Do you have written something that explain that evidence in more detail?
Clicked around out of curiosity and found what appears to be a cursory explanation for Aron's belief in Jesus' resurrection here. First impression is that he has treated NT accounts of Jesus as though they were written by several separate eyewitnesses (in other words, as they're represented in the Bible and by modern Christian churches) and may not be aware of alternative explanations of the origins of the gospels by historians. Lukeprog's journey might be illuminating.
And in fact, if one looks, much of the evidence for religious claims takes exactly the same form as History, because in fact, it is History (i.e. documents from the past purporting to say what has happened). I refer to the numerous historical documents in which it is claimed that events have occurred by supernatural agency, which are not possible by normal natural means. In other words, claims of miracles.
There are probably much more separate documents that documents the supernatural powers of Uri Geller than there are documents that document the powers of Jesus.
If we want to know whether eyewitness accounts of miracles are true we don't have to focus on pre-20st century claims.
Recently I started a new blog, named "Undivided Looking: comments on physics and theology". You can find it here:
http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/
My main goals are to:
(My day job is researching quantum gravity at UC Santa Barbara, so I actually know what I'm talking about when it comes to the science.)
I'm posting this to Less Wrong in order to solicit comments from intelligent and civil members of the rationalist community. I'm a Christian, but I want to avoid groupthink in the comments section, since I believe ideas should be developed and tested around people with multiple viewpoints. So if anyone is willing to come and provide some friendly pushback from a rationalist perspective, that would be much appreciated.
Since the Less Wrong community is particularly interested in discussing epistemic norms, I'd be especially happy to get feedback on this series of posts:
Pillars of Science: Summary and Questions
in which I identify 6 different features of scientific inquiry which help account for its phenomenal success. (Religion is only mentioned tangentially in this particular series, so even if you aren't interested in rehashing religious debates, you could still make a valuable contribution there.)
Thanks!