Torley on The Resurrection: Take Two

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@MJAlter

The major question that I offer is: Is there sufficient reason to change one’s faith based on testimony [written accounts] that are not confirmed or multi attested. In addition, the narratives are confusing, contradictory, demonstrate embellishments, written for theological reasons, and… Would you willing to change your faith based on the testimony of one person? In addition, the accounts and/or witnesses are anonymous!

As I see it, you have not presented even the beginnings of an argument that will challenge an informed Christian, or even a secular historian. We can talk about what could change my mind, but we aren’t even in the right ballpark here.

@MJAlter

Response: You are assuming that historical record is FACTUAL - I and many others do not. The burden is on proponents to demonstrate that the records are, literally historical facts [TRUE] and worthy to be a reason to change one’s faith.

No, this is not true.

I once again ask you to try and articulate what our objections are, so that we know you are understanding them. From there you can tell us why they are wrong.

@swamidass

@MJAlter it is not clear you understand @dga471 and my critique of your arguments. A few requests and questions…

1. What is a Gish Gallop? Why are we calling your book a Gish Gallop?
2. What is your historical methodology? Have you rigorously applied this to other events from the same period? Why is this important to us?
3. Can you enumerate the critiques of the historians you have relied upon? Can you enumerate the evidence behind these critiques? Why is this important to us?
4. Can you identify any historians who are willing to put their reputations behind your book? Who are they? Why is this important to us?

Though not part of your argument, I find your embrace of apologetics amusing. Why is a Jewish man emulating the “apologia” he disagrees with by becoming an apologist? Even among Christians, apologetics has a low reputation.

I’d like to start with those number questions yet. I’m hoping you can at least cogently explain our critique. Don’t worry about rebutting yet, because that will take longer time. As soon as you can articulate at least one of these critiques cogently, we can then address whether it is valid. Until we get on the same intellectual page here, further conversation is only valuable so as to clarify how @dga471, @Freakazoid and I would answer for you.

Once again you do not need to agree with us, but it will help immensely if you can show you’ve actually heard the substance our critique.