Religion One of the all-time great bakes

[CharacterFirst]

in a sense.


that is an opinion, yes.


im saying it is illogical to claim the resurrection as a historical event when modern historical scholarship operates under the presupposition of naturalism.

Are you claiming it as illogical, or illogical to claim it as historical under current rules? i.e. do you claim it illogical just b/c the modern rules say so?

that's what i'm saying.


you can say what you wish. whether what you say has the support and weight of modern historical scholarship is another thing altogether.

Yes, but do you? and what about the question?


you can think what you wish. whether what you think has the support and weight of modern historical scholarship is another thing altogether.

What do you think? Conversation/discussion???

in a sense. it relates back to the quote i provided earlier:

The reason for that isn’t because historians don’t believe in supernatural beings: some do, some don’t. It’s that we can’t agree on how to evaluate claims of supernatural intervention.

you can have faith in the supernatural, but the difficulties arise when trying to form an objective agreement in the evaluation of claims relating to supernatural. these difficulties don't exist when we presuppose naturalism. considering that forming an objective agreement on past events is what modern historical scholarship attempts to do, there are clear and obvious problems when the supernatural is not excluded.

So its the lack of evaluation consensus that is actually the problem?


may be. idk what will happen in 20 years.

Obviously!

Do you believe in the supernatural? If so what? If not is it only b/c current modern bias says we don't have agreed rules to evaluate the supernatural?

 

[Suspense]

Are you claiming it as illogical, or illogical to claim it as historical under current rules? i.e. do you claim it illogical just b/c the modern rules say so?

im saying it is illogical to claim the resurrection as a historical event when modern historical scholarship operates under the presupposition of naturalism.

Yes, but do you? and what about the question?

supernatural acts performed by jesus are not considered historical events.

What do you think? Conversation/discussion???

my view is similar to this POV from wiki:

Most scholars believe supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, and thus consider the resurrection a non-historical question but instead a philosophical or theological question.

So its the lack of evaluation consensus that is actually the problem?

in a sense, yes. put very simply, claims of natural events can be evaluated using empirical methods to achieve a form of objective agreement. supernatural events cannot be evaluated using empirical methods. as the quote said: It’s that we can’t agree on how to evaluate claims of supernatural intervention. ill provide the entire quote from a xtian historian for you to consider:


Modern historical scholarship also starts from certain shared assumptions and uses certain shared rules. For example, argument from authority is not in itself valid. If distinguished professor X argues one thing and not so-distinguished graduate student Y argues the opposite, you don’t just count the degrees on either side to decide the question. Another rule of the game is that cause must precede effect: something that happened in 1066 can’t be the cause of an event that happened in 1000. And yet another is that supernatural explanations are ruled out.

The reason for that isn’t because historians don’t believe in supernatural beings: some do, some don’t. It’s that we can’t agree on how to evaluate claims of supernatural intervention. If you accept supernatural interventions, and someone says that John F. Kennedy was shot by a demon (or by demonic intervention), on what criteria can you say that is an invalid argument? Only by a theological argument, that such an intervention is incompatible with the nature of God as we understand it, not by a historical one. Similarly, historians don’t accept historical arguments which involve time-travel, even if it is theoretically possible. If we learned that time-travel was possible, and under what circumstances, then it would be reasonable to start including that in historical arguments. (“The possibility that Genghis Khan was killed by a time-traveller is not plausible because the thirteenth century Mongolian steppe does not provide the reference points necessary for accurate chronological location of a time machine”).

On the specific points you raise about the Resurrection, it’s not enough that an explanation satisfies its proposer. (My life as a historian would be vastly easier if my hypotheses had to satisfy only me, and not a sometimes sceptical audience of other historians). I believe that the Resurrection happened, but only because I have made the prior assumption that the supernatural, in the form of the Christian God, exists. I no longer think that you can prove the existence of the Resurrection from the historical evidence alone if you don’t make this initial assumption; you can’t even demonstrate that it is the most plausible hypothesis.

