Resurrection Discussion with Randal Rauser and Robert L. White

So last night I took place in a informal discussion with Randal on Robert L. White's YouTube channel.

I had a very good time and more importantly I think we demonstrated what a polite, thoughtful exchange can look like, even though we don't agree.

I hope you take the time to watch, Randal and I spoke for about an hour as he had a night class to teach after our debate, and then Robert and I spoke for another 20 minutes or so.

There were a few things I think the debate clarified for me and some issues I'd like to address in a future post, so keep an eye out!

Countering the Resurrection Argument (Short Version)

(Note what follows is a transcript of the video)

What if I told you that I believed that god raised Jesus from the dead, but that I did not believe that Jesus was the son of god, and denied that belief in his death and resurrection was the path to salvation and eternal life in reconciliation with the one true god, Yahweh.

That would just sound crazy. 

Right?

I want you to think about why that sounds crazy. It’s not hard to find an answer: Because we assume that miracles are evidence for the truth of the philosophical and theological teachings of the miracle worker. 

This assumption goes unstated when apologists use the argument for the resurrection, but it is absolutely central to the argument. 

Randal on Miracles and Historical Explanation

Below is a response to Randal Rauser's blog post about our exchange on the resurrection argument.  Please do check out Randal's blog for some background info.

Your first reply is that we can discuss the resurrection question without invoking the concept of a 'miracle'; but I think the example you give is seems flawed in a number of ways relevant to the argument for the resurrection of Jesus (RoJ) and I think you may be smuggling in a 'miracle' through the back door when we get to RoJ.

Missing the Point on Randal's Sermon?

As these tend to go, I had a response post by Randal regarding my critique of his sermon on faith and evidence.

Randal believes I've missed his points and was vitriolic.

Let me begin the reply by going through his three major points, and we'll touch on the last part at the end.

Responding to Randal's Evidence Sermon

It was odd, but a week ago I saw a Twitter notification that Randal Rauser, an apologist I like and respect, had released an audio sermon about Christianity, Faith, and Evidence.

Since I had a full plate of work that I could do while listening to something somewhat engaging, I decided to give it a listen.

It was absolutely infuriating.

Throughout the entire sermon I kept having the mental image of Joe Pesci yelling “Get the fuck outta here!” as we went from one doozy to another. 

 "You gotta be fuckin kidding me!" also works

This felt rather appropriate, because as one of the cherished Patron Saints of Atheism - George Carlin tells us, praying to Joe Pesci is statistically as effective as praying to god.

Woe betide those who go against Cardinal George

So I wanted to get a post together that goes through what’s wrong with it.

The last bit of advice for Michael Nugent

I've written two other posts for Michael Nugent on his upcoming debate with William Lane Craig.

Thus far I've focused on refuting Craig's arguments, which is largely my main purpose behind this blog/YouTube account.

But a debate with a prominent apologist isn't completely about simply showing that their cumulative case approach of arguments doesn't work.  A debate is as much about the show between two debaters, and the interactions on stage are going to sadly play far more of a role in viewers minds about "who won" rather than whether Michael was able to refute all of Craig's arguments.

So this is my final piece of advice: Attack! Attack! Attack!

How? Well lets get on to it.

Debating the Resurrection on the Faith and Skepticism Podcast

On this Monday after Easter are you sick and tired of all the Christian postings on Facbook about "resurrection day" or did the news sites posting apologetic material for easy Easter Sunday filler content get annoying?

Well then, watch the latest episode of the Faith and Skepticism Podcast where we had a wonderful debate on the supposed resurrection of Jesus. I think Matthew O'Neil and myself did a pretty good job debating Callum Miller and Jonathan McLeod.  It was very civil and is definitely a good listen.




In retrospect, I really wish I had brought up the fact that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet, and the fact that Paul also believed that the end of the world would soon be on them.  I think that's something that largely goes unsaid in debates like this, and frankly it's a great opportunity to watch apologists "re-interpret" those passages or explain why it was a metaphors for something else.  I think contrasting that move with how say Jehovah's Witnesses rationalized how the world failed to end after repeated prophecies is a great way to show how ad-hoc and unbelievable such moves are.  This is critical since such moves always seem perfectly normal to people already in a belief system, but similar moves done by apologists for other religions would be rejected out of hand.

Additionally, I've watched some of the the Licona-Cavin Debate on the resurrection (you can look at Cavin's slides and some analysis here) after the podcast and I think Cavin makes some absolutely killer points on the idea that a supernatural resurrection should count as any kind of an "explanation" for the supposed "facts" apologists bring out.