My Moral Intuitions are Better than Yours!

Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation begins in earnest with a small summary of orthodox Christian beliefs: “You believe that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that only those who place their faith in Jesus will find salvation after death. As a Christian, you believe these propositions not because they make you feel good, but because you think they are true.”[i] This is an accurate depiction of what most evangelical Christians believe. Every now and again, Harris shows insight into a religious community that he has never been part of. In realizing the exclusivity of religious claims, Harris does much better than many in our intellectual and cultural elite. Harris realizes that Christian claims are exclusive and that they are either true or not, barring all sorts of obfuscation by liberal theologians.

Harris contends: “Consider: every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you have for being a Christian. And yet you do not find their reasons compelling. The Koran repeatedly declares that it is the perfect word of the creator of the universe.”[ii] This is a typical atheist claim and it can be understood in two different ways. It can be understood as a metaphysical or an epistemological claim. It can be understood that most evangelical Christians do not themselves have any better reason to believe than Muslims, which may be true. Or it may be a metaphysical claim that Christianity has the same amount of evidence as Islam. The epistemological claim may be true but is irrelevant. The truth of Christianity has nothing to do with how well-informed ordinary Christians are and the evidence for Christianity has nothing to do with whether the average Christian knows about that evidence. New Atheists like to reduce Christianity to it’s lowest intellectual common denominator, as though the evidence for Christianity is determined by what the average believer knows.

The idea that Christianity and Islam has the same amount of evidence (or that both have no evidence) is probably false even if both religions are false. Furthermore, Christianity has a miracle at the center of its doctrine (the Resurrection) for which an impressive historical case can be made. Islam does not have something that corresponds to this. The New Testament is more credible than the Koran in that it was composed much closer to the events it records than was the Koran. But apart from this, Harris and other atheists have to make a case for the claim that all religions have equal evidence or that Christianity and Islam have no evidence. This is not something that can simply be assumed without justification – and that is exactly what Harris and other atheists do.

After making a fairly standard appeal to inconsistent revelations, Harris starts attacking the wisdom of the Bible. He asserts at the beginning of this section: “Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering. This is why you and I do not have moral obligations toward rocks. To the extent that our actions can affect the experience of other creatures positively or negatively, questions of morality apply.”[iii] Notice that this is pure assertion. Harris provides no defense of the view that this is morality. Perhaps he will say that it is self-evident and requires no defense. It may be self-evident that questions of happiness are morally relevant or part of morality, but it is not self-evident that morality is only about questions of happiness. That is certainly not self-evident. Also, I want to question this notion that there are self-evident truths with regard to morality. Consider that the concept of human rights, which seems “self-evident” to Western middle-class suburbanites, is a very recent appearance on the world stage. According to the latest scientific understanding of human history, homo sapiens have existed for 100,000 – 200,000 years. And we have only had human rights for maybe the last 200 years ( at the most) and limited to a few cultures ( arguably only western culture, then disseminated to other cultures through colonialism and diplomatic influence). In fact, a fully developed concept of human rights that includes every race and gender is only about a 100 years old and originated only in one culture. The number of universally accepted moral principles are very few and could certainly not sustain all the things we typically regard as morally relevant. This is definitely not what you would expect if moral principles are self-evident.

So human rights and many of the other “self-evident” truths about morality that we take for granted has only been fairly influential ideas among human beings for an extremely small, infinitesimal, period of their existence on earth. Think about the many tribes and societies throughout history, including European history, that practiced human sacrifice, that practiced every manner of human cruelty. Reading about this today horrifies us, but to those who practiced it, it seemed right and just. Or will you contend that they all actually knew it was wrong, but just chose to ignore their moral intuitions? This is extremely implausible. Someone who thinks that our moral sentiments and intuitions are reliable indicators of morality either doesn’t know any history or have not truly taken in what they do know.