What I think a historian can reasonably conclude from the historical evidence (and assumptions about human behaviour) is that the disciples believed the Resurrection happened. From the effects of that belief, a historian can trace and study historically a range of observable outcomes. Similarly, I accept that Muhammad believed he had received a revelation from God, which led him to act in ways that affected the whole history of seventh century Eurasia. I do not consider that it is within a historian’s competence to decide whether or not Muhammad’s revelation really was from God, even though most individual historians will have their own personal views about this. History is the study of past humanity, not divine beings, past or present, and that fundamentally limits what it can say about some topics and still remain history.

Do you believe in the supernatural? If so what? If not is it only b/c current modern bias says we don't have agreed rules to evaluate the supernatural?

no and no.

 

[CharacterFirst]

im saying it is illogical to claim the resurrection as a historical event when modern historical scholarship operates under the presupposition of naturalism.


supernatural acts performed by jesus are not considered historical events.


my view is similar to this POV from wiki:

Most scholars believe supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, and thus consider the resurrection a non-historical question but instead a philosophical or theological question.


in a sense, yes. put very simply, claims of natural events can be evaluated using empirical methods to achieve a form of objective agreement. supernatural events cannot be evaluated using empirical methods. as the quote said: It’s that we can’t agree on how to evaluate claims of supernatural intervention. ill provide the entire quote from a xtian historian for you to consider:


Modern historical scholarship also starts from certain shared assumptions and uses certain shared rules. For example, argument from authority is not in itself valid. If distinguished professor X argues one thing and not so-distinguished graduate student Y argues the opposite, you don’t just count the degrees on either side to decide the question. Another rule of the game is that cause must precede effect: something that happened in 1066 can’t be the cause of an event that happened in 1000. And yet another is that supernatural explanations are ruled out.

The reason for that isn’t because historians don’t believe in supernatural beings: some do, some don’t. It’s that we can’t agree on how to evaluate claims of supernatural intervention. If you accept supernatural interventions, and someone says that John F. Kennedy was shot by a demon (or by demonic intervention), on what criteria can you say that is an invalid argument? Only by a theological argument, that such an intervention is incompatible with the nature of God as we understand it, not by a historical one. Similarly, historians don’t accept historical arguments which involve time-travel, even if it is theoretically possible. If we learned that time-travel was possible, and under what circumstances, then it would be reasonable to start including that in historical arguments. (“The possibility that Genghis Khan was killed by a time-traveller is not plausible because the thirteenth century Mongolian steppe does not provide the reference points necessary for accurate chronological location of a time machine”).

On the specific points you raise about the Resurrection, it’s not enough that an explanation satisfies its proposer. (My life as a historian would be vastly easier if my hypotheses had to satisfy only me, and not a sometimes sceptical audience of other historians). I believe that the Resurrection happened, but only because I have made the prior assumption that the supernatural, in the form of the Christian God, exists. I no longer think that you can prove the existence of the Resurrection from the historical evidence alone if you don’t make this initial assumption; you can’t even demonstrate that it is the most plausible hypothesis.

What I think a historian can reasonably conclude from the historical evidence (and assumptions about human behaviour) is that the disciples believed the Resurrection happened. From the effects of that belief, a historian can trace and study historically a range of observable outcomes. Similarly, I accept that Muhammad believed he had received a revelation from God, which led him to act in ways that affected the whole history of seventh century Eurasia. I do not consider that it is within a historian’s competence to decide whether or not Muhammad’s revelation really was from God, even though most individual historians will have their own personal views about this. History is the study of past humanity, not divine beings, past or present, and that fundamentally limits what it can say about some topics and still remain history.


no and no.

What do you do for a living Sus?

 

[CharacterFirst]

Reading that wiki (do we trust it? ) quote makes think that there are ways a historian can deduce evidence about the resurrection, which i think, semantics aside, is what some were trying to say all along.

But generally it seems, if we play by the current rules (I don't necessarily agree with them), then History isn't up to proving God or how he works in the world.

Looks like we are back to faith. God is pretty clever the way he has created things so belief rests with our decisions, under his grace thru faith in JC. Truely no one will have an excuse it seems.

