Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

Here is another well-reasoned rebuttal to Randy's bullshit.  For anyone who wants to use it.  

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...ch-of.html

Habermas and Licona ignore the fact that a miraculous resurrection is always going to be more improbable than any improbable speculation about what may have happened instead. Improbable things happen all the time. People get struck by lightning. People win contests against overwhelming odds. So non-miraculous explanations of the resurrection might all be improbable, and yet better explain the evidence, since a miracle can still be far less likely to be true than those other improbable explanations. Unless they can show that our “improbable” explanations are more improbable than a miracle (and they never do), their argument can’t even get off the ground.

Unless you are a religious shithead who believes in "miracles."  Then...anything is possible if you want it to be.

Well, I know I have done well when even the great Minimalist is forced to give up his usual profanity-laced one-line responses and actually dig for a more substantive response on the Internet. Unfortunately, the article by John Loftus is poorly chosen.

The article is brief - only six paragraphs overall - and the first paragraph is simply a series of quotes from Habermas and Licona (and Craig) explaining their purpose. Okay, that was a necessary set up for Loftus' readers, but now we're down to five paragraphs of rebuttal.

In paragraph two, Loftus attempts to make much of the fact that H & L consider the Bible "irrelevant". Well, yes, for the purposes of the minimal facts approach, that's correct. We don't need to make the full-blown argument for the historical reliability of the NT when arguing "minimal facts". That's the beauty of it. That's why no one in this forum and thread has made a dent in the argument itself. The approach is based on unassailable historical evidence. However, it would be important to keep the purpose of arguing the minimal facts in mind: many skeptics and atheists, etc, have issues (understandably) with the Bible as a whole. These issues can be addressed adequately but it is a HUGE task - not one that can be done in a few minutes or even a few years. The minimal facts approach provides a sound-bite-sized argument that can encourage a skeptic to examine the evidence for Christianity more deeply. It is one tool - not the whole toolbox.

In paragraph three, Loftus complains about the fact that H&L are isolating the five minimal facts from the rest of the Bible and that "it's not fair for their side to take off the table any "facts" that [his] side objects to." Why is that, Mr. Loftus? The goal of the minimal facts approach to arguing for the resurrection is not to deny that there are issues that you might object to and to which believers should ultimately provide reasonable explanations. The goal is to clear away the clutter and distractions and focus on the core issues: what can be known with near certainty about Jesus Christ and what conclusions can and should be drawn from that knowledge. This is just a crack in the door that allows a bit of fresh air into the room; the shade that is drawn slightly to allow a shaft of light to pierce the darkness. Haberman, Licona and Craig would all agree that much work remains to be done from that point forward, but at least such work becomes possible with the acceptance of the minimal facts.

In paragraph four, Loftus asks, "Did Habermas consider Muslim scholars in his survey? Can he even read modern Arabic?" The better questions to ask, Mr. Loftus, is whether there are any world-class New Testament scholars whose opinions are to be considered and whether these scholars are presenting their views in the peer-reviewed periodicals that were surveyed. If so, then the answer would be yes, they were included. If not, then no Muslims were included. But if there are no world-class NT scholars who are Muslims, why bring it up? To score cheap debating points?

In paragraph five, Loftus points out that H&L have evaluated the theories of non-believers and found them wanting. Indeed. And I feel the same way about the ideas proposed in this thread. But so what? If there is a better theory available to explain the minimal facts, by all means, share it with us. Loftus then fills out the balance of this paragraph with a simple statement of the skeptic's position. He writes:

What escapes them is that they fail to realize non-believers do not have to propose an explanation of these isolated facts at all. We’re first and foremost arguing that the New Testament is so riddled with discrepancies and evolving layers of religious tradition coming from a superstitious era that it leaves a great deal of room for doubt—that it’s much more likely no one can know what happened if we take the New Testament at face value—which means Christians cannot believe Jesus rose from the grave either. That’s what we’re saying. The rest is conjecture and speculation since we don’t have any of the evidence we really need (as even Licona admits). Our speculation only comes after arguing that reasonable people must doubt a straightforward reading of the tales in these texts.

Loftus is simply too cavalier when he argues that non-believers "do not have to propose an explanation of these isolated facts at all." And the reason it is important to consider them is because of the larger eschatalogical context of the gospel message. If this life is not all that there is, then it is wise to consider what fate awaits us after death. Christianity posits that there is life after death and offers answers to these types of questions as well as evidence of its truthfulness in the form of a a unique, supernatural event which, if true, gives us a reason to be receptive to the full message delivered by God through Jesus Christ. Loftus concludes his rehashing of the atheist argument by saying, "we don't have any of the evidence we really need" - while completely ignoring the fact that H&L are providing the very evidence that he is demanding. But he cannot see the forest for the trees.

Finally, in paragraph six (quoted by Min), Loftus states, "Habermas and Licona ignore the fact that a miraculous resurrection is always going to be more improbable than any improbable speculation about what may have happened instead." That's a bit of an understatement, isn't it? But so what? Christians argue that in the five facts, we have a sequence of events that is not easily explained. And as improbable as it might seem, the resurrection of Jesus appears to us to be the BEST explanation of all that we know about these events.

Since Loftus points out that "a miraculous resurrection is always going to be more improbable than any improbable speculation about what may have happened instead", I think it would be useful to consider whether "any" reasonable alternatives which explain ALL of the facts adequately can actually be found.