Craig on the Resurrection: A Defense


Stephen T. Davis

Davis is the Russell K. Pitzer Professor of Philosophy, emeritus, at Claremont McKenna College.


Internet Archive

*Data sourced from Dimensions, an inter-linked research information system provided by Digital Science.

Article Information:

Author: Stephen T. Davis

Title: "Craig on the Resurrection: A Defense"

Journal: Socio-Historical Examination of Religion and Ministry

Journal Issue: Volume 2, Number 1

Date: Spring 2020

Pages: 28-35

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33929/sherm.2020.vol2.no1.03

Abstract

This article is a rebuttal to Robert G. Cavin and Carlos A. Colombetti’s article, “Assessing the Resurrection Hypothesis: Problems with Craig’s Inference to the Best Explanation,” which argues that the Standard Model of current particle physics entails that non-physical things (like a supernatural God or a supernaturally resurrected body) can have no causal contact with the physical universe. As such, they argue that William Lane Craig’s resurrection hypothesis is not only incompatible with the notion of Jesus physically appearing to the disciples, but the resurrection hypothesis is significantly limited in both its explanatory scope and explanatory power. This article seeks to demonstrate why their use of the Standard Model does not logically entail a rejection of the physical resurrection of Jesus when considering the scope and limitations of science itself.


 

Keywords: Resurrection Hypothesis, Standard Model, Particle Physics, William Lane Craig, Explanatory Power, Explanatory Scope, Robert Greg Cavin, Carlos A. Colombetti

Share This Article
  • 4
    Shares
More From the Author:

If you see a problem with this webpage, find some of the links are not working, or are unable to properly view the article, please contact SHERM immediately.


Citation Examples:

Turabian/Chicago:

(footnote) Stephen T. Davis, “Craig on the Resurrection: A Defense,” Socio-Historical Examination of Religion and Ministry 2, no. 1 (Spring 2020): 28‒35, https://doi.org/10.33929/sherm.2020.vol2.no1.03.

(bibliography) Davis, Stephen T. “Craig on the Resurrection: A Defense.” Socio-Historical Examination of Religion and Ministry 2, no. 1 (Spring 2020): 28‒35. https://doi.org/10.33929/sherm.2020.vol2.no1.03.

MLA:

Davis, Stephen T. “Craig on the Resurrection: A Defense.” Socio-Historical Examination of Religion and Ministry, vol. 2, no. 1, Spring 2020, doi.org/10.33929/sherm.2020.vol2.no1.03, pp. 28‒35.

APA:

Davis, S. T. (2020). Craig on the Resurrection: A Defense. Socio-Historical Examination of Religion and Ministry, 2(1), 28-35. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.33929/sherm.2020.vol2.no1.03.

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 2.0 License. Information on obtaining permissions beyond the scope of this license is available at SHERM Journal Permissions.

References:

Cavin, Robert Greg, and Carlos A. Colombetti. “Assessing the Resurrection Hypothesis: Problems with Craig’s Inference to the Best Explanation.” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 11, no. 2 (Summer 2019): 205‒28. http://dx.doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v11i2.2836.

Cavin, Robert Greg, and Carlos A. Colombetti. “The Implausibility and Low Explanatory Power of the Resurrection Hypothesis—With a Rejoinder to Stephen T. Davis.” Socio-Historical Examination of Religion and Ministry 2, no. 1 (Spring 2020): 37‒94. https://doi.org/10.33929/sherm.2020.vol2.no1.04.

Craig, William Lane. Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 16. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.

Share This Page