Interview on Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus
I am working on a book about the alleged resurrection of Jesus, which is titled Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus. I have completed a DRAFT of Chapter 1 of the book, and was recently interviewed by the British skeptic Jonathan Pearce, who has himself written a skeptical book on the resurrection (The Resurrection: A Critical Examination of the Easter Story):
Here is a DRAFT of Chapter 1 of my book Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus. In this book, I will critically examine the case for the resurrection of Jesus made by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA):
Their case is based primarily on their attempts to refute four skeptical theories. If they FAIL to refute one or more of those skeptical theories, then their case for the resurrection of Jesus FAILS. I will argue that they FAIL to refute ANY of the four skeptical theories that they attack.
I will also argue that refuting all four skeptical theories would NOT prove the Christian view to be correct, because there are MANY other possible skeptical theories besides the four they attempt to refute. I will argue that their attempt to prove the resurrection of Jesus is a complete and utter failure from start to finish.
One of the skeptical theories they attempt to refute is the Swoon Theory. In Chapter 1, I will critically evaluate each of the nine objections they raise against the Swoon Theory, and I will show that each of those objections FAILS. If I am correct that they have FAILED to refute the Swoon Theory, then that is sufficient reason to conclude that their case for the resurrection FAILS.
Before one can intelligently EVALUATE an objection or argument, one must first understand the objection/argument. I call this initial phase ARGUMENT ANALYSIS. Because ARGUMENT ANALYSIS is less interesting for most readers than ARGUMENT EVALUATION, I plan to put my analysis of the objections to the skeptical theories in an appendix.
Nevertheless, ARGUMENT ANALYSIS is a crucial part of critical thinking, and anyone who is lacking in skill or ability in ARGUMENT ANALYSIS will not be able to do a good job of ARGUMENT EVALUATION, and thus will not be much of a critical thinker. The EVALUATION of arguments is central to critical thinking, and since ARGUMENT ANALYSIS is essential to ARGUMENT EVALUATION, it is also essential to critical thinking.
The document at the link below is a DRAFT of my ARGUMENT ANALYSIS of each of the nine objections raised by Kreeft and Tacelli against the Swoon Theory: