RESURRECTION DODGEBALL (ANOTHER TRUE UNDERDOG STORY):

A Critical Review of the Habermas-Licona-Carrier Exchange

By David Wood

What should an atheist apologist do when facing not one, but two specialists in historical Jesus studies, and the topic is the resurrection of Jesus? Should he confront the evidence head-on, knowing perfectly well that the arguments he uses among his hyperskeptical friends are practically useless against people who’ve done the research? Or should he avoid the evidence by diverting the discussion to secondary issues, knowing that if he can’t refute the data, he can at least keep people sidetracked for a while? 

Many atheists would reject the idea that their arguments are useless against scholars; however, I don’t mean this as an insult. It’s a simple fact that there is often a tremendous gulf between popular arguments and scholarly critiques, and this goes for Christians as well as atheists. For instance, a pastor might give members of his congregation a basic Design Argument to use when discussing God’s existence with their skeptical friends. This may help them defend their beliefs, but it would be unwise to use the same argument in a debate with, say, Richard Dawkins. To debate Dawkins, better evidence and a far more sophisticated approach are needed. 

Similarly, an atheist apologist may give his readers a collection of arguments they can use when discussing the resurrection. But it would be quite presumptuous to think that such arguments would be effective against, say, William Lane Craig. While I grant that certain important objections may be raised against the resurrection, it’s no secret that practically all atheistic responses are utterly at odds with the facts we know about Jesus and his followers. (Note: If you just thought to yourself, “But we don’t really know anything about Jesus and his followers,” you now have a perfect example of a claim that is thoroughly rejected by scholars, despite what atheists get away with saying on infidels.org.) Thus, if an atheist is going to offer a convincing response to the resurrection, he needs something more plausible than “Maybe Jesus passed out on the cross and woke up later,” or “Perhaps the disciples just hallucinated.”

The problem for atheists is that criticisms of the resurrection don’t get much better at the scholarly level. The arguments may become more sophisticated, but this doesn’t mean that they become more plausible. Nor does it mean that they account for the evidence any better. We may contrast this with, for instance, Design Arguments, which can be developed as rigorously as a scientist’s mind will allow. To put it differently, certain Design Arguments seem superficial, but on closer examination they turn out to be thoroughly grounded in science and reason. Criticisms of the resurrection, on the other hand, also seem superficial, but closer inspection only shows that they are superficial.

What, then, should an atheist do when discussing the resurrection with Christian scholars? I’m not sure what the best approach would be, but if I were still an atheist, I would probably go ahead and use the standard atheist responses, even though they don’t fare well under scrutiny. 

Recently, however, Richard Carrier used a different approach in his discussion with Gary Habermas and Mike Licona. The dialogue took place on The Infidel Guy Show, hosted by the “Infidel Guy” himself, Reginald Finley, Sr. The purpose of the show was to allow Gary and Mike to present their case for the resurrection of Jesus, and to see if this case could withstand questions and objections from Richard and Reginald. Everything went quite well for the first twenty minutes, as Reginald asked some important foundational questions and Gary and Mike began laying out their claims. Nevertheless, the discussion suddenly changed direction when Richard got involved, and, despite Gary’s valiant efforts to stick to the issue, the participants were bogged down in secondary matters for the rest of the program.  

Some listeners, I’m sure, were disappointed with the discussion. For those who demand focused arguments and questions, and for those who are looking for a detailed defense of the resurrection or significant objections to it, the program will indeed be disappointing. But for more flexible listeners, I think it will be a delightful show (i.e., if you’re not rigid in your demand for structure and relevance, I highly recommend going to infidelguy.com and spending $1.50 to download the program.) To be sure, Richard’s digressions detract from the overall value of the show; nevertheless, there are several features that make up for the difficulties. First, though Richard’s objections seem somewhat irrelevant at times, some of them are quite common among atheists, and it was good to see them addressed. Second, the conversational format gave rise to a fast-paced and lively dialogue—a refreshing contrast to formal debates, which some find dry or even boring. Third, through careful analysis of the show we can glean several important insights regarding atheism and its proponents. I will discuss three such insights in this review:

(1) While Richard’s writings contain a number of arguments that relate directly to the claims made by Mike and Gary at the beginning of the show, Richard didn’t use these arguments, even though they would have been far more relevant than the questions he asked. This should make listeners wonder whether Richard has genuine confidence in the arguments he so confidently posits in his writings (where the arguments are exempt from immediate scholarly criticism). 

