Philosopher Stanley Fish remarked a while back, "The assertion that Christ is risen is not one for which evidence pro and con is adduced in a judicial setting." That's because, according to Mr. Fish, the resurrection is excluded from tests of "deliberative reason."
Among more trenchant critics--Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett being the vanguard--people who believe in the resurrection are under the spell of superstitious tradition.
If Christ's resurrection is true, it is the most important event in all of history. But if it is symbolic, the name Jesus Christ has no more significance than the name Clark Kent. As the apostle Paul himself asserts, "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile." On the other hand, if Christ is raised, we are left with one and only one conclusion: that He is the Lord and Savior that he claimed to be. And that makes all the difference. So which is it?
Join me as I apply a little of Stanley Fish's "deliberative reason" in my latest BreakPoint article "He is Risen: Evidence Beyond Reasonable Doubt."