“not incompatible”—as long as you define ‘law of nature’ in a useless way.
Another “oh no! teh scientizmz!” post. As usual, the best rebuttal already exists in the form of Scott Alexander's I Myself Am A Scientismist essay.
Broussard here starts off badly by attacking a strawman. The idea that the disciples stole Jesus' body and made up the resurrection story is not something that anyone necessarily needs to take seriously. It is more likely as an explanation of an empty tomb than an actual resurrection would be—people involved in founding religious sects often do engage in frauds, just see Joseph Smith for an example—but we don't have any particular reason to believe that there was an empty tomb at all, even assuming Jesus did exist as a historical person. If there were strong evidence for an empty tomb, then we would have to consider the question of how that happened.
But even so, Broussard's argument is remarkably weak.
A post! Only been two whole weeks since the last one…
In this one, Gordon attempts to top Kreeft's “Argument from Bach” with an “Argument from Western Movies”.
Gosh, a new post; I was starting to forget what those looked like.
So here we have Pitre's response to a handful of the questions posted a couple of weeks back, and it's... pretty pathetic.
Many of the questions answered are of course from believers, not atheists, and many of the questions chosen are not actually relevant. Pitre is apparently completely committed to the ‘traditional’ authorship of the Gospels, never mind the extensive contradictory evidence, and he presupposes the literal truth of whichever part of whichever Gospel he wants to use to answer any other question. This isn't scholarship, this is pure apologetics.