For the Sake of Science

I’m taking a look at Gary Habermas. Ignoring for a moment that he willingly works for a “university” which openly teaches the idiocy of young Earth creationism, he presents an especially weak case from around the two minute mark until just after three minutes.

Basically, the guy from Skeptic Magazine points out that people having significant changes in their lives due to something they report they saw isn’t evidence of anything. If it is, as he notes, then Habermas should be giving Islam equal footing. Habermas then gives a rebuttal where he says his point “was that the disciples weren’t just changed, they were changed because they saw the risen Jesus”. I hope you watch this video. The very next sentence out of his mouth is “Now, transformations cannot prove what somebody’s saying”. He then proceeds to note that transformations can prove that somebody believes what he is teaching. They actually can’t – it’s the credence the listener/reader gives to a person espousing a transformation that gets one to conclude whether the person is being genuine or not. Take Ted Haggard. He had no problem claiming to be on the path back to righteousness and heterosexuality, but that obviously wasn’t true. But, as usual, I’ll bend over backwards and pretend the argument works. EVEN if I grant that transformations can prove the sincerity of an individual, the mere fact that someone genuinely believes something is not evidence that that something is true. I genuinely believe there is no God. Is Habermas going to take that as evidence against the resurrection of Jesus?

Filed under: Religions | Tagged: Gary Habermas, Liberty University, SKeptic Magazine, The Case For The Resurrection of Christ, Tim Callahan |