Nomad

Note: this was split off from Historical Method, started by Richard Carrier.

Good heavens Richard, but I do hope that you will avoid engaging in too many fallacies like you have here. Most of what you said is pretty much alright, but when you say something like this, it is, of course, nothing more than breaking your own rules.

First, you beg the question, telling us that that "religionists despise" historical uncertainty because they are "so very terrified of uncertainty." It is also, of course, pure propaganda which is meant to play to the prejudices of the majority of the people who post to this forum. You do this by means of the fallacy of circumstantial ad hominem. It is also the fallacy of hasty generalization, unless, that is, you can produce scientific evidence to support your claim.

I know that it is difficult to suppress one's own prejudices when speaking on a serious topic, and for the most part you managed to do it. But in this instance, I believe that you have stepped over the line, and broken your own rules.

Peace,

Brian Trafford (aka Nomad)

{edited by Toto to add link to previous thread at top}

Toto

Hi Nomad - would all of the posts by the Christians in this forum count as evidence? If so, I think there is at least anecdotal evidence that Christians do not like historical uncertainty.

Layman

Interesting post. I'll wait to see the criteria you propose. But this looks like a toss in. Because most theists I have known--quite a few in my life as an amatuer Christian--would never claim that their certititude about their faith comes from their historical studies, I am skeptical that they are terrified of it in historical studies.

mike_decock

Perhaps one could make a case that religionists, earnestly devoted to or zealous about their religion, would by definition be terrified of any uncertainty in the history or the origin of their beliefs. Even so, injecting a potentially divisive comment into a discussion of History vs. Science seems unnecessary and only serves to distance any religious people (even if they're not religionists) from the valuable arguments of the discussion.

Even though I'm no religionist (or even religious) but I'm still uncomfortable with the uncertainty of History. Even when you can pin down the people, places and events, trying to get a grasp of the motivations and worldviews of the people seems very speculative to me. Ironically, the most speculative aspect of history is the most interesting and probably the most important aspect of the field.

-Mike...

Toto

Christianity is the only religion I can think of that requires belief in a certain set of historical facts in the form of the Nicene Creed. Josh McDowell's apologetics include what he thinks is the historical proof of the Christian story. If that history is proven to be false, some Christians would undoubtedly work their way around that, but it is not hard to imagine that many of them would find the foundations of their faith shaken.

Layman

If one of the chief characteristics of historical inquiry is the lack of certitude, it's unlikely Christianity will be proven false by historical studies.

theophilus

This, of course, brings up the whole question of "proof," which unbelievers always assume to have on their side. Most of them, I have found, are either ignorant of or disdainful of the entire issue of epistemology and merely assume that the standards that satisfy their biased anti-theistic thinking are objective.

Vinnie

I have to second that, and also your judgment that most of what Carrier said "is pretty much alright".

If wooing the crowd through shoddy polemic is the goal, at least qualify it as "some religionists".

I think we all do know that this does apply to some evangelical Christians who would defend the Christian faith through historical apologetics. Even systmatic theologians have done this. Van Til did it in his Intro to Systematic Theology and lots of apologists go the "gospels are historically reliable and can be trusted" route to defending Christianity. This is not the only means used but a lot of apologists do use it.

Is J.P. Holding a prime example online?

At the same time the "uncertaintly" allows other Christians to smile at curious historians using hearsay to claim Jesus never said or did x,y or z. The fact that we do not possess positive evidence event x did not occur does not mean exent x did not occur--just that we do not have valid positive reasons for affirming that it did occur.

Vinnie

Toto

I suppose you have a long list of Christians who are not threatened by the idea that Jesus might not have existed?

Layman

I suppose you are going to reconcile the propositions that history cannot prove things but can prove Christianity wrong?