This is what makes the moral critiques of the Bible that follow so irrational. Harris can claim that the practices and laws in the Bible are immoral, but from what standard is he making this judgment? From the standard of his moral sentiments? Moral sentiments and intuitions seem largely to be a function of whatever is accepted practice in our society, or whatever laws are established in every society. Moral sentiments are very fickle and change based on whatever everybody else is doing. Let me put it this way. Whatever crimes you can lay at the feet of claimed divine revelation in terms of cruelty and violence, you can lay twice that, in quantity and degree of atrocity, at the feet of moral sentiment and intuition. Think about all the things that people and societies have felt are right and good during the past few thousands of years. Many, many of the things that would have seemed indubitably right to those in past societies make us cringe and gag, and I’m sure some of the things that we think are right would make them cringe and gag. How do we decide who is right based purely on moral sentiment and intuition? This is the main reason why atheist moral complaints against divine revelation are so irrational, because the standard according to which these judgments are made is fickle and very unreliable.

But let us look at Harris’s specific claims about the supposed immorality of the Old Testament. We are told that “God’s counsel to parents is straightforward: whenever children get out of line, we should beat them with a rod.”[iv] The actual verse in proverbs says “Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.” Proverbs 20:30 is not about parental discipline. Proverbs 23:13-14 contains a similar message. We must remember that this is a shepherd’s culture, and the rod was used to guide and direct the sheep, and yes, perhaps with the threat of force. The main point however, is that children require discipline and there does seem to be an implication that this should be physical to some degree. What is the problem with that? Why is Harris convinced that judiciously exercised corporal punishment is wrong? More moral sentiments created by the social conventions of secular California. You are free to believe that these conventions are the content of morality, if you wish, but then your moral character will change as frequently as social conventions do.

I will continue with Harris’s comments on Old Testament laws and events in the next post.

[i] Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, (New York: Knopf, 2006) Kindle Edition p. 3-4

[ii] Ibid., p. 5

[iii] Ibid., p. 6

[iv] Ibid., p. 8

13 thoughts

  1. No historical case can be made for the resurrection at all. You have no evidence.
    Even Habermas failed abysmally and he is often considered the ”darling” of the resurrection


  2. Hi Arkenaten. Thanks for reacting. You can take a look at my article on the resurrection on this website.

    If you want to make a claim that Habermas failed to make his case successfully, you have to defend that claim with argument. What specifically did you find wrong with it?

    Take a look at these books, which can be found on Amazon.

    William Lane Craig, The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus
    Richard Swinburne, The Resurrection of God Incarnate
    Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach
    N.T. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God

    To get you started, here are two free resources from Reasonable Faith.

    The two urls can give you the cliff notes without you having to read a book or two, but you will clearly have a better grasp of the evidence if you read one or two of the books.

    My challenge to you is to engage with this material honestly without knee-jerk dismissiveness. If you tell me what specifically is wrong with this evidence, we can get a conversation going.


    1. Again you have no evidence. You obviously do not understand what evidence is.

      Habermas begins his argument from a presuppositional stand point, as does Craig. Furthermore, like Craig he works out of a university that believes in the inerrancy of the bible and employees are generally obliged to sign a contract of employment agreeing to this.
      Thus, at the risk of falling foul of their conditions of employment true objectivity is already compromised.

      To even walk on to the same playing field you have to provide independent, non-biblical sources.

      If you can do this I might listen to your argument.


      1. It looks like you mean that it isn’t evidence unless it’s a non-biblical source. But this means you’re presupposing that the New Testament is false. This type of thinking often comes from atheist activists. If its a neutral or objective source, they say, it wouldn’t contain miracles. But if miracles are true, then how would a neutral objective source communicate it? This makes your opinion about the gospels unfalsifiable, because if the definition of a neutral unbiased source is one who doesn’t believe in miracles, then this is the same as arguing in a circle. If you had read at least the reasonable faith article (link to which is in my first response) you will find that Craig and others appeal to facts which are almost universally accepted as historical. All New Testament Historians take at least some of what is in the gospels to be historical. If you want to claim that nothing there is historically reliable, then you should say why. I’m not sure what you mean when you say that Craig and Habermas begin their argument from a pressupositional standpoint. Neither of them are pressupositional apologists. I assume it means that they assume that some of what is in the gospels is true. And yes, they assume what is regarded almost unanimously by New Testament historians as historical. And if the argument is sound, it is sound regardless of which institution they work for.


