LETTER: True scholars debate merits of argument

Professor Avalos’ debate with theologian William Lane Craig provided demonstration of the difference between the scholarly approach to research and the polemical/apologetic approach to which faith-based believers so often resort.

In hopes of rattling his opponent at the outside, Craig opened with two sordid assaults. The first, which attempted to paint Avalos as an unscrupulous debater, was a several-minute misrepresentation of points Avalos had used in a different ISU debate with another religious opponent. The second assault was Craig’s insistence — contrary to all the rules of decent debate protocol — that Avalos was obliged to assume the burden of disproof with regard to the proposition that the alleged resurrection of Jesus is actually factual, and hence historical.

As all true scholars know, the burden of proof for any extraordinary claim, miracle or otherwise, rests solely with the advocates, not with the detractors. And on this matter, theologian Craig lost the debate quite decisively. So utterly implausible — nay, impossible — was the case Craig tried to make, that he was forced in the final analysis to admit invervention by God himself was required to make the alleged resurrection of Jesus at all possible.

Without resorting to that extreme tactic, Craig could only seek to establish credibility of the resurrection by trying to convince the audience the claim was written about very shortly after the alleged date of the resurrection, probably by eyewitnesses. This failed completely when Avalos made the obvious point that early documentation does nothing to establish the factuality of the resurrection stories so documented. A more plausible and likely explanation is that Christian believers with a great deal at stake were simply circulating, and eventually recording, stories of the resurrection. And, as history has shown time and time again, all kinds of fanciful claims and stories of miracles have been recorded — even published in books and journals — without ever gaining the status of historical fact from genuine scholars.

For all the foregoing reasons and more, the clear winner of the debate was Avalos because he demonstrated that Craig simply had not proved the resurrection of Jesus, anymore than the resurrection of “the saints,” alluded to in the book of Matthew.

Was Avalos the more popular of the two? I doubt it, because it seemed clear that the vast majority of those in attendance were committed to the faith-based belief that the resurrection of Jesus is indeed a fact. Why? Because as the evangelist Paul explicitly noted, “If Jesus was not raised from the dead, the Christian faith is worthless.”

John W. Patterson

Emeritus Professor

Materials Science and Engineering