# Torley Presents Alter's Case Against the Resurrection

**URL:** https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/torley-presents-alters-case-against-the-resurrection/1817
**Category:** Side Conversation
**Tags:** History
**Created:** [September 24, 2018, 9:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/torley-presents-alters-case-against-the-resurrection/1817 "2018-09-24T21:20:47Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 77

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![vjtorley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/e36b37/32.png) [@vjtorley](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/vjtorley)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2018, 2:31pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/torley-presents-alters-case-against-the-resurrection/1817/77 "2018-10-03T14:31:13Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> If this summary is approximately correct, it raises many objections among us about the methodology you are using. It reminds of something called a “Gish Gallop.”

Hi Joshua,

For the benefit of readers, I’d just like to clarify what a Gish gallop is. RationalWiki defines it as follows:

> The **Gish Gallop** (also known as **proof by verbosity** [[1]](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop#cite_note-1)) is the [fallacious](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the [on the spot fallacy](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/On_the_spot_fallacy), as it’s unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer _immediately_ available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist [Duane Gish](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Duane_Gish), who often abused it.

Wikipedia defines it more succinctly:

> The **Gish gallop** is a technique used during [debating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate) that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments. The term was coined by [Eugenie C. Scott](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenie_C._Scott) and named after the [creationist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationist) [Duane T. Gish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_T._Gish), who used the technique frequently against proponents of evolution.

Wikipedia continues:

> During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with **a rapid series of many specious arguments** , half-truths, and misrepresentations **in a short space of time** , which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them **within the format of a formal debate**.[[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop#cite_note-Logan2000-3)[[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop#cite_note-Sonleitner2004-4) In practice, each point raised by the “Gish galloper” takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place.[[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop#cite_note--5) The technique wastes an opponent’s time and may cast doubt on the opponent’s debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved[[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop#cite_note-grant2011-6) or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.

[Here’s](https://speakingofresearch.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/gish_gallop_animal_testing_nonsense1.png) an example of what a “Gish gallop” looks like.

Readers will note that the Gish gallop is a _debating_ tactic, which is deliberately designed to score as many points as possible **over a short space of time**. To speak of a _book_ as employing a “Gish gallop” makes little sense - especially when the book in question is a lengthy tome, of some 912 pages, which takes _months_ to adequately digest. (I know, because it took me months to condense the arguments I liked best into an online format that readers could peruse at their leisure.) And even my _condensed_ version took up some 50,000 words. That’s hardly a gallop - especially when I explicitly stated at the beginning of my review:

> **WARNING:** This will be a very lengthy review, which few people will have time to read in its entirety. For readers whose time is very limited, here’s a brief, 5,000-word executive summary, which will be followed by a [main menu](http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/michael-alters-bombshell-demolishes-christian-apologists-case-for-the-resurrection/#X) that allows readers to navigate their way around the review, as they please, although I would ask serious readers to at least peruse [Section A](http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/michael-alters-bombshell-demolishes-christian-apologists-case-for-the-resurrection/#0). **There is no need to rush:** I don’t mind waiting a few days for people’s comments.

In his book, Michael Alter identifies some 120 contradictions and engages in 217 speculations (which he freely acknowledges are “nothing more than speculations” [2015, p. xlvi] over the space of 746 pages, excluding the extensive Bibliography). He quotes mostly from mainstream Biblical scholars, and his discussion is thorough. Personally, I don’t think it’s fair to call it a “Gish gallop.”

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/torley-presents-alters-case-against-the-resurrection/1817)._