DasAmericanAtheist
New Member
Re:
I dare say that we might be getting slightly off topic and--more importantly--away from, what I estimate, is Theo's point.
History cannot, for both practical and philosophical reasons, establish that someone did not exist. Bart Erhman is right to note in his debate against Craig on the historicity of the resurrection, that: history cannot tell you what definitely happened, but only what probably happened [my paraphrasing]. After establishing this (the certainty of uncertainty), it becomes a matter of which narrative is more likely.
History functions by using the same tools as the scientific method; an hypothesis is formulated based on existing knowledge and built from existing questions. This hypothesis is then tested in a similar fashion to that of laboratory research.
I might, for example, want to explore whether or not Cleopatra ever journeyed to Tibet. I'm free to ask this question on the basis of pure speculation, but it won't likely get me far. I would be better advised to see if any document suggests such a journey, or find some connection between Tibet and Cleopatra that might have slipped under the radar. I would then ask myself, "if Cleopatra did travel to Tibet, what sort of archeological evidence am I likely to find?" and go about locating any such evidence. Perhaps I find a kind of bead known to be used by Egyptians at the time of Cleopatra's reign at somewhere between Alexandria and Tibet. (To get to the point) I publish my findings, and the peer review process takes over.
No matter how much evidence I accumulate, I will never establish the fact of the matter, only the probability of the matter.
But there is a fact of the matter. That fact of the matter would be that I have certain pieces of evidence that suggest that something took place and further, that I have probable cause to infer from the facts at hand that the most likely explanation is "Cleopatra journeyed to Tibet."
Even if all I had was the bead, there would be no way to establish, as a fact of the matter, that Cleopatra did NOT journey to Tibet--only that is might be unlikely.
If instead I found a document by a more-or-less contemporary historian discussing that Egyptians believed that Cleopatra journeyed to Tibet, all I can establish is that Egyptians believed Cleopatra journeyed to Tibet. If I find a document by a more-or-less contemporary historian recounting Cleopatra's journey to Tibet, all I have is a report by an historian which would add credence to the notion that Cleopatra journeyed to Tibet. This later example still would not prove the fact of the matter--it can only suggest that at the time the document was produced the historian had reason to conclude that Cleopatra journeyed to Tibet and that the further details also took place.
Whether or not the historians cited by xians to support an historical Jesus are complete forgeries, it would only establish that the current evidence is really, really bad evidence. It might also suggest that all xians are utterly unfounded--historically--in their belief in an historical Jesus...but even if THAT is the case, all I have established is that at this particular time with this particular evidence, the belief in an historical Jesus is unfounded.
Just as in the scientific method, the theory is up for revision given the submission of new research, so, too, it is with history.
But this is not the point.
Whether one believes that there was an historical Jesus or not, is a matter of epistemology and each person is entirely free to set their own criteria for their epistemology. We may disagree with it, but it will not change this fact.
If really bad documentation is all a xian requires for their belief in an historical Jesus, there is nothing to be done. We can argue that their epistemology is flawed, short sighted or whatever else...but their epistemology is theirs to define.
The evidence might not suggest that a Jesus identical to that recorded in the gospels ever existed, but it would suggest that SOMETHING happened. So, even if we reject, on epistemic grounds, that an historical Jesus existed, there is still a fact of the matter. Whether it be that xians at the time simply believed that an historical Jesus existed, or whether it proposes a detailed account of the life and times and teachings of an historical Jesus--there is still something that went on.
We can thereafter only establish probabilities.
But even THIS is not the issue being presented. Theo is not questioning that there is a fact of the matter. The argument being presented is: what sorts of facts of the matter are admissible as evidence for something. And more importantly, how one can establish a fact of the matter.
In this point, Craig is not only deceptive in his methods but it wouldn't matter anyway! Even if ALL historians throughout ALL of time have ALWAYS believed in an historical Jesus who did everything that the gospels recount, it would say nothing to the fact of the matter--ONLY that historians believe a given thing.
Even if Craig weren't lying through his teeth, would the consensus of historians be epistemic justification for belief in the resurrection?
No. Why?
Because historian cannot comment on miracles, only whether or not a given people believed a miracle took place. Historically speaking, miracles are prone to rejection--because history can only establish what probably happened and a miracle, by definition, is improbable.
And again it would come down to a question of epistemology.
Craig, however, should know better than to present historical consensus of a miraculous event as an argument. He knows damn well that there is no solid epistemic justification for belief in miracles and his argument here--even if not a lie--would be little more than a very impressive sounding appeal to authority.