 

[Max zero]

Reading that wiki (do we trust it? ) quote makes think that there are ways a historian can deduce evidence about the resurrection, which i think, semantics aside, is what some were trying to say all along.

But generally it seems, if we play by the current rules (I don't necessarily agree with them), then History isn't up to proving God or how he works in the world.

Looks like we are back to faith. God is pretty clever the way he has created things so belief rests with our decisions, under his grace thru faith in JC. Truely no one will have an excuse it seems.

And that's the core problem.

 

[CharacterFirst]

And that's the core problem.

Not if you all just agree with me

 

[SergioGeorgini]

Now Serg, as a new Xian without a "spiritual home" yet, we just need to get you into a Xian community where you can fellowship, provide and recieve support, grow and grow others, worship communally, etc.

What are you doing about that mate?

Not much ATM.

I still need to find a church. Going to talk to my only Christian mate (95% of the people I know are atheists) and get his thoughts.

As an aside, how important is it do attend church? Is there any reason why I can't worship at home?

 

[skilts]

Wow, an excellent thread. Congratulations to all contributors.

So far, I've only read the first few pages, and the last three. I'm sure that what I haven't read will equally reward close attention, when I have time to devote to that. I'll retain reading the rest of it, in extreme detail, as a special treat for myself.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

Good discussion being had.

Will try to respond later...right now trying to finalise my SC team.

Quick point to make though about this from Suspense:

im saying it is illogical to claim the resurrection as a historical event when modern historical scholarship operates under the presupposition of naturalism.

When I argue that Jesus' Resurrection was a historical event, all I mean is that I think it actually happened. I'm not saying that historians would agree with me.

So even if historians do operate under the presupposition of naturalism (and I am prepared to concede that point) that doesn't mean you and I can't have a discussion about whether the resurrection did or did not happen.

Let's draw a distinction between

A The historical facts (which IS the domain of the professional historian); and
B The best explanation for those facts (a discussion ANYONE can engage in)

We can engage in B without any knowledge of how historians operate or what pre-suppositions they might have.

I gotta keep quoting WLC on this because he says it better than anyone else.

But, finally, number three, this isn't a debate about what professional historians are permitted to do. That would be a debate about methodology, about the rules of professional conduct. This is a debate about whether or not there is historical evidence for the resurrection. And even if the historian is professionally blocked by some methodological constraint from inferring the resurrection of Jesus, you and I aren't so blocked. We're not so constrained, nor, would I say, is the historian so constrained in his off-hours, so to speak. It would be a tragedy and a shame if we were to miss the truth about the past, about Jesus, simply because of some methodological constraint.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p96.htm

 

[CharacterFirst]

Not much ATM.

I still need to find a church. Going to talk to my only Christian mate (95% of the people I know are atheists) and get his thoughts.

As an aside, how important is it do attend church? Is there any reason why I can't worship at home?

Well, you can be Xian and not be part of a local faith community. Just like being part of that community doesn't make you a Xian.

But the NT has no concept of a Xian not being in community. As you know, Xianity is all about relationship. The eternal relationship within the Trinity. The realtionship between God and his created beings - both angels and people (and maybe animals i guess), and then the relationships between believers, and others. I think it is fundamental for Xians to be in relationship with other Xians. Plus there are some verses like Hebrews 10:25 that people use to show the importance of churches, and of course all the stuff about the body of Christ etc.

Can you not belong to a church? All things are permissible, to borrow from 1Cor 6; but are they desirable/beneficial.

I think pray about it. Ask people you trust and who know what to look for, find a good church, and stick. Don't hop around, unless there are really, really good reasons to go else where - like blatant, prolonged heresy. Stay and grow, help others to grow, let God challenge you thru difficulties, relationships, mistakes, forgiveness, perseverance, etc. You don't get this if you move churches whenever things are a bit tough or you have a disagreement etc.

Hope that helps.

Gb, CF.

 

[Max zero]

Good discussion being had.

Will try to respond later...right now trying to finalise my SC team.

Quick point to make though about this from Suspense:



When I argue that Jesus' Resurrection was a historical event, all I mean is that I think it actually happened. I'm not saying that historians would agree with me.

So even if historians do operate under the presupposition of naturalism (and I am prepared to concede that point) that doesn't mean you and I can't have a discussion about whether the resurrection did or did not happen.

Let's draw a distinction between

A The historical facts (which IS the domain of the professional historian); and
B The best explanation for those facts (a discussion ANYONE can engage in)

We can engage in B without any knowledge of how historians operate or what pre-suppositions they might have.

I gotta keep quoting WLC on this because he says it better than anyone else.



http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p96.htm

The problem with that is that any supernatural explanation can fit into such broad historical 'facts'.

Couldn't you put up the theory that aliens abducted Jesus' body and then used holographic projectors to prove to his disciples that he was alive? Wouldn't they also fit your 'facts' and be just as unprovable as your divine theory? I would argue it's an even stronger theory then the divine explanation because teleportation, cloaking devices (needed to hide the aliens) and holographic projection are actually scientifically possible (and in some case have working examples).

How do we decide between supernatural theories when those theories can be tailored or altered with no regards to natural laws or constraints?

Why is your supernatural theory any more valid then mine (or whatever someone else thinks up) even though they both fill your criteria?

 

[raskolnikov]

OK. I get what you mean i think.

But why do you consider it a gamble for people of faith? I don't see what they have to loose. If they die and there is no God, then they are dead, nothing lost.

I do see what a non believer has to loose if they are wrong. If they die and there is a God...well.

No gamble for the believer, big gamble for the non believer.

My sister tried that argument on me. It just doesn't wash with me. What if you die and discover that only Muslims get to heaven?

 

[SergioGeorgini]

The problem with that is that any supernatural explanation can fit into such broad historical 'facts'.

Couldn't you put up the theory that aliens abducted Jesus' body and then used holographic projectors to prove to his disciples that he was alive? Wouldn't they also fit your 'facts' and be just as unprovable as your divine theory? I would argue it's an even stronger theory then the divine explanation because teleportation, cloaking devices (needed to hide the aliens) and holographic projection are actually scientifically possible (and in some case have working examples).

How do we decide between supernatural theories when those theories can be tailored or altered with no regards to natural laws or constraints?

Why is your supernatural theory any more valid then mine (or whatever someone else thinks up) even though they both fill your criteria?

Yes, of course you can make up any supernatural theory you like. The question remains though: is it the best explanation of the facts?

Any explanation, whether natural or non-natural, should be weighed against the competing theories to see which one is the most plausible, or which one is the best explanation.

Your alien abduction theory is of course not very plausible or probable at all. It raises more questions than answers. What were the motives of the aliens? Were they just playing a joke on us? If so, why? What's the point? Where did the aliens come from? Is there any evidence for aliens? Have there been any other cases of alien abduction proven, etc

Unlike the Resurrection theory, your alien theory, or any other made up theory, is extremely ad hoc. This is the biggest problem for competing non-natural explanations -the randomness or 'ad hocness' of them. There's no background / context that they fit into.

On the other hand, the Resurrction explanation occurs in a religio-historical context that completely makes sense.

This context includes Jesus' claims to divinity, that he was known as a powerful miracle-worker, that he claimed he would be killed and raised on the third day, as well as data that supports the existence of God (if God exists it makes the Resurrection extremely more likely). You could even throw in prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament.

So on the one hand we have your completely ad hoc thoery about aliens that has no evidence at all, and on the other we have the Resurrection which is set in a historical context with obvious religious implications where a Resurrection is completely 'at home'.

I know which one I think is more plausible and thus the better explanation.

 

[Monniehawk]

We are lucky to have adults like you to monitor us.
What you see as fighting I see as discourse.

Being old has its privileges! Unfortunately wisdom is not always attendant with age.
I admonished myself because it is otherwise a good thread. Let the children play!

 

[CharacterFirst]

Being old has its privileges! Unfortunately wisdom is not always attendant with age.
I admonished myself because it is otherwise a good thread. Let the children play!

You're right. But I find the real problem is wisdom is not esteemed.

 

[Pie eyed]

Reading that wiki (do we trust it? ) quote makes think that there are ways a historian can deduce evidence about the resurrection, which i think, semantics aside, is what some were trying to say all along.

