In one of the later chapters of my book, I examine the resurrection as a historical event. I take the facts that the vast majority of historians would accept—the fact that Christ lived and preached, that he made enemies, that his enemies killed him, that he was buried in a tomb, that his disciples claim to have found the tomb empty, that they said Jesus appeared before them several times after his crucifixion, and that this event filled them with conviction and propelled a movement of conversion that was sustained even in the face of Roman persecution and resistance. So these are the facts, and how do we account for them? If the resurrection stands up to historical scrutiny, if it is an historical event by the standards of historical verification, then the Christian view of the afterlife rises above the pack. It is the one to take seriously.
It makes me wonder what believers like D’Sousa consider acceptable standards of historical verification. If third-hand accounts written down decades after their alleged occurrance are good enough, then, historians a thousand years from now (assuming there are still humans and our written and/or electronic records have survived) will have better grounds for believing that Elvis Presley lived to be a very old man (hundreds, perhaps thousands, of sightings, written down first-hand, often within hours or days of their occurrence), than Christians today have for believing in the Resurrection.