(2) Anyone who regularly talks to atheists (or Christians, Muslims, etc.) can tell the difference between someone who is actually interested in the evidence and someone who is only concerned with maintaining his own position. The difference between the two types of people can be seen in how they react to the answers given in response to their questions. A person who is truly interested in the evidence will carefully listen when his opponent refutes his claim, and he will acknowledge when the facts pose a problem for his position. But a person whose only motive is to adhere to his own beliefs acts quite differently. As soon as he sees that his opponent is refuting his claim, he quickly changes the subject and moves on to something else. Hence, he’s not really seeking answers to his questions. Rather, he’s only trying to stump the opposition, and when he sees that a particular line of questioning isn’t working, he will proceed to a different argument.

We can clearly see this latter approach in the Habermas-Licona-Carrier exchange. The last forty minutes of the discussion consisted of Richard bringing up one topic after another, constantly trying to baffle Gary and Mike, and quickly backing down whenever things didn’t go according to plan. Listeners should observe this tactic so that we can recognize it. Whether it’s being employed by atheists or Christians, the “change-the-topic-as-soon-as-you-start-to-lose-the-point” strategy needs to be confronted if meaningful dialogue is to continue.

(3) As we shall see, this episode of The Infidel Guy Show is an outstanding illustration of the difference between what qualifies as evidence for an atheist and what qualifies for a Christian. Richard and Reginald ask Gary and Mike for evidence, and Gary and Mike present what they consider to be good evidence. But it’s obvious that the two sides have different standards. Based on these different standards, I think we can distinguish two types of people: those who ask God to fill their cups with evidence, and those who tell God that he must fill their bottomless pits with evidence.

These are, for me at least, the most important aspects of the discussion. A summary of the show will help bear out my points.

A Promising Start—The First Twenty Minutes

The show got off to a good start. Reginald did an excellent job moving the discussion forward and allowing Gary and Mike to explain their points. Reginald began by asking why Christians need to defend the resurrection. Mike said that the resurrection is the cornerstone of Christianity, because Jesus made it so by claiming that he would rise from the dead. Hence, if the resurrection is true, then those who reject Christianity need to change their worldview. But if Jesus didn’t rise, then Christians should find something better to do. Either way, it’s an important topic. Gary added that, while a person may believe in or deny the resurrection by faith, the New Testament position is quite different, for it offers the resurrection as a historical foundation for belief, not simply as a tenet of blind faith.

After this brief but important groundwork, Reginald asked the Christian side how we can know that Jesus was a historical figure. This was a bit off-topic, but quite understandable. Many of the show’s listeners have absorbed the ideas of the handful of “Internet Infidels” who subscribe to the “Jesus-myth” theory, and thus may not be aware of the fact that not a single major scholar in the world takes it seriously.[1] Gary responded by noting that wherever we look, either at the New Testament or outside the New Testament, we find abundant evidence that Jesus existed. If we go to the New Testament (and virtually all critical scholars use the New Testament to some degree), historians have plenty of material to conclude that Jesus existed. But even if we reject the New Testament altogether, there are 17-18 non-Christian sources written within 100-150 years of the crucifixion, from which we can gather 48-50 comments about Jesus. If we add a third category—Christian writings outside the New Testament—we can gather a few other facts.

Having given Gary an opportunity to outline the evidence for Jesus’ existence, Reginald turned to Mike for the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. Here Mike explained the “minimal facts” approach, which employs facts that meet two criteria: (1) they must be strongly evidenced, and (2) they must be acknowledged by the vast majority of scholars. Using these two criteria, Gary has assembled twelve facts that relate to the resurrection of Jesus. Mike suggested that these facts could be condensed to three important claims:

(1) Jesus died by crucifixion;

(2) Shortly after his burial, the tomb was empty; and

(3) Some of his closest followers (and at least two people who weren’t originally followers) believed that he had risen from the dead and that he had appeared to them.

Mike went on to say that historians seek hypotheses that fit the facts. Once the hypotheses have been narrowed down to those that account for the facts, the best explanation can be selected, and we can have confidence in this explanation to the degree that it outdistances other explanations. Mike concluded by saying that he and Gary both think that there is extraordinary evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

At this point, Reginald asked Mike and Gary for further evidence that Jesus existed and that he rose from the dead. However, in a moment of clarity that he lacked for the rest of the program, Richard said that Jesus’ existence should be granted for purposes of the discussion. (Of course, this may have simply been a careful move on Richard’s part, so that listeners wouldn’t see how flimsy the Jesus-myth theory is.) Reginald agreed with Richard, and attention shifted back to the resurrection. Gary then began an analysis of the early Christian creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff, which states that Jesus died, that he was buried, that he was raised from the dead on the third day, and that he appeared to a number of witnesses. Gary gave a number of reasons for giving this material an extremely early date:

(1) Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in 55 AD.

(2) Paul says that he delivered this material to the Corinthians when he visited them a few years earlier (~51 AD).

(3) There are 8-10 literary features in the text showing that the material in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff was an early Christian creed.

(4) Paul most likely received this creed when he visited the Apostles around 35 AD.

(5) The creed would therefore predate Paul’s visit to Jerusalem.

(6) Critical scholars give the creed an extremely early date. For instance, atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann places it around 33 AD. The notoriously liberal Jesus Seminar places it at 32 AD (or earlier). James D. G. Dunn and Gerald O’Collins date the creed to 30 AD (i.e. within months of Jesus’ crucifixion).

Since this material is very early, and since we can trace reports of Jesus’ death, burial, and appearances back to eyewitnesses, we have evidence that needs to be accounted for. If the resurrection hypothesis is the best explanation for this evidence, and if no other explanation plausibly accounts for the data, then Christians would appear to be amply justified when they claim that a miracle has occurred.

Thus ended the clearest and most pertinent portion of the program. Gary and Mike argued (1) that the resurrection is an important topic for both Christians and non-Christians, (2) that there is overwhelming evidence for Jesus’ existence, (3) that Jesus’ death by crucifixion, the empty tomb, and the belief of Jesus’ followers that he had appeared to them are all historical facts, and (4) that the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff is extremely early material that points to Jesus’ resurrection.

If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Change the Subject

In his writings and talks, Richard has argued that Jesus probably never existed, that Jesus may have survived crucifixion, that the empty tomb was a legend invented by Mark, that Christians originally believed in a spiritual resurrection, that Paul believed that Jesus’ body was exchanged for another body, and many other things. (For my critique of some of Richard’s claims, see my review of his debate with Mike Licona, and my review of his book.) We would therefore expect Richard to have plenty of objections to the claims laid out in the first portion of the discussion. Of course, Richard must know that his objections only work when they go unchallenged; nevertheless, we would still expect him to offer some significant criticisms.

Interestingly, Richard opted for an entirely different approach. Instead of raising historical objections against the historical claims of Gary and Mike in this discussion about the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, Richard decided to take things in another direction:

. . . I’d like to ask a sort of side question to sort of see where you are in the context of this whole debate, which has to do not with that particular vision or appearance, but with other things that were going on in the church. For example, in the book of Acts, the Apostles are having vivid and powerful visions and dream communications from God all the time. We hear of similar experiences reported in that era from Jews and pagans, who are also having vivid and powerful visions and dream communications from a variety of different gods and angels. And so my question is: how do you explain this? Why isn’t this happening now, today, and why was that happening back then, even to pagans and Jews, who weren’t seeing or hearing what the Christians were seeing or hearing?

Richard’s questions, then, were:

(1) Why were pagans, Jews, and Christians all experiencing dreams and visions in the ancient world?

and

(2) Why are there no dreams and visions today?

Notice that neither question had anything to do with the historical evidence for the resurrection. Whether pagans and Jews experienced dreams and visions or not is irrelevant to the resurrection, because Jesus’ appearances, according to Mike and Gary, were bodily. (It would have been up to Richard to show otherwise, but he didn’t.) Similarly, whether people experience dreams and visions today doesn’t say much about Jesus’ resurrection two thousand years ago. The discussion that followed Richard’s questions was a bit frustrating (click here for an atheist’s account of his frustration with Richard), because he and Gary seemed to be arguing past one another. Gary mistakenly thought that Richard was raising an objection against the resurrection, and he therefore set out to show that the resurrection was categorically different from dreams and visions. Richard, however, was apparently intent on discussing dreams and visions (and the lack thereof in our own time), so he strongly resisted Gary’s attempts to bring the dialogue back to the historical evidence.

It is significant to note that Richard was utterly defeated on these points. Gary brought up the work of Theodor Keim, a critic who realized more than a hundred years ago that the resurrection appearances are distinct from the dreams and visions reported elsewhere in the New Testament. Amazingly, following Gary’s analysis, Richard said that he didn’t want to talk about the Gospels,[2] nor did he want to talk about what the appearances meant for Paul. He wanted to talk about dreams and visions, and nothing else:

. . . I don’t want to focus so much on what you think Paul meant when he said Jesus appeared. But I want to try and understand how it is that you explain the frequency of these visions and so forth. These Christians were constantly having communications from God in powerful visions in a way that doesn’t happen to Christians today. And at the same time the Christians weren’t the only ones experiencing this phenomenon. The Jews and pagans were as well back then. And I’m just curious to understand how you make sense of this.

Gary again mistakenly thought that Richard was raising an objection against the resurrection, and so he argued once again that there is a categorical difference between, on the one hand, the resurrection appearances, and, on the other hand, dreams and visions. He claimed that there must have been a difference between resurrection appearances and other phenomena, since witnessing the former was a criterion for apostleship. In other words, in order to be an Apostle, one was required to have seen Jesus, not merely to have had a dream or vision. Since mere dreams and visions didn’t make one an Apostle, there must have been something different about the resurrection appearances. Gary also showed, based on the work of N.T. Wright, that the New Testament teaching was that the resurrection appearances were bodily. The point of all this was to show that dreams and visions were irrelevant to the discussion.

Richard never seemed to grasp this point. When Gary said that dreams and visions weren’t important, Richard took it to mean that Gary didn’t care about the nature of these phenomena. It was clear to listeners, however, that they were coming at this from two different angles. Gary was focused on historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus; the nature of dreams and visions elsewhere in the New Testament has little to do with the nature of Jesus’ bodily appearances. Further, as far as evidence is concerned, dreams and visions are private experiences. That is, we have no way of historically investigating the nature of someone’s dream or of Peter’s vision in Acts 10. As such, these phenomena carry little weight in a historical investigation, and this is why Gary resisted talking about them. Richard, on the other hand, thought that these experiences were somehow significant in discussing the resurrection appearances. But since he never showed that Jesus’ resurrection appearances were in the same category as other phenomena, Richard’s claims failed. As a historian, he should have known that people should focus on things we can investigate, rather than on things they can’t investigate. Since we can investigate Jesus’ death, burial, and appearances, Gary and Mike were absolutely correct in drawing attention to these facts and in not straying to areas outside the historian’s reach. In attempting to divert the discussion to irrelevant issues (e.g., demanding an explanation of phenomena that we can’t investigate historically), Richard seemed as if he didn’t want to deal with the actual data. Gary, then, clearly won this point, and Richard moved on to the other part of his question:

What I’m trying to get at is not what the possible explanations for the resurrection appearances were. I mean that’s a related issue. But the thing is that there’s a whole phenomenon going on back in the ancient world of people clearly believing that God is talking to them, that angels and gods and so forth are appearing to them—pagans, Jews, and Christians—this is happening all the time, and it’s not happening now at all. And I think this is problematic. What explains this change in the whole atmosphere of the world?

Notice that Richard didn’t want to talk about “possible explanations for the resurrection appearances” (which would have been relevant to the topic); instead, he was absolutely set on discussing why dreams and visions (which had already been shown to be fundamentally different from the resurrection appearances) don’t occur in the modern world. This, of course, is entirely irrelevant (and completely false).[3] However, Reginald made the objection somewhat relevant by changing the emphasis to miraculous events. This was still a bit off-topic, but it was far more relevant than Richard’s digression. Reginald said that it seems strange that miraculous events occurred in the ancient world, yet they don’t occur now, at least not in any verifiable form. (Click here for a critique of the idea that no miracles today would imply no miracles in the past.)