J.
I dare say that we might be getting slightly off topic and--more importantly--away from, what I estimate, is Theo's point.
History cannot, for both practical and philosophical reasons, establish that someone did not exist. Bart Erhman is right to note in his debate against Craig on the historicity of the resurrection, that: history cannot tell you what definitely happened, but only what probably happened [my paraphrasing]. After establishing this (the certainty of uncertainty), it becomes a matter of which narrative is more likely.
History functions by using the same tools as the scientific method; an hypothesis is formulated based on existing knowledge and built from existing questions. This hypothesis is then tested in a similar fashion to that of laboratory research.
I might, for example, want to explore whether or not Cleopatra ever journeyed to Tibet. I'm free to ask this question on the basis of pure speculation, but it won't likely get me far. I would be better advised to see if any document suggests such a journey, or find some connection between Tibet and Cleopatra that might have slipped under the radar. I would then ask myself, "if Cleopatra did travel to Tibet, what sort of archeological evidence am I likely to find?" and go about locating any such evidence. Perhaps I find a kind of bead known to be used by Egyptians at the time of Cleopatra's reign at somewhere between Alexandria and Tibet. (To get to the point) I publish my findings, and the peer review process takes over.
No matter how much evidence I accumulate, I will never establish the fact of the matter, only the probability of the matter.
But there is a fact of the matter. That fact of the matter would be that I have certain pieces of evidence that suggest that something took place and further, that I have probable cause to infer from the facts at hand that the most likely explanation is "Cleopatra journeyed to Tibet."
Even if all I had was the bead, there would be no way to establish, as a fact of the matter, that Cleopatra did NOT journey to Tibet--only that is might be unlikely.
If instead I found a document by a more-or-less contemporary historian discussing that Egyptians believed that Cleopatra journeyed to Tibet, all I can establish is that Egyptians believed Cleopatra journeyed to Tibet. If I find a document by a more-or-less contemporary historian recounting Cleopatra's journey to Tibet, all I have is a report by an historian which would add credence to the notion that Cleopatra journeyed to Tibet. This later example still would not prove the fact of the matter--it can only suggest that at the time the document was produced the historian had reason to conclude that Cleopatra journeyed to Tibet and that the further details also took place.
Whether or not the historians cited by xians to support an historical Jesus are complete forgeries, it would only establish that the current evidence is really, really bad evidence. It might also suggest that all xians are utterly unfounded--historically--in their belief in an historical Jesus...but even if THAT is the case, all I have established is that at this particular time with this particular evidence, the belief in an historical Jesus is unfounded.
Just as in the scientific method, the theory is up for revision given the submission of new research, so, too, it is with history.
But this is not the point.
Whether one believes that there was an historical Jesus or not, is a matter of epistemology and each person is entirely free to set their own criteria for their epistemology. We may disagree with it, but it will not change this fact.
If really bad documentation is all a xian requires for their belief in an historical Jesus, there is nothing to be done. We can argue that their epistemology is flawed, short sighted or whatever else...but their epistemology is theirs to define.
The evidence might not suggest that a Jesus identical to that recorded in the gospels ever existed, but it would suggest that SOMETHING happened. So, even if we reject, on epistemic grounds, that an historical Jesus existed, there is still a fact of the matter. Whether it be that xians at the time simply believed that an historical Jesus existed, or whether it proposes a detailed account of the life and times and teachings of an historical Jesus--there is still something that went on.
We can thereafter only establish probabilities.
But even THIS is not the issue being presented. Theo is not questioning that there is a fact of the matter. The argument being presented is: what sorts of facts of the matter are admissible as evidence for something. And more importantly, how one can establish a fact of the matter.
In this point, Craig is not only deceptive in his methods but it wouldn't matter anyway! Even if ALL historians throughout ALL of time have ALWAYS believed in an historical Jesus who did everything that the gospels recount, it would say nothing to the fact of the matter--ONLY that historians believe a given thing.
Even if Craig weren't lying through his teeth, would the consensus of historians be epistemic justification for belief in the resurrection?
No. Why?
Because historian cannot comment on miracles, only whether or not a given people believed a miracle took place. Historically speaking, miracles are prone to rejection--because history can only establish what probably happened and a miracle, by definition, is improbable.
And again it would come down to a question of epistemology.
Craig, however, should know better than to present historical consensus of a miraculous event as an argument. He knows damn well that there is no solid epistemic justification for belief in miracles and his argument here--even if not a lie--would be little more than a very impressive sounding appeal to authority.
J.