      2. So much of the gospels can be demonstrated to be false. Thus,if we can show the falsity of such things why should any credence be given to miracle claims?

        You probably would not accept miracle claims for someone such as Sathya Sai Baba, which have apparently been witnessed by hundreds of thousands.

        There is a very good reason why the bible is not on the shelf marked ”History” in the library or the bookshop.

        And you are wrong, I am afraid, both Habermas and Craig are presuppositional Christian fundamentalists.
        Their terms of employment are enough to determine this and I have watched enough videos of them that reinforces this.

        So, I will offer the term Historical Fiction as a minor concession of the New Testament.

        And I reiterate. If you can provide evidence that corroborates your claims then you might have an argument worthy of listening to.


  3. You make the claim that a lot of what is in the gospels is false and you provide no examples or sources for your claim. But this is irrelevant, because in order to make a case for the resurrection only some things in the gospels need to be true ( such as the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances to the disciples). Craig also gives reasons for why these facts are regarded as historical.

    The evidence for the resurrection is much more than simply that people saw it or saw Jesus after his purported death. It also has to do with the quality of the testimony. Please read at least the article from reasonable faith that I provided to you in my first response to you, then you can tell me what specifically is wrong with it. Why should I summarize the whole case here, when it has been done more capably than I can in this space, and when it is just a mouse click away for you? Do some of the reading and then tell me why exactly it amounts to no evidence whatsoever.

    A pressupositional Christian apologist is someone who follows the school of thought originally propounded by Cornelius van Til. Neither Habermas nor Craig are pressupositional apologists. If you want to claim they are, then something they said must have convinced you they were. What source or evidence do you have, in other words. Have they said so? Where? Did they say something that made you think they were pressupositional apologists? What did they say and how does that prove they are pressupositional apologists? I responded to your point about institutions in the previous comment. If the argument is sound, it is sound, regardless of whether someone works at Moody Bible Institute or Harvard. The argument should be assessed on it’s own merits and not the characteristics of those presenting it, regardless of whether the person presenting it is a “fundamentalist” or works at wherever. This is the ad hominem fallacy.

    Again I’ll point out that a lack of external corroboration does not mean that a text is false. For any text, there is almost never external corroboration for every single thing it asserts, even more modern texts. So why are you demanding that standard of the Bible?

    Are you a South African or just visiting there?


    1. But this is irrelevant, because in order to make a case for the resurrection only some things in the gospels need to be true ( such as the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances to the disciples). Craig also gives reasons for why these facts are regarded as historical.

      What tomb? Where is it? What evidence is there for this tomb?
      Nothing about these claims are regarded as historical fact by historians.,

      The evidence for the resurrection is much more than simply that people saw it or saw Jesus after his purported death. It also has to do with the quality of the testimony.

      What evidence? What testimony? What non-biblical sources can you provide that verify the claims you are making?

      Please read at least the article from reasonable faith that I provided to you in my first response to you, then you can tell me what specifically is wrong with it.

      Craig is a presuppositionalist. I have told you already. He has no evidence to support his argument. Only apologetics. And I have listened to enough of his debates to understand his position.

      Why should I summarize the whole case here, when it has been done more capably than I can in this space, and when it is just a mouse click away for you? Do some of the reading and then tell me why exactly it amounts to no evidence whatsoever.
      A pressupositional Christian apologist is someone who follows the school of thought originally propounded by Cornelius van Til. Neither Habermas nor Craig are pressupositional apologists.

      This will suffice as an answer

      Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian.[1] 

      Again I’ll point out that a lack of external corroboration does not mean that a text is false.

      Agreed. However, if you wish to assert veracity of said text then you have to support it with evidence. So far you have provided no evidence whatsoever.

