Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JonA · 03-12-2012, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

So the historian cannot without prejudice discount the records known as the gospels, on grounds of the supernatural events recorded in them, at any rate.

The gospels may preserve some history, but the supernatural events they described never occurred. Understating that is the basis for separating scholarship from ideology.

The difficulty is that scholars do not possess the means of demonstrating that these supernatural events did not occur. So perhaps they are now to be provided with it? Should we hold our breath?

It is not the job of the thorough scholar to disprove every ridiculous and fanciful claim made in any historical document ever written.

In fact, historical scholarship is confined entirely to the realm of the natural. So not only are historical scholars not required to disprove everything supernatural, but they are not required to even entertain any supernatural explanations[/i]. The supernatural is completely outside the sphere of what historical scholars deal with.

It is wholly irrelevant to their field of study.

Jon

sotto voce · 03-12-2012, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

So the historian cannot without prejudice discount the records known as the gospels, on grounds of the supernatural events recorded in them, at any rate.

The gospels may preserve some history, but the supernatural events they described never occurred. Understating that is the basis for separating scholarship from ideology.

The difficulty is that scholars do not possess the means of demonstrating that these supernatural events did not occur. So perhaps they are now to be provided with it? Should we hold our breath?

It is not the job of the thorough scholar to disprove every ridiculous and fanciful claim made in any historical document ever written.

Quite. The job of the thorough and unbiased scholar is to assess all sources on their merits. Without blinkers on.

Quote:

In fact, historical scholarship is confined entirely to the realm of the natural.

That's circularity.

Steven Carr · 03-12-2012, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

So the historian cannot without prejudice discount the records known as the gospels, on grounds of the supernatural events recorded in them, at any rate.

But historians can dismiss as not worth discussing whether or not works with albino assassins in them have any historical value.

JonA · 03-12-2012, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

In fact, historical scholarship is confined entirely to the realm of the natural.

That's circularity.

Nope. That's science. If you don't like it, you're free to invent your own way of studying history.

Just don't expect anyone to take your conclusions seriously...

Jon

sotto voce · 03-12-2012, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

In fact, historical scholarship is confined entirely to the realm of the natural.

That's circularity.

Nope. That's science.

It's not science. Science measures only repeatable phenomena. It cannot measure phenomena present when and where experimental science is inapplicable.

Yet more circularity.

shadowfox · 03-12-2012, 08:57 AM

Why would biblical scholars or historians bother discussing a work of fiction with an albino assassin, such as Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code?

Brian63 · 03-12-2012, 09:58 AM

Jumping in briefly here---

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

So what you're telling me, then, is that there are no works with albino assassins in them that are relevant to Biblical scholarship.

Got it.

Probably not, but so what? I think Steven's point was that the inclusion of supernatural renders the work less relevant (or historically unreliable) as history. He was not saying anything about whether it renders it more or less "relevant to Biblical scholarship." I think you are mistakenly confusing the two concepts together.

Of course the Bible itself is "relevant to Biblical scholarship" but that in itself does not lend to its being historically credible in any way, unless maybe a person has a bias towards the Bible being historical.

Brian

sotto voce · 03-12-2012, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian63

that in itself does not lend to its being historically credible in any way

Is there reason to believe the above comment more than the Bible?

Brian63 · 03-12-2012, 10:54 AM

Indeed.

Having book X "relevant to X scholarship" seems rather obvious and even true perhaps as a tautology. The book "Lord of the Rings" is relevant to Lord of the Rings scholarship, the book "The Scarlet Letter" is relevant to scholarship about the book "The Scarlet Letter, the book "A Tale of Two Cities" is relevant to scholarship about the book "A Tale of Two Cities," etc., etc., etc.

On the other hand, including a story about a talking snake in a story does tend to diminish the historical reliability of a story, along with other fairy tale like events. Obviously the Bible as a book is relevant to scholarship about the Bible, but being relevant to scholarship is not the same thing as being historically reliable.

Brian

JonA · 03-12-2012, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

In fact, historical scholarship is confined entirely to the realm of the natural.

That's circularity.

Nope. That's science.

It's not science. Science measures only repeatable phenomena. It cannot measure phenomena present when and where experimental science is inapplicable.

Yet more circularity.

Try again. Repeatability is not a requirement of science. It is merely a practice of the scientific community to improve reliability of experiments.

Jon

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-12-2012, 08:57 AM	#26
shadowfox Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: US Posts: 5,411	Why would biblical scholars or historians bother discussing a work of fiction with an albino assassin, such as Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code?

03-12-2012, 10:54 AM	#29
Brian63 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: My own little fantasy world Posts: 8,911	Indeed. Having book X "relevant to X scholarship" seems rather obvious and even true perhaps as a tautology. The book "Lord of the Rings" is relevant to Lord of the Rings scholarship, the book "The Scarlet Letter" is relevant to scholarship about the book "The Scarlet Letter, the book "A Tale of Two Cities" is relevant to scholarship about the book "A Tale of Two Cities," etc., etc., etc. On the other hand, including a story about a talking snake in a story does tend to diminish the historical reliability of a story, along with other fairy tale like events. Obviously the Bible as a book is relevant to scholarship about the Bible, but being relevant to scholarship is not the same thing as being historically reliable. Brian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.