Debate Review! Mike Winger vs Matt Dillahunty on the Resurrection
Apr 24, 2019
auto_awesome
Mike Winger, known for engaging views on theology, faces off with Matt Dillahunty, an influential figure in atheism. They delve into the complexities of historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Winger critiques Dillahunty's treatment of history and emphasizes the importance of eyewitness testimonies. The conversation explores the intersection of philosophy, historical facts, and the implications for understanding miracles. Notably, they navigate the challenges of evaluating supernatural claims within a rigorous historical framework.
The debate highlights differing opinions on the strength of arguments regarding the resurrection, emphasizing how perception can vary widely among audiences.
The speaker critiques the skeptic's flawed treatment of historical evidence and the importance of thoroughly assessing all available documentation.
A significant focus is placed on the philosophy behind the arguments, where the skeptic's circular reasoning limits the acceptance of supernatural explanations.
The speaker illustrates the cumulative nature of their case for the resurrection, showing how multiple historical facts contribute to a cohesive narrative.
The criticism of double standards in evaluating evidence reflects a call for intellectual honesty and uniform standards in debate discussions.
Deep dives
Mixed Feelings About the Debate Experience
The speaker expresses mixed emotions regarding their recent debate with a prominent skeptic over the resurrection of Christ. They acknowledge that opinions on the debate's outcome vary widely; some listeners felt that the skeptic outperformed while others believed their arguments were strong. The speaker reflects on the challenge of maintaining logic and clarity during a debate, as rhetorical skills can overshadow substantive arguments. They aim to evaluate both the logical aspects of their arguments and the rhetorical strategies used by the skeptic.
Key Tactics Used by the Skeptic
The speaker identifies three primary tactics employed by the skeptic in the debate. First, a misrepresentation of historical evidence, suggesting that different sources lacked credibility. Second, they observe a flawed epistemology implying supernatural claims cannot be proven or considered valid, which the speaker finds limiting. Lastly, the speaker references various rhetorical strategies that detracted from the logical basis of the arguments presented.
The Case for the Resurrection Presented
A brief review of the speaker's case for the resurrection highlights twelve non-miraculous historical facts that support the event. These facts are well-supported and widely accepted among scholars, regardless of their religious affiliations. The speaker emphasizes the importance of determining the best explanation for these facts, such as the resurrection itself, while discounting less plausible alternatives like conspiracy or hallucination theories. They elucidate the principle of inference to the best explanation as a foundational method in historical analysis.
Flawed Treatment of History by the Skeptic
The speaker criticizes the skeptic for applying a flawed method to address historical evidence, specifically regarding the resurrection. They note that the skeptic often dismisses credible sources as mere claims without substantiating this position. The speaker asserts that historical analysis must consider all available evidence rather than relying on memes or catchphrases that oversimplify complex arguments. This challenges the skeptic's dismissal of historical documentation regarding the resurrection and the credibility of sources.
The Challenge of Claims vs. Evidence
The speaker addresses the skeptic's frequent assertion that claims do not equate to evidence, pointing out the self-refuting nature of this statement. They elaborate that all assertions are ultimately claims but can serve as evidence when evaluated in context. By citing historical methodologies, the speaker emphasizes that claims must be assessed to determine their evidential value. This discourse underlines the importance of understanding what can be deemed reliable evidence in any historical discussion.
Cumulative Case for the Resurrection
The speaker explains the cumulative nature of their argument for the resurrection, emphasizing that no single piece of evidence alone is definitive. Instead, each fact contributes to a larger narrative that supports the resurrection as the most plausible explanation for the gathered data. They illustrate this using a hypothetical murder case to demonstrate how individual pieces of evidence can collectively provide a compelling explanation. The challenge is to consider how different evidences interconnect without solely relying on any one point.
Addressing Philosophical Obstacles
A significant point raised is the skeptic's philosophical stance that effectively negates consideration of the supernatural, creating barriers to accepting evidence for the resurrection. The speaker critiques this stance for being circular, requiring proof of God before God can be considered a viable explanation. They consult philosophers to evaluate this principle, concluding that it prevents any meaningful exploration of supernatural events, including the resurrection of Christ. This exploration emphasizes that adherence to such epistemological rules limits inquiry into matters of faith.
Misunderstanding of Historical Context
The speaker highlights the crucial misunderstanding that arises when historical documents are treated as singular sources rather than individual texts. This fosters an inaccurate portrayal of the reliability of the Gospel accounts when they are collectively dismissed as the Bible. By dissecting the separate authorship and context of these documents, the speaker emphasizes that many claims can coexist and provide valuable insights independently. This critical examination reveals the errors in the skeptic's overall argument.
Rhetorical Discrepancies in the Debate
The speaker identifies a pattern where the skeptic utilizes a selective standard of evidence that favors their own beliefs while dismissing evidence presented for the resurrection. This inconsistency reflects a form of special pleading, as the skeptic does not apply the same rigor to their arguments as they demand from other claims, particularly those that support the resurrection. The speaker argues that discourse on evidence should be applied uniformly across the board to ensure intellectual honesty. They conclude that overlooking these disparities undermines the strength of the skeptic's position.
At the end of a long day when I was abnormally busy, and cutting back on my coffee intake, I did a 2 hour debate review video. Haha. I may be a bit tired but I think the content here is valuable and I'm looking forward to getting some feedback on it.
Here are the timestamps (though I strongly recommend you watch this whole video)
8:00 Matt's flawed treatment of history
8:55 "Claims not evidence"
17:43 How history actually works
21:01 How a cumulative case works
25:48 Matt vs history and historians
57:20 Double standards which avoid the evidence
1:13:59 Elvis sightings and testing miracle claims
1:25:26 Summary of historical problems in Matt's criticism of the case for the resurrection.
1:27:55 BIGGEST ISSUE IN THE DEBATE: Philosophy
1:50:55 When I offended Matt.
Dr. Craig Blomberg's article on the potential ages of the gospel writers. https://ntscholarship.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/did-none-of-jesus-disciples-live-long-enough-to-write-a-gospel/
How we really got the books of the New Testament (watch 4 consecutive videos in this playlist) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hItK8IY-Us&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuhA0RPKZFHVcjIMN_-F596&index=12
Journal of the American Medical Association article "On The Physical Death of Jesus Christ" https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/403315
Inspiring Philosophy's video "Matt Dillahunty vs Science" https://youtu.be/2TfLsHl2INE
Dr. Tim McGrew "How to Think About Miracles"
https://youtu.be/l3PW-2X-9bA
Matt implied that we didn't really know what the New Testament originally said. Here's 3 videos about textual critcism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WclIZwBFhq0&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuzJhPtmrgqpVoXhjvqiIjW
How "inference the best explanation" (my method for concluding that Jesus rose from the dead and God did it) is solid epistemology https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/
Great video from Acts17Apologetics called "Scooby Doo and the Silly Skeptic", which helps explain the problem of special pleading https://youtu.be/YrGVeB_SPJg
Lastly, for those who want more info on why "inherent improbability" of a miracle is not a good reason to reject one outright check out these two podcast episodes from Capturing Christianity. Calum Miller walks through the problems this philosophical position which is called "frequentism". https://capturingchristianity.com/tag/calum-miller/
If you would like to support this ministry please click here https://biblethinker.org/index.php/donate
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
