Uploaded June 2023 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
Today I'm discussing one argument that might be made against the max data proponent from the perspective of a "classical" approach to apologetics. The classical approach says that you *must* (for epistemological reasons) argue for theism before arguing for a historical miracle like the resurrection. Here I consider an argument that the classicist might make: The max data person asks the skeptic and others to consider the Gospels as "wholes" and evaluate their reliability. But the skeptic will say that he dismisses the Gospels for that very reason, since they record miracles, and he rejects miracles altogether.
Does the max data holist have to beg some question against the skeptic by asking him to consider the evidence that the Gospels are highly reliable? Here I explain why the answer is "no."
Today I'm discussing one argument that might be made against the max data proponent from the perspective of a "classical" approach to apologetics. The classical approach says that you *must* (for epistemological reasons) argue for theism before arguing for a historical miracle like the resurrection. Here I consider an argument that the classicist might make: The max data person asks the skeptic and others to consider the Gospels as "wholes" and evaluate their reliability. But the skeptic will say that he dismisses the Gospels for that very reason, since they record miracles, and he rejects miracles altogether.
Does the max data holist have to beg some question against the skeptic by asking him to consider the evidence that the Gospels are highly reliable? Here I explain why the answer is "no."
