Stuart, " For instance, to establish that the central claim of Christianity is true (something quite extraordinary, the resurrection of Jesus), all that is required is to show that (1) there was a man who was alive, (2) that died, and (3) then was seen alive again. Nothing extraordinary about any of those. I don't know why you should think that responsible study of historical documents cannot achieve a high standard of evidence." "I don't know about you Bnonn, but the evidence for Christianity on my bookself is mostly in new books. The oldest books I have are pretty much all published after 1960. I wonder what book/s Peterpieman was referring to?" So, do the gospels prove the central claim of Christianity or not? If they do, why do you then say that they are a minor part of the evidence. If they don't, then what are your modern books based upon? I don't have much respect for your ducking and weaving. I consider that the gospels are not good evidence at all. Like other religious texts, they contain claims which are outrageously at odds with the world which we can observe for ourselves. Even if I granted that christianity is the best evidenced religion -- and I'm not sure it is -- it would still be silly to claim that just because it is the best evidenced that it is true and all others false. After all, one of the religions has to be the best evidenced. I agree