Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus
Mar 27, 2018
auto_awesome
Dan Barker, a skeptic and author, joins potently critical voices like Matt Dillahunty, a renowned atheist activist, and Bart Ehrman, a biblical scholar, to dissect claims regarding the resurrection of Jesus. They challenge the evidential arguments, arguing that critiques often dismiss the miracle without providing credible alternatives. Sam Harris and Richard Carrier add their unique perspectives, further probing the historical context and scholarly interpretations surrounding the resurrection narrative. This conversation dives deep into the clash between faith and skepticism.
Skeptics often deflect from the evidence for Jesus' resurrection, focusing instead on dismissing miracles and alternative explanations without substantiation.
The historical evidence of Jesus' crucifixion, an empty tomb, and eyewitness accounts of post-resurrection appearances remains robust against skepticism.
The varied responses of skeptics, including outright denial and unsubstantiated claims, reveal a reluctance to engage with the substantial historical facts presented.
Deep dives
The Case for the Resurrection
Historically accepted evidence supports that Jesus was crucified and died, which is a foundational point in the case for the resurrection. Additionally, the tomb was found empty by women disciples, a detail that skeptical historians note was emboldened by the criterion of embarrassment. There are also numerous accounts of Jesus appearing alive after his death, confirmed by a range of independent witnesses. Finally, the transformation of the apostles, who went from hiding to boldly preaching about Jesus, even in the face of persecution and death, further strengthens the claims for Christ's resurrection.
Skeptical Reactions
Skeptics often react defensively to the evidence supporting the resurrection, proposing alternative explanations instead. Prominent skeptics, including Bart Ehrman and David Hume, dismiss miracles outright as impossible, which leads them to reject even well-documented historical accounts of the resurrection. Many resort to dismissing the evidence without providing plausible alternative scenarios, instead drawing on their presupposition that miracles cannot happen. This highlights a tendency among some skeptics to rely on blind faith against well-supported claims rather than addressing the evidence presented.
Responses from Specific Skeptics
David Hume negates the possibility of miracles by stating that no evidence is sufficient to establish one, indicating a bias against the very occurrence of miraculous events. Bart Ehrman, while initially granting many of the historical facts, later revised his position to reject the burial of Jesus entirely, showcasing a lack of consistency in addressing the evidence. Richard Carrier takes a more extreme approach by denying Jesus' existence and instead suggests that events described occurred in a fantastical context rather than historically. Such diverse and often unsubstantiated arguments among skeptics demonstrate a reluctance to engage with the well-supported claims of Jesus’ resurrection.
Alternative Explanations and Their Weaknesses
Various alternative theories, such as the swoon theory and the twin theory, have been proposed to explain the empty tomb and Jesus' appearances. However, these theories fail to hold up against the consensus of established historical facts. For instance, the swoon theory does not account for the evidence of Jesus' crucifixion and the dramatic transformation of his disciples. Ultimately, these alternatives do not provide credible explanations against the resurrection narrative, which remains robust when scrutinized against other theories.
The Need for Rational Explanations
Rational discourse about the resurrection requires skeptics to provide explanations that adequately address the historical facts, rather than merely expressing incredulity. Many skeptics, upon being presented with strong evidence, respond with vague assertions or red herrings, highlighting their unwillingness to substantiate their claims. Moreover, the assertion from some skeptics that the mere existence of miracles undermines historical evidence reflects a philosophical position rather than an evidential one. Engaging with the evidence transparently and seeking reasonable explanations is crucial for constructive dialogue surrounding the claims of the resurrection.
How do skeptics respond to the evidential case for the resurrection of Jesus? We will look at Bart Ehrman, Dan Barker, Richard Carrier, Sam Harris, Dan Barker, and Matt Dillahunty. If you pay attention to what these guys say then you can see that they don't actually try to come up with reasonable explanations of the evidence. Instead, they tend to attack the idea of miracles or say that belief in the resurrection is the same as belief in some other miracle claims which don't have evidence like the resurrection does. I find these tactics very revealing.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
