Resurrected? An Atheist and Theist Dialogue

This work presents a sustained philosophical dialogue between Gary Habermas, a Christian philosopher and resurrection scholar, and Antony Flew, at that time one of the world's most prominent atheist philosophers. The book examines the historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection through a series of exchanges that began in the 1980s and continued through the early 2000s, capturing a significant intellectual journey in which Flew moves from skepticism toward greater openness to theistic arguments.

Habermas structures the dialogue around his "minimal facts" approach to the resurrection, which focuses on historical data accepted by the vast majority of scholars across ideological divides. These facts include Jesus's death by crucifixion, the disciples' sincere belief that they had seen the risen Jesus, the conversion of skeptics like Paul and James, and the early emergence of resurrection proclamation. Rather than assuming biblical inerrancy or special pleading, Habermas argues that these minimal facts, when taken together, make the resurrection the best historical explanation for the origins of Christianity.

Flew responds with characteristic analytical rigor, pressing Habermas on alternative naturalistic explanations such as hallucination theories, legendary development, and the possibility of mistaken identity. The dialogue reveals Flew's gradual shift from confident rejection to what he calls "open-minded skepticism," particularly as he grapples with the inadequacy of naturalistic theories to account for the historical data. Flew acknowledges that the evidence for the resurrection is stronger than he had previously recognized, though he stops short of affirming it.

The work gains additional significance from its timing. During these conversations, Flew was reconsidering his lifelong atheism, eventually announcing his conversion to deism in 2004, partly influenced by arguments from design in cosmology and biology. While Flew never became a Christian or accepted the resurrection, his engagement with Habermas demonstrates how historical arguments can challenge naturalistic assumptions when approached with intellectual honesty.

This dialogue contributes to God-debate literature by modeling respectful disagreement while showing how historical method can be applied to religious claims. It challenges both the assumption that historical investigation necessarily favors naturalism and the notion that religious beliefs cannot be subjected to evidential scrutiny. The work stands as a testament to the possibility of minds changing through patient argumentation and represents a significant moment in early twenty-first century philosophy of religion.