Is that my fault?

[Resha Caner]

My apologies if the history thread was closed because of me. I didn't think I was getting into apologetics, but was only discussing the topic of how historical evidence is used.

So, Loudmouth, to your question, yes I understand the difference.

To bhsmte, you shared a list of historians with me once before. I think we disagree about the objectiveness of that list and how "miracles" fit into history.

I guess it needs to end there.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't really get it. You know, if everyone's being civil...

 

[Gadarene]

If there was decent content there, I'd save the webpages in case the thread gets disappeared.

All rather tedious.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sometimes people get nitpicky about the rules. I am no longer allowed to comment in the exploring Christianity area because only Christians are allowed to answer questions unless the person commenting is also the one that starts the thread. Even though I was on topic and not in the slightest advocating for atheism.

 

[Albion]

Sometimes people get nitpicky about the rules. I am no longer allowed to comment in the exploring Christianity area because only Christians are allowed to answer questions unless the person commenting is also the one that starts the thread. Even though I was on topic and not in the slightest advocating for atheism.

While things get erased in strange ways around here, it IS called "Christian Forums" you know. We have to admit that allowing non-Christians, let alone professed Atheists, a voice on a forum that's supposed to be about "exploring" Christianity is asking a lot.

 

[PsychoSarah]

While things get erased in strange ways around here, it IS called "Christian Forums" you know. We have to admit that allowing non-Christians, let alone professed Atheists, a voice on a forum that's supposed to be about "exploring" Christianity is asking a lot.

They asked what a bible verse meant (can't remember which one) and I gave an answer that was favorable towards the bible. I was removed not for what I said, but for this little icon by my avatar.

 

[Albion]

They asked what a bible verse meant (can't remember which one) and I gave an answer that was favorable towards the bible. I was removed not for what I said, but for this little icon by my avatar.

Yes. Does that strike you as unfair?

Trust me, I understand when anyone says that these erasures, cleanups, and whatever are often hard to understand, but the rules for that forum seem rather clearcut to me.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes. Does that strike you as unfair?

Trust me, I understand when anyone says that these erasures, cleanups, and whatever are often hard to understand, but the rules for that forum seem rather clearcut to me.

Rule of that forum is that only Christians can answer questions, so basically if a thread already exists that is talking about a question you want the answer to and you aren't Christian, you can only read, you can't post.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It leads to a lot of unnecessary repetition.

 

[bhsmte]

My apologies if the history thread was closed because of me. I didn't think I was getting into apologetics, but was only discussing the topic of how historical evidence is used.

So, Loudmouth, to your question, yes I understand the difference.

To bhsmte, you shared a list of historians with me once before. I think we disagree about the objectiveness of that list and how "miracles" fit into history.

I guess it needs to end there.

Yes, we can disagree on the objectiveness in regards to historians, just as historians disagree amongst themselves, no mystery there.

Now, on to miracles. How would a claimed miracle in the past, be verified as true by a historian employing the historical method?

 

[Albion]

Rule of that forum is that only Christians can answer questions, so basically if a thread already exists that is talking about a question you want the answer to and you aren't Christian, you can only read, you can't post.

Yes. It's for Christians to assist non-Christians in understanding our religion.

 

[Albion]

Now, on to miracles. How would a claimed miracle in the past, be verified as true by a historian employing the historical method?

I'm inclined to answer that by saying it could not be "verified" as a miracle.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes. It's for Christians to assist non-Christians in understanding our religion.

True, but how does having more than just the OP being non-Christian hurt that goal?

 

[bhsmte]

I'm inclined to answer that by saying it could not be "verified" as a miracle.

Not by employing the historical method, which a historian is tasked to do, when rendering an opinion about the past, correct. When a historian claims he believes a miracle happened, he has shed the historical method and is now getting into his own faith, which is clearly different than being a historian.

There seems to be some issues in understanding this point with some, which is why I brought it up. That attached from Robert Price, explains a bit about historians and miracles.

A Mess of Miracles by Robert M. Price

 

[Albion]

Not by employing the historical method, which a historian is tasked to do, when rendering an opinion about the past, correct. When a historian claims he believes a miracle happened, he has shed the historical method and is now getting into his own faith, which is clearly different than being a historian.

Welllllll, I wouldn't put it quite that way. If the historical method is employed, and the event has no Earthly explanation, and appears to be otherwise impossible, but can't be dismissed as a fraud, it is reasonable enough to conclude just that. If someone else calls it a miracle, that would of course be a private judgment, but not unreasonable. The problem is that few events that are called miracles are without some non-miraculous explanation.

 

[Resha Caner]

Now, on to miracles. How would a claimed miracle in the past, be verified as true by a historian employing the historical method?

I'm not trying to circumvent any rules here. I'm willing to answer your question, but if this thread gets shut down as well, I suppose that means we need to take this offline.

First of all, I do not recall one thing you mentioned ever being generally accepted as part of a historical method. That being your comment that a historian must dismiss a claim if it is not the most parsimonious explanation. A cited expert may include that in their argument, but the historian himself is under no such obligation.

That leads into a second point, which is what appears to be your mistaken idea that historians sit in judgement like some kind of panel that has been given authority to declare historical truth. Such is not the case. Historians evaluate claims, and that evaluation includes addressing all sides of the issue. Yes, there are "facts" that are not in dispute. But the reason they are not in dispute is simply because no one is disputing them. If someone does dispute a claim, historians move into the claim/warrant process, but there is no aspect of that process which insures an undisputed conclusion can be reached.

The miracles* of the Bible are disputed. In that process, a certain amount of bluster occurs where historians will make "conclusive new evidence" or "we now know" types of declarations. But if you read carefully, modern peer-reviewed literature will never say "such-and-such miracle is impossible".

So, can a miracle be proved impossible? I would say no.

If we can't prove it impossible, we must accept it as possible.

If we must accept it as possible, a historian should not dismiss the miraculous claim without evidence specific to the event.

Historians have no evidence specific to the claimed miraculous events in the Bible.

Therefore, historians should not dismiss them. They can offer alternative explanations if they choose, but they should not dismiss them as impossible.

*Footnote: Since no definition of "miracle" has been given for this thread, I'll offer mine (which is actually that of C.S. Lewis). A miracle is not a suspension of physics, but God's intervention in the world using a power larger than that available to humanity.

 

[bhsmte]

Welllllll, I wouldn't put it quite that way. If the historical method is employed, and the event has no Earthly explanation, and appears to be otherwise impossible, but can't be dismissed as a fraud, it is reasonable enough to conclude just that. If someone else calls it a miracle, that would of course be a private judgment, but not unreasonable. The problem is that few events that are called miracles are without some non-miraculous explanation.

Well, that is sort of the entire point. A historian determines, "what likely happened in the past" and by definition, this would exclude, the least likely explanation of what happened. By definition, miracles are the least likely explanation of any event, so, historians will not use miracles as an explanation of what likely happened in the past. In essence, the historian will say; "we don't know what happened", before he attaches the miracle label to anything.

As an example, if the miracle is Jesus rising from the dead. The historian is going to ask, what is more likely; the body was missing because someone had taken it out before the people arrived, the people who claimed they saw Jesus after he died, were either lying or hallucinating, or the writers of the NT make it up, or a miracle happened and he rose from the dead?

Nothing wrong with one wanting to believe the miracles, but the belief is based on faith, not historical fact.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not trying to circumvent any rules here. I'm willing to answer your question, but if this thread gets shut down as well, I suppose that means we need to take this offline.

First of all, I do not recall one thing you mentioned ever being generally accepted as part of a historical method. That being your comment that a historian must dismiss a claim if it is not the most parsimonious explanation. A cited expert may include that in their argument, but the historian himself is under no such obligation.

That leads into a second point, which is what appears to be your mistaken idea that historians sit in judgement like some kind of panel that has been given authority to declare historical truth. Such is not the case. Historians evaluate claims, and that evaluation includes addressing all sides of the issue. Yes, there are "facts" that are not in dispute. But the reason they are not in dispute is simply because no one is disputing them. If someone does dispute a claim, historians move into the claim/warrant process, but there is no aspect of that process which insures an undisputed conclusion can be reached.

The miracles* of the Bible are disputed. In that process, a certain amount of bluster occurs where historians will make "conclusive new evidence" or "we now know" types of declarations. But if you read carefully, modern peer-reviewed literature will never say "such-and-such miracle is impossible".

So, can a miracle be proved impossible? I would say no.

If we can't prove it impossible, we must accept it as possible.

If we must accept it as possible, a historian should not dismiss the miraculous claim without evidence specific to the event.

Historians have no evidence specific to the claimed miraculous events in the Bible.

Therefore, historians should not dismiss them. They can offer alternative explanations if they choose, but they should not dismiss them as impossible.

*Footnote: Since no definition of "miracle" has been given for this thread, I'll offer mine (which is actually that of C.S. Lewis). A miracle is not a suspension of physics, but God's intervention in the world using a power larger than that available to humanity.

Let me ask a simpler question.

Would you agree, that a historian's job, is to determine the most likely explanation of events of the past?

If your answer is yes, how would a historian go about eliminating all possible explanations of an event, before settling on; "it was a miracle"?

Lastly, I agree, no one is saying miracles are impossible, but it is generally accepted, miracles are the least probable explanation for the explanation of any event.

 

[Albion]

Well, that is sort of the entire point. A historian determines, "what likely happened in the past" and by definition, this would exclude, the least likely explanation of what happened. By definition, miracles are the least likely explanation of any event, so, historians will not use miracles as an explanation of what likely happened in the past. In essence, the historian will say; "we don't know what happened", before he attaches the miracle label to anything.

Well sure, but that doesn't mean miracles cannot happen. It only means that historians can't find an alternate explanation. It's correct, of course, to say that "historians will not use miracles as an explanation," but we're not asking them to do that.

Nothing wrong with one wanting to believe the miracles, but the belief is based on faith, not historical fact.

That isn't entirely true. History is important in this precisely because it has eliminated all the other possibilities.

 

[Resha Caner]

A Mess of Miracles by Robert M. Price

Does anyone see the problem with Price's logic?

1. To be historical, an event must have a comparable example.
2. Samson is recorded in the Bible.
3. There are similar claims in other documents, but those have been dismissed.
4. Samson is dismissed as unlikely because it has no historical comparisons.