Kenny

Not quite. The second approach simply assumes that there is a sufficiently high antecedent probability (the initial probabilities based on background information prior to evaluation of the evidence for the resurrection), given the possibility that God exists and that God may have acted through the resurrection of Jesus, to place the resurrection of Jesus within the realm of possible historical confirmation (i.e. the antecedent probability is not so low as to rule out the possibility that Jesus rose from the dead a priori as being within the realm of legitimate explanations of the historical data to be explored). The second part of this approach is to argue that when the evidence is evaluated, via inference to the best explanation, the conclusion “God raised Jesus from the dead in the manner Christianity proclaims” emerges as the best explanation of the historical evidence. Furthermore, if inference to the best explanation is what is being employed, then this conclusion need not even be more probable than not, but merely more probable than each of its competing hypotheses, to emerge as the rationally preferred explanation of the data. Though, most historical apologists would claim that the evidence is sufficient to make the above conclusion more probable than not.

There is nothing circular or arbitrary about this method by itself (whether you agree about the assignment of antecedent probabilities or the strength of the conclusion on the basis of the evidence is a different matter). This is simply how evidence based reasoning works. Such can be shown and modeled via Bayesian Confirmation Theory (a way to use probability theory to model evidential reasoning), but I will spare you the details unless you are interested.

Many classical and contemporary theistic arguments do attempt to show that God is personal, however. For example, William Lane Craig’s version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I personally do not believe to be sound, by the way) aims to show not only that God exists as a creative principle, but that God is a personal being. Many versions of the Ontological Argument (which I do believe to be sound, but unfortunately not very persuasive) try to show that God is personal by arguing that the qualities of personhood would necessarily belong to a maximally great being. The teleological argument (some versions of which, such as the argument from fine tuning, I find to be both sound and persuasive, though most atheists would disagree ) aims to show that the creative principle behind the universe is intelligent and operates rationally according to purposeful goals, which imply qualities of personhood.

Well faith, as defined in the Biblical sense, is merely a living trust in another (in the Biblical case, trust in God). It is not, as atheists often assume, belief without evidence. Faith can be either warranted or unwarranted depending on that in which it is placed and the manner in which it is placed. But, I do think there is a point to what you are saying. Concerning the question of the existence of God or the truth of Christianity, the conclusions one draws from the evidence (whatever side he or she might happen to be on) will inevitably be heavily conditioned by metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions that go far deeper than the levels of discourse outlined in the two apologetic methods I described. It is naïve (whether it is on the part of an atheist or a Christian), in my opinion, to believe that it is possible to draw some sort of “objective conclusion” regarding these matters based on some sort of “neutral starting ground.”

God Bless,
Kenny