Gary replied that we do see miraculous phenomena today, and he gave three examples. First, he said that he knows of three cases of spontaneous remissions of cancer (i.e. something that would appear to be divine healings). As an example, he mentioned a man with cancer throughout his body who was given a few weeks to live. The man was prayed for, and when the doctors went in to examine him, they found that the cancer was completely gone. Second, Gary talked briefly about two double-blind prayer studies, in which prayer was shown to play a role in healing. Reginald missed the point here, suggesting that the people may have simply felt better because they were being prayed for. But Gary said that the studies were double-blind, meaning that the people didn’t know who was being prayed for and who wasn’t (the doctor doing the examinations wouldn’t have known either). Finally, Gary talked about near-death experiences (NDEs), some of which provide strong evidence that life continues even after the death of the body. It was significant that he was drawing his material only from reliable sources such as medical journals.

Richard’s reaction to these claims was enlightening. He didn’t respond to Gary’s first two claims. Instead, he objected that people from religions other than Christianity also have near-death experiences, and some of them see other gods. If we recall that Gary was simply challenged to give some evidence that supernatural events occur in our time, we may wonder why Richard didn’t offer more penetrating criticisms (especially since this topic came from the atheists). Gary answered that he’s only interested in corroborative cases, i.e. near-death experiences that can be confirmed (because the patient was brain-dead, or was able to see something outside the room, etc.). Richard then asked whether only Christians have corroborative NDEs, and here he seemed to be grasping at straws. Most Christians don’t believe that only Christians survive death. Indeed, most Christians believe that non-Christians will see God when they die (if only for judgment). How, then, is it relevant to say that non-Christians have corroborative NDEs? Richard went on to inquire about cases that involve other gods, but Gary pointed out that there are no corroborative cases involving either gods or God. They are mostly earthly experiences, while some involve heaven or even hell. Throughout the discussion, Richard seemed to think that Gary was bringing up NDEs as evidence for Christianity. But he wasn’t. Gary talked about NDEs as (1) evidence of the supernatural (which Reginald and Richard deny), and (2) something to indicate that the resurrection of Jesus isn’t completely isolated from everything else we know. If there is indeed life after death, this should greatly increase our openness to religious claims.

At this stage in the discussion, unable to give effective responses to Gary’s examples, Richard complained that they were getting off-topic. Gary naturally pointed out that he had resisted leaving the resurrection, and that it was Reginald and Richard who wanted to discuss modern supernatural events. Reginald then rightly noted that they weren’t entirely off-topic, since evidence for supernatural events today makes the resurrection more believable.

This marked the end of the second portion of the discussion, which was a long digression to answer Richard’s claims that (1) other people in the ancient world experienced dreams and visions, and (2) no one experiences such phenomena today. Since by this point (~40 minutes into the show) Richard hadn’t been able to raise a single substantial objection to the resurrection, it was obvious that a final desperate attempt was coming.

Evidence Shmevidence

It was clearly time to bring the discussion back to the resurrection, and Mike attempted to do so. Returning to Richard’s earlier objection, Mike clarified the difference between visions and Jesus’ resurrection appearances. He again brought up the empty tomb, and he emphasized that the term “resurrection” used by the early Christians meant that a physical body must have been involved. Since these were physical appearances, they were obviously different from mere visions.

Rather than objecting to the empty tomb or to Mike’s claim that “resurrection” meant that something had happened to the corpse, Richard asserted that there are many resurrection accounts in pagan literature. Mike and Gary both responded that there are none that predate Christianity, and here Mike appealed to the work of T. N. D. Mettinger. Mettinger holds that while there were accounts of dying and rising gods prior to Christianity, these accounts are quite different from what we find in the New Testament. Mettinger also says that there’s no ground for thinking that Christianity borrowed from these other accounts.