But generally it seems, if we play by the current rules (I don't necessarily agree with them), then History isn't up to proving God or how he works in the world.

Looks like we are back to faith. God is pretty clever the way he has created things so belief rests with our decisions, under his grace thru faith in JC. Truely no one will have an excuse it seems.

I agree. Belief in Jesus, the Jesus and his actions as described in the bible, as a son of God, and belief in God himself are totally a matter of faith. many thousands of hours have been devoted by the faithful to find some form of evidence which will not be provided.
Using the Bible as evidence is pointless as the writings which it is made up of specifically make the claims it purports to relay. The fact that bible stories accurately describe historically confirmable events, persons and places along side it's supernatural claims is no more unexpected than any novel or group of novels set anywhere or in any time.

In the absence of faith then there is no compelling reason for Jesus, or God.

Can I ask both you and Serg, a new Christian, though not decided which denomination or in fact any, what it was that drew you to search for faith?

 

[Max zero]

Your alien abduction theory is of course not very plausible or probable at all. It raises more questions than answers. What were the motives of the aliens? Were they just playing a joke on us? If so, why? What's the point? Where did the aliens come from? Is there any evidence for aliens? Have there been any other cases of alien abduction proven, etc

I could ask every single one of those questions of your divine resurrection theory too. Yet that has no impact on your belief of the theory.

Don't you always ask naturalist thinkers to open their minds to other possibilities? Why do we have to stay in your Bible/religious context? If we take a science fiction view on history then aliens are claimed to be involved from everything from the construction of the pyramids to the Mayans and Inca. In this view the the aliens fit right in.

 

[CharacterFirst]

I agree. Belief in Jesus, the Jesus and his actions as described in the bible, as a son of God, and belief in God himself are totally a matter of faith. many thousands of hours have been devoted by the faithful to find some form of evidence which will not be provided.
Using the Bible as evidence is pointless as the writings which it is made up of specifically make the claims it purports to relay. The fact that bible stories accurately describe historically confirmable events, persons and places along side it's supernatural claims is no more unexpected than any novel or group of novels set anywhere or in any time.

In the absence of faith then there is no compelling reason for Jesus, or God.

Can I ask both you and Serg, a new Christian, though not decided which denomination or in fact any, what it was that drew you to search for faith?

Many hours it seems are being devoted to trying to prove there is no God by those who don't believe. What i think is a classic is, that even by their own rules, without faith, they can't do it. According to their own rules, they have even less to go on that Xians.

Well I do believe God searches for. This will open another whole can of worms, full of paradoxes that none can fully explain and most won't be able to hold in tension.

 

[Partridge]

Do you believe in the supernatural? If so what? If not is it only b/c current modern bias says we don't have agreed rules to evaluate the supernatural?

No. Not at all. How can you believe something for which there is no evidence at all?

 

[Partridge]

Don't you always ask naturalist thinkers to open their minds to other possibilities? Why do we have to stay in your Bible/religious context? If we take a science fiction view on history then aliens are claimed to be involved from everything from the construction of the pyramids to the Mayans and Inca. In this view the the aliens fit right in.

At least we know those ruins actually exist. You can go and see them (I have with both the Pyramids and Mayan ruins). No such luck with things like Noah's Ark though.

 

[CharacterFirst]

No. Not at all. How can you believe something for which there is no evidence at all?

Yep you need faith - something repugnant to most humans b/c they cannot bear to think of believing in anything unless they have been able to work it out thru their own cleverness. Have a look at my last post in the "The Bible - signs of the end" thread.

I like this quote as well ....[there is a ] critical distinction between the "total absence of supporting evidence" and the "absence of totally supporting evidence."

 

[Suspense]

Reading that wiki (do we trust it? ) quote makes think that there are ways a historian can deduce evidence about the resurrection, which i think, semantics aside, is what some were trying to say all along.

i don't understand what you are trying to say.

But generally it seems, if we play by the current rules (I don't necessarily agree with them), then History isn't up to proving God or how he works in the world.

ofc not. that is a philosophical argument. modern historical scholarship merely says "whether there is or isn't a supernatural world/being/whatever, we will investigate the historicity of past events on the basis of a naturalistic presupposition utilizing empirical methods"

you can disagree with the presupposition of naturalism all you wish but it is clear that the strength of the discipline as a source of knowledge lies in it holding such presuppositions and the logical reasoning as to why such presuppositions are held.

Looks like we are back to faith. God is pretty clever the way he has created things so belief rests with our decisions, under his grace thru faith in JC. Truely no one will have an excuse it seems.

yeah god is a unit alright.

When I argue that Jesus' Resurrection was a historical event, all I mean is that I think it actually happened. I'm not saying that historians would agree with me.

fair enough, however your words are misleading and deceptive imo.

define a historical event. is it related to historical facts (of which you stated is the domain of the professional historian)?

So even if historians do operate under the presupposition of naturalism (and I am prepared to concede that point) that doesn't mean you and I can't have a discussion about whether the resurrection did or did not happen.

Let's draw a distinction between

A The historical facts (which IS the domain of the professional historian); and
B The best explanation for those facts (a discussion ANYONE can engage in)

B, on itself, is pointless. "best explanation"? it would be value judgement against value judgement. this is why we always go back to A as it is a referent to a commonly accepted "objective" form of knowledge that involves a systematic examination of evidence and highly disciplined reasoning.

you and WLC can bemoan the "methodological constraints" of modern historical scholarship all you wish, but without it we would be stuck in a state of complete epistemological paralysis and wallowing in a mire of value judgements v value judgements. "i believe this" vs "i believe that" with no "objective" highly disciplined body of knowledge to fall back upon and to test the legitimacy of either point of view.

again, when investigating and discussing the historicity of past events, the "methodological constraints" exist for a good and logical reason and you have yet to address why it is that this reasoning is fallacious.

my point is, despite your clarification above, when you claim the resurrection as a historical event, you are clearly going beyond just B and well into the domain A.

 

[CharacterFirst]

i don't understand what you are trying to say.



ofc not. that is a philosophical argument. modern historical scholarship merely says "whether there is or isn't a supernatural world/being/whatever, we will investigate the historicity of past events on the basis of a naturalistic presupposition utilizing empirical methods"


you can disagree with the presupposition of naturalism all you wish but it is clear that the strength of the discipline as a source of knowledge lies in it holding such presuppositions and the logical reasoning as to why such presuppositions are held.



yeah god is a unit alright.



fair enough, however your words are misleading and deceptive imo.

define a historical event. is it related to historical facts (of which you stated is the domain of the professional historian)?


B, on itself, is pointless. "best explanation"? it would be value judgement against value judgement. this is why we always go back to A as it is a referent to a commonly accepted "objective" form of knowledge that involves a systematic examination of evidence and highly disciplined reasoning.

you and WLC can bemoan the "methodological constraints" of modern historical scholarship all you wish, but without it we would be stuck in a state of complete epistemological paralysis and wallowing in a mire of value judgements v value judgements. "i believe this" vs "i believe that" with no "objective" highly disciplined body of knowledge to fall back upon and to test the legitimacy of either point of view.

again, when investigating and discussing the historicity of past events, the "methodological constraints" exist for a good and logical reason and you have yet to address why it is that this reasoning is fallacious.

my point is, despite your clarification above, when you claim the resurrection as a historical event, you are clearly going beyond just B and well into the domain A.

Try a bit harder
Yep. established and understood.
Good O.
Watch it. He's listening.

 

[Richo83]

suspense, who is in your avatar, and why do you go for the yank national football team?

 

[Pie eyed]

Many hours it seems are being devoted to trying to prove there is no God by those who don't believe. What i think is a classic is, that even by their own rules, without faith, they can't do it. According to their own rules, they have even less to go on that Xians.

Well I do believe God searches for. This will open another whole can of worms, full of paradoxes that none can fully explain and most won't be able to hold in tension.

I can honestly say I have never even made an attempt to prove God either exists or does not exist.
By definition once you have evidence, let alone proof of God, he/she/it ceases to be supernatural and therefore ceases to be God.