The beginning of this conversation is here.
Me: So, you were saying?
Skeptic: Let’s take another angle. Let’s talk about those warrants. Why do you think that the Romans conspiring to let Jesus live seems more plausible to me than the Resurrection Hypothesis?
Me: Well, perhaps the idea of a resurrection just strikes you as silly, the stuff of myth and uneducated people.
Skeptic: And kids; don’t forget kids.
Me: Yes. Kids believe in stuff like Santa and the tooth fairy which don’t really exist and the resurrection of Jesus just sounds like that. Another possible reason is that you believe miracles don’t happen. So, which of them is it?
Me: So, miracles don’t happen. They’re silly, like Santa Claus.
Skeptic: Why do I feel like you’re setting me up for something?
Me: Because I am. I’m not going to tell you about the differences between belief in miracles and belief in Santa Claus. They’re not very hard to miss. But I will say this: The fact that a belief feels silly to you says nothing about its truth. So, that the idea of a resurrection strikes you as mythical is not reason enough to reject it in favor of a conspiracy theory if the RH has more evidence. That’s irrational. If you wish to argue that miracles don’t happen, do some research on the topic, but don’t just dismiss them out of hand. There’s this book by Craig Keener (Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts) that I would like to read on the issue. It seems comprehensive enough. It cites hundreds of instances of miracles today. You should read it along with the skeptical books you’re going to read.
Skeptic: I don’t know. Just between you and me, reading books by those who disagree is usually quite painful.
Me: In my case, that’s usually if I disagree with their facts, if they cite no sources or engage in other forms of sloppy writing. Otherwise it’s doable. Think about it. This has been a wonderful conversation and I hope to chat again sometime.