After Richard claimed that there are pre-Christian resurrection accounts, Mike and Gary asked him to produce one. Richard presumably used his best example—Zalmoxis. The discussion that followed was quite confused (and irrelevant). Mike focused on Herodotus’ claim that Zalmoxis never died (which would mean that he wasn’t resurrected), while Richard argued that this was the claim of the doubters, not of the Thracians. Richard seems correct here, in that Herodotus was giving his view of the Thracian belief. The Thracians apparently believed that something supernatural had taken place. Nevertheless, I think the text hardly proves belief in a resurrection. Zalmoxis was a Pythagorean, which means that he most likely taught some form of reincarnation. It seems reasonable to think that his followers would have subscribed to a similar view, so they may have believed that Zalmoxis returned to life in a different (albeit identical) body. It must also be noted that we have no indication from the text that Zalmoxis’ followers had any good reason for thinking that he had died. Based on what Herodotus tells us, it sounds as if Zalmoxis disappeared for a few years, and his followers mistakenly concluded that he was dead. Then, when he reappeared, his followers concluded that he was immortal. Thus, this is scarcely a parallel to Jesus’ resurrection. Jesus was publicly executed, and he appeared to many followers. There is therefore good evidence both for his death and for his resurrection. With Zalmoxis, we have at best an ungrounded belief that he had returned to life in some sense. Again, this was presumably Richard’s best example of a pre-Christian belief in resurrection.

The issue of Zalmoxis, of course, had little to do with the historical evidence for the resurrection. Even if there had been widespread belief in resurrections prior to Christianity, this wouldn’t mean that we should ignore the evidence for Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. Hence, at nearly 50 minutes into the program, Richard still hadn’t raised a significant objection to Mike and Gary’s case.

By now, however, the discussion was spiraling downward. In an attempt to score some last minute points, Richard asked the probing question: “Why does God give me more evidence that smoking cigarettes is harmful than he gives me that Jesus lives?”[4] Once again, Richard’s question had nothing to do with the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. He was simply implying that it wouldn’t be fair for God to judge us, since God hasn’t given us enough evidence for the resurrection. But these are separate issues. It’s one thing to say that the evidence shows that Jesus rose from the dead. It’s another thing to argue about how much evidence God should give us if he’s going to base salvation on our belief in a historical event. Richard entirely ignores the former in favor of the latter. But the topic of the discussion was the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, not the fairness of God in judging us based on the resurrection.

Reginald added that his ability to believe in Jesus’ resurrection would be greatly increased if he could see the limb of an amputee regenerated. Gary asked why a spontaneous remission of cancer (following prayer) wouldn’t qualify as a miracle, and Reginald’s response was illuminating. He replied that there are spontaneous remissions of cancer that don’t involve prayer (although he couldn’t think of any), so there must be possible naturalistic explanations for this sort of thing. I would have to see some of Reginald’s spontaneous natural remissions of cancer to believe him; however, I don’t see how this would really help him. Consider an example. Suppose certain blind people, on rare occasions, hit their heads on something and suddenly regain their sight. This would mean that there are natural explanations for sight-restoration. Now suppose a blind man is walking down the street, and a preacher walks up to him and says, “In the name of Jesus, receive your sight,” and the blind man spontaneously regains his sight. Would it be reasonable to say, “Well, since other blind people have regained their sight, this probably isn’t a miracle”? Of course not. The point is this. It would be a remarkable coincidence if the person naturally regained his sight when the preacher commanded him to regain it. Similarly, it would be an amazing coincidence if a person’s cancer suddenly and naturally disappeared right after some people prayed for him.

The rest of the discussion consisted of Richard and Reginald suggesting ways God could have done things better. Jesus could have appeared in China and to the Roman government. God should have given us better arguments and evidences. Gary responded that an impressive cumulative case for Christianity can be made, with arguments for the resurrection, NDEs, Intelligent Design, healings, etc., but it was too late. The conversation had degenerated to “Why doesn’t God give me more, more, more?” Once it reaches that point, arguments are no longer helpful.

Assessment

At least three things are clear from the Habermas-Licona-Carrier exchange. First, Richard’s primary objections to the resurrection are not historical. In an hour-long discussion, he didn’t raise a single important objection to the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. He argued that in the ancient world many people experienced dreams and visions, but Gary and Mike showed that the resurrection was fundamentally different from dreams and visions. Richard also argued that people don’t experience dreams and visions today, but this only showed that he needs to get out more. In the end, Richard’s argument seemed to be that God should give enough evidence to convince people who don’t want to be convinced. Whether this is true or not is beside the point. It has practically nothing to do with whether there is historical evidence for the resurrection.

