My review of Lord or Legend, part 1, by Christian authors Gregory Body and Paul Eddy:
Of course, since we all agree that events generally happen in accordance with natural laws, it makes sense to prefer natural explanations over supernatural ones, all other things being equal. But this is quite different from assuming at the onset that all events must be explained in naturalistic terms. A more open-minded, scholarly approach would be to hold that, if all available natural explanations become implausible, we should consider explanations that go beyond the known natural laws that describe how the world generally operates.
Gary: I am so sick of hearing Christian apologists make this insincere statement. What they really mean is: “I want you atheists to accept a priori the reality of the supernatural. In addition, I want you atheists to abandon a standard of probability based on cumulative human experience for the last 100,000 or so years, and in its place, I want you to accept a view of probability based on the assumption that supernatural events occur all the time.”
But then ask Christians to evaluate the supernatural claims of Islam or Mormonism and you will see them revert to the very same standard of probability used by skeptics.
Christians are hypocrites on this issue. They don’t want to admit that their supernatural claims are just as implausible as are the claims of Islam, Mormonism, and other religions.
The plausible natural explanations for the Resurrection Belief are numerous. Here is just one:
- Someone moved the body.
- Cognitive dissonance (the psychological attempt to make a disagreeable reality congruent with your hopes and dreams) led to a new interpretation of the Jewish teaching on resurrection.
It’s that simple.
Read part 2 here.
End of post.