And one of his pieces on The Secular Web:
A common argument for the truth of the Christian religion is that its origins were too improbable for it to be false. This argument has appeared in many forms over the years, but most of the usual ideas are combined into a single popular effort by James Holding. The following article critiques that effort, by comparing Holding’s arguments and claims there with the actual facts of ancient history, and identifying fallacies in his reasoning. Holding offers seventeen factors “where Christianity ‘did the wrong thing’ in order to be a successful religion” and concludes from this that “the only way Christianity” could “succeed” under those seventeen hostile conditions is “because it was a truly revealed faith,” in particular “because it had the irrefutable witness of the resurrection.” Besides those seventeen factors, Holding offers one additional critical assumption about “luck,” making eighteen points altogether. Each of those points will be addressed in a separate chapter, in order, with his eighteenth underlying assumption counted last, followed by an evolving chapter responding to critics of the present work . . . .
. . . . is a weblog giving another voice for the defenders of the integrity of science, the patrons of “The Panda’s Thumb”.
Much as in any tavern serving a university community, you can expect to hear a variety of levels of discussion, ranging from the picayune to the pedantic. The authors are people associated with the virtual University of Ediacara (and thus the talk.origins newsgroup), and various web sites critical of the antievolution movement, such as the TalkOrigins Archive, TalkDesign, and Antievolution.org.
From the site’s “About” page
The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?
Radio broadcast lecture:
Heard a lecture by Richard Dawkins on God on one of my favourite radio programs — for anyone with an uncompromising rationalist and evolutionary bent like myself it’s a most enjoyable listen and well worth podding. But the pod bit disappears in a few weeks from the site, though the transcript will remain. Check it out here.
Robert M Price
Are the Gospels Eyewitness Accounts? 1 Matthew and Mark
Are the Gospels Eyewitness Accounts? 2 Luke and John
See also Formal debate on the “historical resurrection of Jesus” at the Richard Dawkins website — started by Steven Carr
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- How and Why the Gospel of Mark Used Scripture — a review of Writing with Scripture, part 1 - 2022-06-28 23:02:24 GMT+0000
- The Two Witnesses in Revelation 11: the theories - 2022-06-24 21:19:47 GMT+0000
- Revelation 12: The Woman, the Child, the Dragon – Wellhausen’s view - 2022-06-22 10:37:43 GMT+0000