I think the bias-factor here is important. Richard obviously doesn’t examine the evidence objectively. Indeed, he seemed incapable of soberly weighing the facts. Apparently, when Richard encounters a miracle claim, he thinks to himself, “Surely if God exists, he would have appeared to me and everyone else. But he didn’t appear to me and everyone else, so he must not exist. Therefore, no miracle has occurred, so who cares what the evidence is?” Only after Richard has come to this conclusion does he go on to analyze the evidence, with a strong bias against it. If many atheists proceed similarly (and I imagine they do), we might wonder why atheists so often accuse theists of being biased.

Second, this bias can make rational discussion quite difficult. Gary and Mike were invited to discuss the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, but they quickly found themselves discussing entirely different issues. I suspect that if Michael Behe were invited to discuss Intelligent Design on a show with Richard, Behe would soon be confronted with the question, “Why does God give me more evidence that drugs are bad than he gives me for believing that he designed the bacterial flagellum?” While such a question may be important to Richard, it’s hardly the most relevant issue in a discussion about Intelligent Design.  

Third, this episode of The Infidel Guy Show allowed careful listeners to witness the difference between two types of people.[5] In his famous Meditations on First Philosophy, Rene Descartes said, “I have reason to give thanks to him who has never owed me anything for the great bounty that he has shown me, rather than thinking myself deprived or robbed of any gifts he did not bestow.”[6] Of course, Descartes could quite easily have complained about the gifts God hadn’t given him, but he chose to be thankful for what God had bestowed. This calls attention to a stark contrast between Mike and Gary on the one hand, and Richard and Reginald on the other. Mike and Gary ask God for evidence, and they are happy when God gives them a resurrection. It never occurs to them to say, “What? Only one resurrection? We want more, and we won’t believe in God until he gives us what we want!”

Richard and Reginald are a little different. They demand evidence. But when the evidence for the resurrection is presented to them, they immediately start looking for a way out. “Where’s the flaw? Where’s the escape door? We only need one excuse, no matter how flimsy, to reject this miracle.” Indeed, in the discussion we just reviewed, the atheist side never even bothered looking for a flaw in the case for the resurrection. Instead, they raised a united cry: “He only appeared to 500 people! That’s not enough for us. If God wants us to believe in him, he’s going to have to do a lot better than that. We’re talking China and Rome.”

To this I may add something that Reginald quoted at the end of the show. After Gary, Mike, and Richard had signed off, Reginald read the following comment by one of his listeners: “The point, of course, is that their God doesn’t heal the things that would be impossible to refute as divine intervention. Their God only heals the things that still leave us having to doubt.” Here the writer says that the things God does can be “refuted” as divine acts. This is, to say the least, absurd. No one can refute a healing as a divine act, just as no one can refute the resurrection as a divine act. What the writer means is that God doesn’t do the things that would make it impossible to doubt. God, according to the atheist, should do something so amazing that we couldn’t possibly doubt it. But as I’ve shown elsewhere, there is nothing God could do that we couldn’t doubt. Reginald suggested that God should regenerate some limbs. But all atheists would have to posit is that the human body has some amazing, yet unknown, healing powers. Reginald also argued that God should appear to everyone. Wouldn’t this remove all doubt? I doubt it. If God were to appear to us, there would still be a group of skeptics saying either that we’re all having a mass delusion, or that powerful aliens are pretending to be God. There’s simply no end to the “I want more” obsession. If God goes three feet, we can always complain that he didn’t go five. If God gives us a Mercedes, we can always demand a yacht.

This may be a small part of the reason why God has arranged things as he has. Not giving us everything we want certainly generates complaints, but at the same time, this arrangement reveals something very important about us. It distinguishes those whose natural response to God’s gifts is gratitude from those who think that God’s sole purpose is to meet their demands.

(Click here for an excellent review of the Habermas-Carrier-Licona exchange, written by an atheist. To listen to the exchange, click here. For more articles on the work of Richard Carrier, click here. For a thorough refutation of Richard’s chapters in The Empty Tomb, click here. For more on Richard’s two-body hypothesis, click here.)

NOTES: