I just watched the entire debate between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig and was surprised to see Craig bring up this argument, albeit in a more intellectualized and articulated form but the basics were the same. Apparently if people are earnest enough to die for something it is evidence. I couldn’t believe someone would use such an argument to prove the resurrection of Christ. Take out Christ and replace it with other incidents of martydom or just plain suicide. Dying for something is only evidence of strong belief, it is not evidence of what you believe is true. We should know better than that in America after 9/11 and Craig needs to drop it as supposed evidence.
If Christ did raise from the dead, I’m not sure there would be any remaining evidence as it happened approx. 2000 years ago. And that’s the problem with the whole Christian salvation story; we have to trust the past and the disciples recounting of the incident, not outside witnesses. If I asked for evidence that Hirohito during WW2 was God would I trust the loyal Japanese people or would I trust foreign journalists who had investigated the matter? Give me the outside observer, at least as a starting point and then we can talk.