Available from Michael Shermer here.
(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen
Comments
Brilliant point. But then again, isn't that our challenge?
How do we do that? What is the way to make the baloney detection kit accessible?
What an incredibly great question for philosophers and educators to take up. I hear a guy named Dewey had some ideas, but they never got fully accepted.
Any improvements out there based on recent and more comprehensive data?
Go for economy. For example, Schick and Vaugn's SEARCH formula is 6 steps simpler, and has the advantage of an acronym.
_S_tate the claim
_E_xamine the evidence
consider _A_lternatives
_R_ate, according to the _C_riteria of adequacy, each _H_ypothesis.