What you’re about to read may very well be the biggest game changer in the history of discussions on the resurrection of Jesus. In fact, what you’re about to read is likely going to change the way theologians, scientists, apologists, and philosophers view the probability that any corpse, at any point in history, revivified back to life.
In what is already poised to become the most influential counterapologetic argument against the physical resurrection of Jesus, philosophers of religion, Dr. Robert Greg Cavin and Dr. Carlos Colombetti, recently published a 60-page report entitled, “The Implausibility and Low Explanatory Power of the Resurrection Hypothesis.” The article was part of a debate featuring Christian apologist and philosopher, Stephen T. Davis, hosted by the peer-reviewed academic journal, Socio-Historical Examination of Religion and Ministry (SHERM).
In the article, Cavin and Colombetti provide a detailed explanation of what is called the “Standard Model” (SM) in particle physics to argue that the resurrection hypothesis surrounding Jesus of Nazareth not only has low explanatory power, but it actually conflicts with SM so much that a miraculous resurrection would have been completely impossible. Indeed, according to the authors, the Standard Model of particle physics is so relevant and decisive in establishing the implausibility of the resurrection that it can be confidently asserted “no agent supernaturally interferes” with the physical world … ever.
Their conclusion states, “We have shown through multiple arguments that … Christian apologists are wrong in saying that they are within their rights to believe R [the Resurrection hypothesis], or that R is probable, or even that R is the best explanation of the evidence. We have established that R has an exceedingly low plausibility—even if God exists. We did so by justifying the relevance of the Standard Model (SM) to the assessment of R and showing that R is inconsistent with SM … because the equations of SM have only natural inputs and natural outputs….Contrary to the ‘common sense’ view of believers and skeptics alike, we showed that R cannot explain the resurrection appearances of Jesus to the witnesses. For the body of the Risen Jesus—being a metaphysically transformed soma pneumatikon—is not physical as this term is defined in SM and so cannot be seen, heard, or otherwise detected by witnesses. It is comprised, not of the ordinary atoms of SM but, rather, of some mysterious ‘schmatoms’ that according to SM cannot interact with the physical world….We thus reaffirm our statement … that ‘almost any naturalistic hypothesis is superior to the hypothesis that God supernaturally raised Jesus from the dead.’”
Once you read the article, which you can download for free by clicking here, you will come to realize just how influential and potentially damaging its argumentation is. As one reviewer, Dr. David Kyle Johnson, wrote about it:
“Cavin and Colombetti’s paper is a knockout blow to the resurrection hypothesis. The argument is devastating and they’ve anticipated every objection. Belief in Jesus’ resurrection can continue to be held by faith, but it can no longer be taken seriously as a scientific, academic, or rational hypothesis.”
Another reviewer personally wrote to me with astonishment, “Did I just read an essay where actual statistical mechanics, quantum field equations and Bayesian theorems just disproved the resurrection of Christ!? My mind is still processing what just happened here.”
Since the article’s release, both SHERM journal and the Global Center for Religious Research (GCRR), which funds the academic publication, has received a number of requests from physicists and philosophers to interact with the article. In fact, GCRR is now talking about turning the article into a full-length anthology where apologists, counterapologists, philosophers, and scientists can explore the implications of Cavin and Colombetti’s article.
Take a look at the article (for free!) and let us know ... Did particle physics just disprove the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ?