.png)
On Behalf of Resurrection: A Second Reply to Cavin and Colombetti
- Dr. Darren M. Slade
- Oct 6, 2020
- 1 min read
A new publication has just been released online by GCRR's bi-annual academic journal, Socio-Historical Examination of Religion and Ministry (SHERM)! You can read the article for free here.
Title
Abstract
This essay is a reply to “The Implausibility and Low Explanatory Power of the Resurrection Hypothesis—With a Rejoinder to Stephen T. Davis” by Robert Greg Cavin and Carlos Colombetti. In it, I establish what natural laws are, what a miracle is, and how “naturalism” and “supernaturalism” differ as worldviews. Cavin and Colombetti argue that if the Standard Model of particle physics (SM) is true, then the resurrection of Jesus did not occur and physical things can only causally interact with other physical things. I argue that neither point follows.
About the Author
Stephen T. Davis is the Russell K. Pitzer Professor of Philosophy, emeritus, at Claremont McKenna College.
Submit Your Research for Publication!
If you have an academic or ministry-related article that you'd like to publish, submit your manuscript to SHERM journal today! Start by clicking this link here and then following the instructions laid out in the Author Guidelines document on the SHERM website.
This article approached a complex discussion with patience and clarity, making it easier to understand the different viewpoints involved. The thoughtful structure encouraged careful reading rather than quick conclusions. It also reminded me of the practical communication style found on https://www.sellmyhouseinbrevard.com/ where information is shared in a balanced and understandable way. Very well written.
Thought provoking article that encourages readers to examine assumptions and recognize how different perspectives influence decision making. The ideas are presented in a logical and engaging manner that keeps the discussion interesting from beginning to end. I recently explored a discussion on https://coselite.com/ that emphasized clear explanations of complex subjects, and this article provided that same enjoyable reading experience. Thank you for sharing such meaningful insights.
This was a fascinating read that approached a complex topic with clarity and thoughtful reasoning. I appreciated how the discussion carefully distinguished between naturalism, supernaturalism, and the role of scientific explanations without oversimplifying the debate. Even for readers who may hold different views, the article encourages deeper reflection and meaningful dialogue. I recently came across a related discussion on a review blog called buy fake degree, and it was interesting to see how different perspectives can contribute to a richer understanding of challenging subjects. Great work on presenting such a thought-provoking piece.
This was a very dense but thoughtful read. I appreciated how carefully the argument engages with the philosophical assumptions behind naturalism and supernatural explanations rather than treating them too simplistically. Even when the topic becomes highly technical, the structure of the reasoning still feels clear and methodical, which makes it easier to follow the broader debate. I recently came across a similar discussion format on a review-style blog https://gocollectiv.com/, where complex arguments were also broken down in a way that encouraged more balanced reflection from different perspectives.
The level of philosophical depth is quite demanding, but it’s handled in a way that still keeps the central issue clear: how to responsibly address objections in ongoing debates. It’s the kind of writing that encourages deeper reflection rather than quick conclusions. I recently came across a similar discussion on a review blog https://www.masterstorage365.com/, which also touched on structured analytical approaches in philosophical argumentation.