Abduction vs. Bayes: Competing Frameworks in Resurrection Apologetics

This paper examines two competing frameworks in resurrection apologetics: abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) and Bayesian probability. While abduction presents the resurrection as the "best explanation" of the minimal facts, it conceals crucial probabilistic assumptions about priors and likelihoods. Bayesian analysis, by contrast, requires these assumptions to be made explicit and tested. By comparing the two methods and recasting the minimal facts argument into Bayesian terms, this paper shows that abductive reasoning fosters rhetorical confidence while Bayesian reasoning enforces epistemic humility. The broader lesson is that coherence alone cannot overcome base-rate improbabilities; only Bayesian explicitness ensures intellectual accountability.