Yesterday I wrote an extended response to apologist Vincent Torley’s OP–“Evidence for the Resurrection”–which was discussed recently in a post on John Loftus’ blog. In his OP, Torley argues that there is about a 60-65% subjective probability that Jesus rose from the dead, based on the disciples’ post-mortem experiences of Jesus.
Since a link to of one of my essays–“History, Probability, and Miracles”–was included in Loftus’ post and came up in the discussion thread, Torley made some criticisms of it, which led to a dialogue that eventually resulted in me writing my extended response to Torley’s OP. Here is my reply to Torley:
If my tone sounds a bit frustrated at the beginning, I should note that I originally hadn’t planned to respond to the OP, as I have been busy working on my dissertation, but I got sidetracked into it when I responded to Torley’s criticism of my essay in the discussion thread. I’ll try to avoid sounding frustrated in my further interactions with Torley by moderating the amount of time I spend engaging in our arguments.
I think both Torley’s OP and my response raise some interesting questions about the role of probability in assessing historical claims, the nature of the primary sources for Jesus’ resurrection, and to what extent we can make precise description about the disciples’ alleged post-mortem experiences of Jesus. Readers of this blog will know that these are common topics discussed here on Κέλσος, and so I think they will find my dialogue with Torley to be of interest.