      Why are you interested in my nationality?


      1. Answers to those questions are a mouse-click away. Why should I summarize the case here when those who are more knowledgeable about it have already done so in a way that is easily accessible to you? Demanding that I copy all this material in this comments section is unreasonable. As I’ve highlighted in a another response to you, there is a lot of this material, and summarizing it here will leave out a lot of important information even if I were as competent as those presenting it in the books or who spend their lives studying it. If you insist on having it presented to you here, I’ll quote some of the article by Craig.

        You have defined pressupositionalism well, but you have not said why Craig and Habermas are pressupositional apologists. I’ve told you in a previous comment why at least parts of the gospels can count as historical evidence. Even non-Christian New Testament historians like Gerd ludeman and Bart Ehrman, regard things in the gospels related to Jesus’s life as historical.

        Also, I did not claim that lack of evidence to the contrary for gospel claims means that they are valid.

        I was just making conversation, because I grew up in Johannesburg. Whereabouts do you live or are you visiting?

        Anyway, here’s some of the article by William Lane Craig from Reasonable Faith, lightly edited to remove preliminary and concluding remarks. This should answer most of those questions you have. If it doesn’t, point it out. Even this is only a summary.

        I’ll start with a quote from my own work to give context to the resurrection in an apologetic case for Christianity.

        “Some readers might be skeptical of the fact that New Testament documents are used here as historical sources, but this is not really disputed in academia. The gospels have always been mined for historical information. Even the most skeptical historians, in this field, use the New Testament for historical information, even if they disbelieve a good deal of what it says. Likewise, in order to make a good case for the Resurrection, we don’t need the gospels to be completely true – we only need the parts of it to be true (which are relevant to the case for the resurrection). And New Testament historians have various ways of determining which parts of a narrative is probably reliable (including things like attestation, and the criteria of dissimilarity and embarrassment). Also, there is sometimes the assumption among skeptics, sometimes in academia, but in popular intellectualism as well, that the New Testament is “guilty until proven innocent.” That is, we should assume it is false until it is proven true. But this is just as irrational as assuming it is true, until proven false. You should not make an a priori judgment at all in order to be fair to the text.

        It is also important to note that the Resurrection is not necessarily an argument for the existence of God. It is more commonly used as evidence which establishes Christianity, after a generic monotheism has been established through natural theology. However, it can be framed as an argument for the existence of God. If the Resurrection were not carried out by God, it is surely a fantastic coincidence that the most compelling historical miracle just happened to concern a person who claimed he was the messiah or the Son of God. And he just happened to live in a culture where Resurrection is seen as a vindication by God of one’s righteousness. At this point, you can come up with alternative hypotheses, but the probability will be against those hypotheses, precisely because the God hypothesis fits the evidence much more naturally than any rival hypothesis you could conjure up. The threshold of evidence is higher (because the prior probability is lower) if we are going to regard the resurrection as an argument for the existence of God and if we don’t assume the existence of God. If we do assume the existence of God, because the arguments of natural theology has satisfied us that some form of monotheistic God exists, then the threshold of evidence is lower (because the prior probability is higher)”

        And now for the pertinent bits of William Craig’s summary of the case for the resurrection.

        “FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. This fact is highly significant because it means, contrary to radical critics like John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, that the location of Jesus’ burial site was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case, the disciples could never have proclaimed his resurrection in Jerusalem if the tomb had not been empty. New Testament researchers have established this first fact on the basis of evidence such as the following:

        1. Jesus’ burial is attested in the very old tradition quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15.3-5:

        For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:

        . . . that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
        and that he was buried,
        and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
        and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

        Paul not only uses the typical rabbinical terms “received” and “delivered” with regard to the information he is passing on to the Corinthians, but vv. 3-5 are a highly stylized four-line formula filled with non-Pauline characteristics. This has convinced all scholars that Paul is, as he says, quoting from an old tradition which he himself received after becoming a Christian. This tradition probably goes back at least to Paul’s fact-finding visit to Jerusalem around AD 36, when he spent two weeks with Cephas and James (Gal. 1.18). It thus dates to within five years after Jesus’ death. So short a time span and such personal contact make it idle to talk of legend in this case.

        2. The burial story is part of very old source material used by Mark in writing his gospel. The gospels tend to consist of brief snapshots of Jesus’ life which are loosely connected and not always chronologically arranged. But when we come to the passion story we do have one, smooth, continuously-running narrative. This suggests that the passion story was one of Mark’s sources of information in writing his gospel. Now most scholars think Mark is already the earliest gospel, and Mark’s source for Jesus’ passion is, of course, even older. Comparison of the narratives of the four gospels shows that their accounts do not diverge from one another until after the burial. This implies that the burial account was part of the passion story. Again, its great age militates against its being legendary.

        3. As a member of the Jewish court that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention. There was strong resentment against the Jewish leadership for their role in the condemnation of Jesus (I Thess. 2.15). It is therefore highly improbable that Christians would invent a member of the court that condemned Jesus who honors Jesus by giving him a proper burial instead of allowing him to be dispatched as a common criminal.

        4. No other competing burial story exists. If the burial by Joseph were fictitious, then we would expect to find either some historical trace of what actually happened to Jesus’ corpse or at least some competing legends. But all our sources are unanimous on Jesus’ honorable interment by Joseph.

        For these and other reasons, the majority of New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is “one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus. [1]

        FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following:

        1. The empty tomb story is also part of the old passion source used by Mark. The passion source used by Mark did not end in death and defeat, but with the empty tomb story, which is grammatically of one piece with the burial story.

        2. The old tradition cited by Paul in I Cor. 15.3-5 implies the fact of the empty tomb. For any first century Jew, to say that of a dead man “that he was buried and that he was raised” is to imply that a vacant grave was left behind. Moreover, the expression “on the third day” probably derives from the women’s visit to the tomb on the third day, in Jewish reckoning, after the crucifixion. The four-line tradition cited by Paul summarizes both the gospel accounts and the early apostolic preaching (Acts 13. 28-31); significantly, the third line of the tradition corresponds to the empty tomb story.

        3. The story is simple and lacks signs of legendary embellishment. All one has to do to appreciate this point is to compare Mark’s account with the wild legendary stories found in the second-century apocryphal gospels, in which Jesus is seen coming out of the tomb with his head reaching up above the clouds and followed by a talking cross!

        4. The fact that women’s testimony was discounted in first century Palestine stands in favor of the women’s role in discovering the empty tomb. According to Josephus, the testimony of women was regarded as so worthless that it could not even be admitted into a Jewish court of law. Any later legendary story would certainly have made male disciples discover the empty tomb.

        5. The earliest Jewish allegation that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body (Matt. 28.15) shows that the body was in fact missing from the tomb. The earliest Jewish response to the disciples’ proclamation, “He is risen from the dead!” was not to point to his occupied tomb and to laugh them off as fanatics, but to claim that they had taken away Jesus’ body. Thus, we have evidence of the empty tomb from the very opponents of the early Christians.

        One could go on, but I think that enough has been said to indicate why, in the words of Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist in the resurrection, “By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.” [2]

        FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.

        This is a fact which is almost universally acknowledged among New Testament scholars, for the following reasons:

        1. The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances which is quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15. 5-7 guarantees that such appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter (Cephas), the Twelve, the 500 brethren, and James.

        2. The appearance traditions in the gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of these appearances. This is one of the most important marks of historicity. The appearance to Peter is independently attested by Luke, and the appearance to the Twelve by Luke and John. We also have independent witness to Galilean appearances in Mark, Matthew, and John, as well as to the women in Matthew and John.

