“Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead?”

 

In 2003, Gary Habermas and Antony Flew met at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, to debate that very question. Habermas is a Christian philosopher widely known for his evidentialist argument for the resurrection. Flew was an atheist philosopher, perhaps the most famous such philosopher in the 20^th Century. In 2004, he announced to a somewhat stunned philosophical world that he had abandoned atheism for deism. He does not believe in the resurrection, however, nor in any religions based on personal revelation.

 

Habermas and Flew’s 2003 debate was not their first. Their first debate occurred in 1985 and was published as Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, edited by Terry L. Miethe. Their second occurred in 2000 and was published as Resurrected? An Atheist and Theist Dialogue, edited by John F. Ankerberg. Did the Resurrection Happen? contains a transcript of their 2003 debate and is edited by Christian philosopher David Baggett. Over the years since their first debate, Habermas and Flew have become friends, and that friendship no doubt explains the very cordial tone of their interactions at the 2003 event.

 

In addition to a transcript of the 2003 debate, Did the Resurrection Happen? includes the transcript of an interview of Flew by Habermas about the reasons why he abandoned atheism for deism. Despite the rise of an impressive philosophical defense of theism in the late twentieth century, Flew’s “conversion,” if that’s the appropriate term, was driven by more scientific arguments: Big Bang cosmology, cosmological fine-tuning, and intelligent design. Some atheists disappointed at Flew’s abandonment of them have claimed that he is an old man rooked into deism by friendly Christians. Flew simply claims to be following the evidence wherever it leads him.

 

Flew laid out the reasons for his change of mind in a 2007 book he co-authored with Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. (Flew was not happy with the publisher’s choice of a subtitle.) Habermas’ review of that book is the third major component of Did the Resurrection Happen?

 

The fourth, longest, and most substantial component of the book is an essay by David Baggett, “Resurrection Matters: Assessing the Habermas Flew Discussion,” which I’ll come back to in a moment.

 

To be perfectly honest, I was underwhelmed by the Habermas/Flew debate. In my opinion, Habermas talked too much, and Flew conceded too much. At a few points, even the moderator seemed to jump in to make Flew’s case for him. Habermas’ interview of Flew was far more interesting to me, and I got a much better taste of how Flew’s reasons about the evidence for God and against the resurrection by reading it.

 

Baggett’s essay was worth the price of the book. In it, he explains the character of Habermas’ argument for the resurrection. It is an abductive case, in which one makes an inference to the best possible explanation. Starting with certain historical facts that believers and skeptics might agree upon, Habermas reasons between competing explanations, ultimately inferring that the fact of the Christ’s resurrection (which is controversial) makes best sense of the agreed-upon historical facts (which are non-controversial). Baggett goes on to outline various skeptical responses to Habermas (some of which Flew employs), as well as the underlying philosophical issues in debates over the resurrection. Throughout, he defends Habermas’ argument and suggests that if Flew continues to follow the line of argument that led him to deism, he may very well land on Christian theism.

 

One more thing about this book. It is rare to see debaters change their minds because of a single debate, especially when those debaters are well-known advocates of contrary points of view. That’s part of the reason why I was drawn to this book in the first place. Why did Flew changes his mind, at least on the question of God’s existence, though not on the question of Christ’s resurrection? The answer, according to Flew, is evidence. But I can’t help but wonder the degree to which his friendship with Habermas also affected him.

 

Those who would convince others of their points of view would do well to remember that winning a person is at least as important as winning an argument.