Analysis of 14 Objections to the Hallucination Theory
In their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) the Christian philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli claim to prove the resurrection of Jesus. Their argument can be summarized briefly:
1. There are only four possible skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus: Swoon, Hallucination, Conspiracy, and Myth.
2. IF Kreeft and Tacelli have refuted those four skeptical theories, THEN the Christian view about this is true (i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead).
3. Kreeft and Tacelli have refuted all four skeptical theories (in Chapter 8 of HCA).
4. The Christian view about this is true (i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead).
I am working on a book (called Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus) where I will show that Kreeft and Tacelli have failed to refute ANY of the four skeptical theories and that there are MANY other skeptical theories that they have failed to address. So, the key premise (1) is FALSE, the key premise (2) is FALSE, and the key premise (3) is also FALSE. Thus, I will argue that their case for the resurrection of Jesus is a complete and utter failure because it is based on premises that are all FALSE.
Recently I have been working on argument analysis of their fourteen objections against the Hallucination Theory, and I have completed a DRAFT analysis of those objections:
My next step will be to write a DRAFT chapter of my book in which I will evaluate each of those fourteen objections. I will argue that every one of those objections FAILS, and that Kreeft and Tacelli have thus FAILED to refute or disprove the Hallucination Theory.
Since their case for the resurrection of Jesus requires that they disprove four skeptical theories, including the Hallucination Theory, their FAILURE to refute the Hallucination Theory means that their case for the resurrection of Jesus also FAILS.