Re: Statement from Gary Habermas

The flap over Dr Habermas' DD is understandable, given the long and frankly
deplorable history of fundamentalists (including some prominent creationists
such as Kent Hovind) giving degrees to one another in less than rigorous
ways. I've written about this with regard to "Doctor Harry Rimmer,
scientist" (who never completed a degree at any college or university and
was a scientist only in the minds of those who gave ear to him) in my whale
story (available on the ASA website), and James Moore has also discussed
this in an essay on creationism that he wrote at least 20 years ago. Given
this history, I say, I think the questions about the DD were legitimate.

At the same time, however, Dr. Habermas is IMO an excellent scholar. I
share his view that the resurrection was an actual historical event--in
contradiction to what John Haught said on the witness stand in Harrisburg a
couple of weeks ago, a camcorder would have seen the risen Christ along with
Thomas and the other disciples; the fact that the camcorder had no faith is
irrelevant to the facts. If Habermas was instrumental in getting Anthony
Flew finally to admit that there might be a God--however remote and
impersonal such a God might be--and that the resurrection is better evinced
than any other key religious stories he can think of, is not IMO
insignificant. Anyone familiar with Flew's writings on atheism and his
attacks on biblical Christianity, esp the resurrection, can only smile at
the irony. One does hope for more. At least it's a step in the right
direction.

Ted
Received on Tue Oct 18 08:28:40 2005