        3. Certain appearances have earmarks of historicity. For example, we have good evidence from the gospels that neither James nor any of Jesus’ younger brothers believed in him during his lifetime. There is no reason to think that the early church would generate fictitious stories concerning the unbelief of Jesus’ family had they been faithful followers all along. But it is indisputable that James and his brothers did become active Christian believers following Jesus’ death. James was considered an apostle and eventually rose to the position of leadership of the Jerusalem church. According to the first century Jewish historian Josephus, James was martyred for his faith in Christ in the late AD 60s. Now most of us have brothers. What would it take to convince you that your brother is the Lord, such that you would be ready to die for that belief? Can there be any doubt that this remarkable transformation in Jesus’ younger brother took place because, in Paul’s words, “then he appeared to James”?

        Even Gert L¸demann, the leading German critic of the resurrection, himself admits, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” [3]

        FACT #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary. Think of the situation the disciples faced after Jesus’ crucifixion:

        1. Their leader was dead. And Jews had no belief in a dying, much less rising, Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to throw off Israel’s enemies (= Rome) and re-establish a Davidic reign—not suffer the ignominious death of criminal.

        2. According to Jewish law, Jesus’ execution as a criminal showed him out to be a heretic, a man literally under the curse of God (Deut. 21.23). The catastrophe of the crucifixion for the disciples was not simply that their Master was gone, but that the crucifixion showed, in effect, that the Pharisees had been right all along, that for three years they had been following a heretic, a man accursed by God!

        3. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection at the end of the world. All the disciples could do was to preserve their Master’s tomb as a shrine where his bones could reside until that day when all of Israel’s righteous dead would be raised by God to glory.

        Despite all this, the original disciples believed in and were willing to go to their deaths for the fact of Jesus’ resurrection. Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar from Emory University, muses, “some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was . . . .” [4] N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, “that is why, as a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.” [5]

        In summary, there are four facts agreed upon by the majority of scholars who have written on these subjects which any adequate historical hypothesis must account for: Jesus’ entombment by Joseph of Arimathea, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

        Now the question is: what is the best explanation of these four facts? Most sholars probably remain agnostic about this question. But the Christian can maintain that the hypothesis that best explains these facts is “God raised Jesus from the dead.”

        In his book Justifying Historical Descriptions, historian C. B. McCullagh lists six tests which historians use in determining what is the best explanation for given historical facts. [6] The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” passes all these tests:

        1. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and why the Christian faith came into being.

        2. It has great explanatory power: it explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people repeatedly saw Jesus alive despite his earlier public execution, and so forth.

        3. It is plausible: given the historical context of Jesus’ own unparalleled life and claims, the resurrection serves as divine confirmation of those radical claims.

        4. It is not ad hoc or contrived: it requires only one additional hypothesis: that God exists. And even that needn’t be an additional hypothesis if one already believes that God exists.

        5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis: “God raised Jesus from the dead” doesn’t in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don’t rise naturally from the dead. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead.

        6. It far outstrips any of its rival hypotheses in meeting conditions (1)-(5). Down through history various alternative explanations of the facts have been offered, for example, the conspiracy hypothesis, the apparent death hypothesis, the hallucination hypothesis, and so forth. Such hypotheses have been almost universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. None of these naturalistic hypotheses succeeds in meeting the conditions as well as the resurrection hypothesis.”


      2. Your entire response is apologetic and I have heard all these arguments numerous times.

        So let’s back this up, take it in small bite size pieces, and see just how honest you are and how well you understand the historical method.
        To this end, I reiterate:

        What tomb?
        Where is it?
        What archaeological evidence is there for this tomb?


      3. It is not necessary to have a specific tomb in mind in order to establish that Jesus was buried in a tomb. Similarly, it is not necessary to have physical, archaeological evidence for every single thing that is established in historical investigation ( otherwise we would know next to nothing even about recent history). To establish that a historical figure wore glasses, you don’t need to have their actual glasses in your possession and you don’t need to know exactly what type the glasses were, or how it looked etc. You only need good sources, preferably independent, telling you that so and so wore glasses.


      4. Rubbish!
        Now you are hand waving.
        You state as absolute fact that there was a tomb and now you are equivocating!

        You have no independent sources.
        Stop behaving so childish.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s