What is history?

[bhsmte]

Yes, primary sources are preferable to secondary sources. And primary sources can detiorate with time. Both true.

But if you have a forensic report that establishes the date of evidence, and you have some way to make exact replicas (photos of documents, video/voice recordings of interviews, etc.), does the quality of that evidence really deteriorate in a significant way?

Not if the report is documented properly and verifiable.

Again, speculating about motivations is of little value without something to substantiate it - examples of tampering, conflicting accounts, etc. The point being, evidence is what resolves such things if there is really some issue of unprofessional conduct by a historian.

If you're not charging improper conduct, then it's all part of the process. Going in with an attitude that you don't like someone's personal views is a bad approach. Rather, one identifies the thesis and either supports it or argues against it. Rhetoric becomes the tool.

Courts of law seek what really happened in criminal cases and they allow presentation of evidence to do so. This evidence could include personal eye witness accounts and recollections. Attorneys do in fact determine the credibility of witnesses based on their background, track record and potential motivations to tell a certain story, I don't see why the same could not apply to historians.

 

[Resha Caner]

Courts of law seek what really happened in criminal cases and they allow presentation of evidence to do so. This evidence could include personal eye witness accounts and recollections. Attorneys do in fact determine the credibility of witnesses based on their background, track record and potential motivations to tell a certain story, I don't see why the same could not apply to historians.

So you wish to charge some historian with improper conduct? Whom would that be?

That would be a serious matter. Are you familiar with what happened to Doris Kearns Goodwin?

 

[bhsmte]

So you wish to charge some historian with improper conduct? Whom would that be?

That would be a serious matter. Are you familiar with what happened to Doris Kearns Goodwin?

Where the heck did you get that from?

This isn't that tough. There are ways to investigate the credibility of claims and to help determine, how much bias may be involved.

Let me give you an example with the historicity of the NT:

I have read many a NT historians work and I tend to toss out, the evangelical conservative historians, who will claim; there are eye witness accounts, the work should be taken all literal, there are no problems with the historicity of the NT, ect ect. On the other hand, I tend to toss out the atheist historians who claim; Jesus was not a real person, and he was completely manufactured. Granted, I believe the latter argument is more logical than the first, I still discount it, because of potential bias.

Digging into, how each historian bases their conclusions (which evidence do they give more credence to and why and which evidence do they decide to ignore and why) is very beneficial, to getting the most objective take as possible.

 

[Resha Caner]

Where the heck did you get that from?

You proposed the legal system as a means for judging credibility. The legal system is meant to adjudicate misconduct.

I have read many a NT historians work and I tend to toss out, the evangelical conservative historians, who will claim; there are eye witness accounts, the work should be taken all literal, there are no problems with the historicity of the NT, ect ect.

Do you toss them out because they are evangelical conservatives?

On the other hand, I tend to toss out the atheist historians who claim; Jesus was not a real person, and he was completely manufactured. Granted, I believe the latter argument is more logical than the first, I still discount it, because of potential bias.

Do you toss them out because they are atheists?

Digging into, how each historian bases their conclusions (which evidence do they give more credence to and why and which evidence do they decide to ignore and why) is very beneficial, to getting the most objective take as possible.

Are you studying the historian or the data employed and the methods used to analyze it?

 

[bhsmte]

You proposed the legal system as a means for judging credibility. The legal system is meant to adjudicate misconduct.

And how does the legal system adjudicate misconduct? By having a system where evidence is presented and scrutinized for credibility.
I proposed that it is possible to deem credibility of evidence, just as what happens in a court of law, not actually using the legal system.

Do you toss them out because they are evangelical conservatives?

I go into it, knowing there could be more bias, but it ultimately comes down to an analysis of how they reach their conclusions. Would you trust a scientist employed by a tobacco company, to make an objective determination of whether smoking was bad for you? Would the testimony of the wife, of a suspected murderer, have as much credibility, if 5 other witnesses who have no apparent bias, are saying something completely different?

Do you toss them out because they are atheists?

As above.


Are you studying the historian or the data employed and the methods used to analyze it?

As I have stated already, I study how they reach their conclusions and look for their justification of their conclusions. What evidence do they weigh heaviest and why, what evidence do they not weigh as heavily or ignore and why - what is their reasoning?

 

[alien444]

This may seem obvious, but I believe it is easily forgotten---what we study as history is only about 8-10,000 years (or less) of human history out of 150-200,00 years of humanity. The discipline of history is more accurately the history of human civilization.

 

[Resha Caner]

This may seem obvious, but I believe it is easily forgotten---what we study as history is only about 8-10,000 years (or less) of human history out of 150-200,00 years of humanity. The discipline of history is more accurately the history of human civilization.

It primarily covers the period of human civilization, true. There are attempts at geological and cosmological history as well.

 

[Resha Caner]

I go into it, knowing there could be more bias, but it ultimately comes down to an analysis of how they reach their conclusions. Would you trust a scientist employed by a tobacco company, to make an objective determination of whether smoking was bad for you? Would the testimony of the wife, of a suspected murderer, have as much credibility, if 5 other witnesses who have no apparent bias, are saying something completely different?

Why do the other witnesses have no apparent bias? Because you judged them to be that way. I keep asking how you measure these biases, and you never really answer me. You just keep repeating that they're biased and so we have to look to those who aren't biased. How are you determining that someone has no bias? My answer is that it is all just your opinion.

You seem to be tacitly conceding that everything is subjective - the law, science (at least as it applies to the medical effects of tobacco), and history - while at the same time seeming to appeal to some objective standard for bias. It all appears very contradictory.

Regardless, you have basically stated that Christians cannot be objective about Christian history. By that reasoning, it seems one should say that about all history. Therefore, atheists cannot be expected to be objective about atheist history, correct?

- - -

Second, I again ask what historians you refer to. Generally, I'm asking the medium in which they publish. Are they publishing in peer-reviewed historical journals? Are they seated at universities, part of a library, government bureau, or a historical organization? Or are we talking about pop history?

As I have stated already, I study how they reach their conclusions and look for their justification of their conclusions. What evidence do they weigh heaviest and why, what evidence do they not weigh as heavily or ignore and why - what is their reasoning?

Again, I ask, how do you judge this "weighing evidence" thing?

And, if what you say above is true, why do you need to incorporate their religious theology into your analysis? Whether it makes them more likely to lean one way or another, are you saying you can't detect that leaning without knowing their theology? Should historians publishing in religious history be required to provide a theological statement along with their work?

 

[bhsmte]

Why do the other witnesses have no apparent bias? Because you judged them to be that way. I keep asking how you measure these biases, and you never really answer me. You just keep repeating that they're biased and so we have to look to those who aren't biased. How are you determining that someone has no bias? My answer is that it is all just your opinion.

You seem to be tacitly conceding that everything is subjective - the law, science (at least as it applies to the medical effects of tobacco), and history - while at the same time seeming to appeal to some objective standard for bias. It all appears very contradictory.

Regardless, you have basically stated that Christians cannot be objective about Christian history. By that reasoning, it seems one should say that about all history. Therefore, atheists cannot be expected to be objective about atheist history, correct?

- - -

Second, I again ask what historians you refer to. Generally, I'm asking the medium in which they publish. Are they publishing in peer-reviewed historical journals? Are they seated at universities, part of a library, government bureau, or a historical organization? Or are we talking about pop history?



Again, I ask, how do you judge this "weighing evidence" thing?

And, if what you say above is true, why do you need to incorporate their religious theology into your analysis? Whether it makes them more likely to lean one way or another, are you saying you can't detect that leaning without knowing their theology? Should historians publishing in religious history be required to provide a theological statement along with their work?

Caner,

I feel I have explained myself very well and thoroughly and that is all one can do.

And for the record, I never stated; EVERTHING is subjective, that is another leap on your part and clearly, you did not read clearly what I wrote.

Furthermore, if you can not understand methods that are used to determine the potential bias of an individual, there is nothing more I can state on this subject I already have not said. To clarify, everyone has some bias, but it helps to find those who are in the best position to be the most objective on a subject and will be less likely, to let their bias interfere with that objectivity.

At the end of the day, historians attempting to determine the probability that certain events occurred, should show their work and their work should be scrutinized on how and why they came to their conclusions, as I have explained already.

 

[Resha Caner]

I feel I have explained myself very well and thoroughly and that is all one can do.

Maybe it is perfectly clear to everyone else, but humor me. I have asked questions in those areas where I would like a deeper explanation. Will you answer those questions?

I asked quite a few, but they fall into a few basic themes, so I will summarize:
1) Have the conservative evangelical historians you mentioned been published in peer-reviewed journals?
2) Can atheists be objective about atheist history?
3) What indicates to you a historian has not given particular evidence sufficient weight?
4) Can these biases you speak of be detected from the data employed and the analysis methods used without knowing a historian's personal beliefs?

And for the record, I never stated; EVERTHING is subjective, that is another leap on your part and clearly, you did not read clearly what I wrote.

I know you didn't say it. It was not a leap on my part, as I was giving you my impression of your approach. You appear to appeal to subjectivity when referring to those you disagree with and to objectivity when referring to those you agree with without giving me a method for distinguishing them.

The law is the law and history is history. They are not the same and their methods are not the same. Maybe it confuses you that they both depend upon experts from other fields to supply certain types of evidence. That they have similarities does not mean they are similar in all things. So, I am saying your legal example does not apply unless you are charging misconduct.

As per your tobacco example, question #4 is meant to begin the process of clarifying what you mean by that example. Therefore, I can't say whether it might apply until you answer.

Furthermore, if you can not understand methods that are used to determine the potential bias of an individual, there is nothing more I can state on this subject I already have not said. To clarify, everyone has some bias, but it helps to find those who are in the best position to be the most objective on a subject and will be less likely, to let their bias interfere with that objectivity.

Question #2 is meant to further clarify this. How do you find this person who is "most objective"? And why is that necessary? Why is the input of others not to be considered?

I understand your interest in psychology, and you can study things however you prefer. But history is not psychology, and there is no effort underway (AFAIK) to psychologically analyze historians before clearing them to publish in a particular field. Therefore, this all seems irrelevant to history as it is currently practiced.

At the end of the day, historians attempting to determine the probability that certain events occurred, should show their work and their work should be scrutinized on how and why they came to their conclusions, as I have explained already.

As I recall, I have the history degree and you don't. But thanks for providing your opinion on what historians do.

 

[durangodawood]

To me, it is simply the study of events that have happened in the past.

What about the reasons for the events? The motivations?

 

[bhsmte]

What about the reasons for the events? The motivations?

That would be included in the study of past events, to some degree.

 

[juvenissun]

I began my graduate program in history in June. I'm not sure what extra time that will leave me, but whatever it is, history related topics will be easier to absorb.

Given I noticed certain currents of historicism here, I'm curious what the various opinions on history might be.

Only read the assumed historical facts. You are absolutely entitled to make your own interpretations.

That is how should we study history.

 

[durangodawood]

Only read the assumed historical facts. You are absolutely entitled to make your own interpretations.

That is how should we study history.

Do historical facts include motivations, in your opinion?

 

[Resha Caner]

Do historical facts include motivations, in your opinion?

That's an interesting question. I would have to say no in the sense that we can't really ever know if someone is expressing their true motivations. But in that sense, I'm not sure it matters as it pertains to history.

So, I think we can assess a collection of facts about someone's behavior and comment on whether that behavior is consistent with the individual's express intent.

Can atheists be objective about atheist history?

I don't know if bhsmte is planning to answer, but I'll also open this question to everyone.

 

[bhsmte]

That's an interesting question. I would have to say no in the sense that we can't really ever know if someone is expressing their true motivations. But in that sense, I'm not sure it matters as it pertains to history.

So, I think we can assess a collection of facts about someone's behavior and comment on whether that behavior is consistent with the individual's express intent.



I don't know if bhsmte is planning to answer, but I'll also open this question to everyone.

As I already stated and especially for highly debated history, I would check the possibility for bias for any historian and check the justifications for their conclusions. With the atheist, since they do not have a specific belief structure to protect, they would likely be less prone to bias.

Here is where the issue of conservative Christians becoming NT historians gives me a bit more pause in regards to their work.

The conservative Christian historian, goes into his or her work, with a already deeply held belief, that just so happens to include what they will be applying their skills to. I think you would agree, their personal belief is quite important to them from an emotional standpoint. In most people, they will protect this belief if at all possible and being objective about the topic of NT historicity, is asking for a lot.

For this reason, it has been my observation from my research, that an objective historical review of the NT has been more difficult to attain, than historical work that has been done, which would not directly impact one's spiritual and emotional tightly held beliefs.

There have been some conservative Christians that have become NT historians and scholars and through the actual experience of doing the long hours of research on the topic, have actually become more liberal Christians and or agnostic, because what they learned during their research, changed their belief structure.

 

[Resha Caner]

With the atheist, since they do not have a specific belief structure to protect, they would likely be less prone to bias.

An atheist has nothing to protect? I don't buy that.

I think atheists are just as qualified to study history as conservative evangelicals. There are differences in their methods, but from the perspective of a historical discipline I don't see the basis for saying one is better at reasoning toward truth than another.

 

[bhsmte]

An atheist has nothing to protect? I don't buy that.

I think atheists are just as qualified to study history as conservative evangelicals. There are differences in their methods, but from the perspective of a historical discipline I don't see the basis for saying one is better at reasoning toward truth than another.

Lets take a moment and compare, the conservative Christian NT historian, to an atheist historian, who is doing work on the history of atheism.

What do you think the conservative Christian goes into their work on the NT needing to protect, vs the atheist going into their work needing to protect?

Also, I agree, no reason an atheist or agnostic can not do excellent work in regards to NT history. As I already mentioned, some have gone into their work as conservative Christians and come out as atheist or agnostic after pouring into the work deeper and deeper.

Lastly, what would be different about the methods used by either an atheist historian or conservative Christian historian?

 

[Resha Caner]

What do you think the conservative Christian goes into their work on the NT needing to protect, vs the atheist going into their work needing to protect?

I don't really see a difference between the two. Something we've discussed in both my undergraduate and graduate historiography classes is that historians protect their thesis. That's what they do. But protecting a thesis has a downside if one becomes too emotionally attached.

An atheist writing atheist history is likely to have the same emotional connections to presenting their worldview as a Christian would. It's a human thing, not an atheist or Christian thing.

If you're going to try to take a postion that atheists generally have no interest in defending their world view, I would find that very odd.

Lastly, what would be different about the methods used by either an atheist historian or conservative Christian historian?

An atheist historian is more likely to look outside the Bible for motivations - to psychology, economics, power, etc. Those are some of the things I've heard proposed.

So, as one example, in my undergraduate world history text, some statement was made to the effect that the author of the Pentateuch likely borrowed from the Babylonians. That Moses might have referenced Babylonian sources seems totally plausible to me, but the word "borrowed" could mean other things. Since we had also just learned about the Semitic tribes that moved the region prior to Babylon, I asked the professor if it were not also possible that the Babylonians had "borrowed" from those Semite tribes. I was surprised when the only answer I got was silence.

IMO there is a theological elephant that sits in the room during that discussion, but since it's only a history class ...

 

[bhsmte]

I don't really see a difference between the two. Something we've discussed in both my undergraduate and graduate historiography classes is that historians protect their thesis. That's what they do. But protecting a thesis has a downside if one becomes too emotionally attached.

An atheist writing atheist history is likely to have the same emotional connections to presenting their worldview as a Christian would. It's a human thing, not an atheist or Christian thing.

If you're going to try to take a postion that atheists generally have no interest in defending their world view, I would find that very odd.



An atheist historian is more likely to look outside the Bible for motivations - to psychology, economics, power, etc. Those are some of the things I've heard proposed.

So, as one example, in my undergraduate world history text, some statement was made to the effect that the author of the Pentateuch likely borrowed from the Babylonians. That Moses might have referenced Babylonian sources seems totally plausible to me, but the word "borrowed" could mean other things. Since we had also just learned about the Semitic tribes that moved the region prior to Babylon, I asked the professor if it were not also possible that the Babylonians had "borrowed" from those Semite tribes. I was surprised when the only answer I got was silence.

IMO there is a theological elephant that sits in the room during that discussion, but since it's only a history class ...

From your perspective, what is the "world view" of an atheist?