Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 17: Follow Up Investigation
WHERE WE AREIn his Handbook of Christian Apologetics Peter Kreeft raises 14 objections against the Hallucination Theory in an attempt to DISPROVE or REFUTE that skeptical theory. Kreeft thinks he can prove the resurrection of Jesus by disproving a few skeptical theories about the resurrection of Jesus, such as the Hallucination Theory.Kreeft’s first three objections … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 17: Follow Up Investigation
Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 16: Adults are Liars and Cheaters
ADULTS ARE DISHONEST In general, studies of lying behavior indicate that college students lie more frequently on average, than the general adult population. However, based on recent studies with larger sample sizes, the difference in average number of lies per day is fairly small between college students and the general adult population: College students and … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 16: Adults are Liars and Cheaters
Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 15: Young Adults are Dishonest
WHERE WE ARE As part of my response to Peter Kreeft’s first three objections against the Hallucination Theory, I want to point out two major problems with EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: HUMAN MEMORY IS UNRELIABLE HUMANS ARE DISHONEST In Part 13 of this series, I summarized key points from an excellent article on problems with eyewitness memory … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 15: Young Adults are Dishonest
Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 14: Humans are Dishonest
WHERE WE ARE I am currently examining Peter Kreeft’s third objection against the Hallucination Theory. His first three objections are all concerned with the TESTIMONY of WITNESSES, namely EYEWITNESSES. The first three objections by Kreeft thus evoke the centuries-old idea of proving the resurrection of Jesus in a court trial. If we take that idea … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 14: Humans are Dishonest
Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 13: Two Problems with Eyewitness Testimony
WHERE WE ARE I am currently examining Peter Kreeft’s third objection against the Hallucination Theory. His first three objections are all concerned with the TESTIMONY of WITNESSES, namely EYEWITNESSES. The first three objections by Kreeft thus evoke the centuries-old idea of proving the resurrection of Jesus in a court trial. If we take that idea … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 13: Two Problems with Eyewitness Testimony
Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 12: Preliminary Investigation
WHERE WE ARE I am working my way through Peter Kreeft’s 14 objections against the Hallucination Theory, the view that one or more of Jesus’s disciples experienced a hallucination or dream about Jesus after the death of Jesus, and this experience was mistakenly believed to be an ordinary sensory experience of a living and embodied … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 12: Preliminary Investigation
Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 11: The Group Hallucinations Historical Claim
WHERE WE ARE On page 187 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft presents his second of fourteen objections against the Hallucination Theory. In Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, and Part 7 of this series, I clarified, analyzed, and evaluated Peter Kreeft’s Objection #2 (Witnesses Were Qualified) … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 11: The Group Hallucinations Historical Claim
Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 10: Evaluation of the Group-Hallucination Principle
WHERE WE ARE In Part 9 of this series I began to examine the core argument of Kreeft’s Objection #1 (Too Many Witnesses) against the Hallucination Theory: B. IF on multiple occasions more than two persons had the same experience of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus at the same time, THEN it is … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 10: Evaluation of the Group-Hallucination Principle
Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 9: Clarification of the Hallucination Principle
WHERE WE ARE In Part 8 of this series, I focused on Peter Kreeft’s VERY UNCLEAR argument constituting his Objection #1 (“Too Many Witnesses”) against the Hallucination Theory. I argued that this was a brief and UNCLEAR version of Josh McDowell’s “Very Personal” objection against the Hallucination Theory (found in his book The Resurrection Factor, … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 9: Clarification of the Hallucination Principle
Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 8: Too Many Witnesses
WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (co-authored with Ronald Tacelli; hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft attempts to disprove the Hallucination Theory, as part of an elimination-of-alternatives argument for the resurrection of Jesus. Kreeft thinks that by disproving four skeptical theories, he can show that the Christian theory is true, that … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 8: Too Many Witnesses