. CD cannot account for why the tomb was empty
3. Paul doesn’t fit the description of someone likely to experience conversion psychosis
4. Paul doesn’t fit the description of someone likely to experience conversion disorder
5. CD. Cannot account for Paul’s other details of Paul’s account of the Risen Jesus
   1. Requires an additional auditory hallucination that we can refute with hallucination theory
   2. It also requires him to have the Messiah complex
6. Requires multiple explanations to account for the event as a result
   1. This is Ad Hoc, manufactured to make things fit your story. We don’t do this with real life, except when we lie to cover something up generally.

Sources for ‘Conversion disorder’

• Conversion disorder definition — (A. J. Weaver, “Conversion Disorder,” in Benner and Hill, eds., Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology and Counseling).
• Paul not likely to have a CD — Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV (Washington, D. C: American Psychiatric Association, 1994).
• Kendall and Hammen, Abnormal Psychology, 207