Skip to content

The Case Against Christianity 3: The Resurrection


Good chapter. Martin lays out his case against the resurrection starting by saying that we need to show that the resurrection is more likely than the event occurring by chance or by naturalistic causes.

A weak point seems to be that he says that even if Jesus was resurrected, we have good reason to believe that science would discover a law or something that would explain how it happened. The fact that the event has never occurred since, and is beyond all current laws shows how implausible Martin’s claim is.

He also lays out factors that affect the reliability of the accounts. There’s consistency, eyewitness firsthand accounts, reliable eyewitnesses, independent testimony, and purpose of the author.

The purposes of almost all writers are evangelical in nature. Bad sign. The resurrection story is inconsistent. Bad sign. No first hand eyewitness accounts exist. Bad sign. We can’t judge the reliability of the eyewitnesses who presumably led to the information. Lastly, there’s no independent confirmation.

Finally, Martin says that even if the resurrection occurred, we have no reason to believe that the Christian God is the cause. Interesting point. I’ve made a similar one in the past.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: