Dylan

Is there a good test to follow to decide if a certain belief about history is true?

Many Christians say that atheists are employing a double standard when it comes to believing history - believing certain things about history from one set of documents, and not believing others from the Bible. I disagree with this assessment, yet I have trouble articulating why I believe that, say, Columbus existed and did X, Y, and Z, and why I don't believe that Jesus did the various miracles that are attributed to him.

Is there more evidence that Columbus & the crew raped Native Americans, took them prisoner, etc than evidence of Jesus' miracles? How does one confidently state that certain things were done by certain people in history? Are supernatural occurences automatically less believable because one can conclude that by observing humanity today that usually these stories are false?

Toto

It is wise to be skeptical of all ancient sources, and most modern ones as well.

I have never seen a Christian complaint about a double standard in beliefs that stands up to scrutiny. For Columbus, we have documents that he himself wrote. We have documents that his contemporaries wrote. We have archeological evidence. We have nothing like that for Jesus.

We have never seen supernatural occurance, but we have seen many people make supernatural claims. This leads to the conclusion that descriptions of supernatural events in ancient documents are not good evidence that any supernatural event ever happened.

Chris Weimer

Take Herodotus and analyze it. It is very simple to see that some of the more exaggerated features tend to be just that - exaggerated! But he has a lot of history in that as well. E.g. There was a man named Jesus who started a Jewish sect - history! He was crucified and arose from the dead and thousands of years later missed his opportunity to return on 1-1-2000 - exaggerated. (He didn't miss his chance )

spin

Like most modern studies, history is based on evidence. If there is not sufficient evidence for a construct about the past, it cannot be called historical. Toto points to the ample contemporary evidence in the form of letters to point to the basic historicity of events in Columbus's activities in the New World. "Contemporary" is an important notion, for if the source of information is not contemporary, how can one know that the information actually relates to the period one is dealing with?

Information tends to receive a patina on it as time goes by, a patina which reflects the ideas of later times. This means it starts to become difficult to determine what is original and what is later.

The xian needs to justify the use of the information which they claim is evidence for the positions they are advocating. When were the texts really written? There is a lot of crap written about when texts were written, how Mark must have been written before the fall of the temple because it mentions the temple still standing, but this is a retrojection of modern analysts' assumptions rather than anything which comes from the text itself.

We don't know who wrote most of the texts, we don't when they were written or where. We don't even know the purposes for which they were written, although obviously they are related to the religion they reflect and thus religious purposes. But do they contain facts of the period they purport to represent? When we don't know when the texts were written, it becomes harder to answer such questions.

For a xian to use biblical texts as though they were istorical, they have to show that they can be used that way.

Ultimately, all evidence must be able to face such scrutiny. Where are the letters written by Columbus? How do we know that they are genuine? Etc., etc. We have simple ways of testing these questions. There are no simple ways of testing them regarding biblical literature.


spin

Magus55

Actually, we have documents Columbus allegedly wrote. We have documents his contemporaries allegedly wrote ( and we have them for Jesus too), and there is plenty of Archaeological evidence for the events surrounding Jesus. Although, what does Archaeological evidence have to do with Columbus?

We haven't seen a lot of things that happened in the past. How does that automatically mean it never happened, just because it doesn't happen today?

Jack the Bodiless

We don't have any documents that Jesus allegedly wrote. Nor do we have any archaeological evidence for the events surrounding Jesus, except for rather obvious stuff such as the Roman occupation: the existence of a few key figures such as Pontius Pilate is about as good as it gets. When we try to look at the more specific claims, we see a mess of contradictions (such as the Herod/Quirinus contradiction regarding the date of his birth).

Imagine if the only evidence for Columbus consisted of writings from others (decades later) plus the existence of Ferdinand and Isabella.

Sven

Oh, yes, we forgot about the many accounts about a solar ecplise and an earthquake in the year 33 AD.

Magus55

Solar eclipses ( which btw it wouldn't have been ) and earthquakes aren't Archaeological in nature.

Angrillori

Ah, the old 'events surrounding Jebus' defense...

So, since LA exists, and they film movies there, then Angel is true and there's a vampire with a soul wandering around helping people in need?

I mean, Angel has LA in it, and we have archaeological evidence that LA exists....right?

Pyrrho

The Christians are the ones who are not applying the same standards to all historical claims. They do not, for example, give equal weight to the Bible and the Koran. They also typically would not believe miraculous stories from a source other than the Bible, as, for example, if I were to claim that I fly around my bedroom every night (see below for more on this idea).

You should apply the same standards of evidence to all cases. I strongly recommend reading "Of Miracles" by David Hume; see:

http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/Dy...fMiracles.html
(When you click on the little numbers, it takes you to the relevant "footnote". Unfortunately, the "return" links do not seem to work, but you can use "Back" on your Internet browser to return to the portion of the text you were reading.)

To help you get started, the "real presence" to which he refers in his first sentence is a reference to the official Catholic doctrine regarding the Eucharist ceremony, in which bread and wine are consumed, and said to be the body and blood of Jesus. According to official Catholic doctrine, the substance of the bread and wine LITERALLY changes into the body and blood of Jesus; so good and faithful Catholics believe they are really eating Jesus. (Most Protestants believe that they are only symbolic representations of Jesus, and not magically transformed into the body and blood of Jesus. They believe they are only symbolic cannibals.)

Additionally, here are some comments about the essay that I posted a long time ago, though with some slight modifications to make them suitable for this post (though I recommend that you read Hume before you proceed below, as these are simply clarifications of various points in Hume):


_____________


When someone tells us something that happened, it could be:
1) common (e.g., "I drive a Ford"),
2) rare (e.g., "I date Britney Spears"),
3) miraculous (e.g., "I can raise people from the dead").

In each case, the rareness of the event is intimately tied to how believable it is. You would probably believe me if I told you I drove a Ford, you would be less likely to believe me if I told you I dated Britney Spears (since you don't know who I really am, it is possible that I do date her), and still less likely to believe me if I told you that I could raise people from the dead. If you disagree with that, please say so.

You know that sometimes people lie, so that what they say is false. You also know that sometimes people make honest mistakes, so that what they say is false. And, of course, sometimes people say things that are true. However, all three of these are exceedingly common occurrences, and in any specific case, none of these possibilities is to be ruled out a priori. One must examine the case to see which of these three possibilities is most likely to be correct, and judge the matter accordingly.

What he is advocating is that one always keep the various possibilities in mind, and always believe what is most probable; “A wise man . . . proportions his belief to the evidence.�

If we look at specific instances, we can judge them independently. But, so far, none of the reports of miracles has ever passed the test above, as the possibility of deception and honest mistakes are more likely than that the miracle ever happened. (If you disagree, then we would need to examine the matter on a case-by-case basis.)


_____________


Rarity and impossibility are not the same thing. If you look at:

Falsehoods are exceedingly common, whether they be caused by honest mistakes or lies. Thus, in all cases, the possibility that the statement is false is such that it ought to be taken seriously.

In all cases, you should consider what is most likely: The event occurred as described, or the person is mistaken or lying. Always go with whatever is most probable in any individual case. There is no automatic rejection of any event; one simply weighs the evidence and goes with the greater evidence. If the evidence favors the miracle over the person lying or being mistaken, then one ought to believe in the miracle.


_____________


No matter how many times a falsehood is repeated, that does not generally make it true. There have been countless people who have been deluded, and more testimony from deluded people does not help.

What you would need is testimony that is such that it has some credibility to it. Again, Hume had something to say about this:

Consider, for example, how you would react if I were to tell you that I fly around my bedroom every night, as I find it relaxing before going to sleep. How would you respond to this? Would you believe me, or suppose that I was saying something false (due to lying or being mistaken, perhaps through insanity)? Suppose I produced people who claimed to witness this miracle. Would you then believe? Wouldn't you want these witnesses to know about magic tricks, to make sure I wasn't deceiving them, as people are capable of some pretty impressive slight-of-hand? Wouldn't you want the witnesses to be known to be honest? Wouldn't you consider the fact that I could be paying them to lie? Wouldn't you be automatically suspect because I do not fly in public places, where the people may be able to detect a fraud? (Some have tried to weasel out of that by claiming that the miracle occurred in some remote place, but this still has the same problem with having an adequate situation for witnesses.)

Suppose I told you that I was able to fly due to God giving me the power to do so. It should be clear that that does not make the event any more probable, because, first, it could be claimed about any event, no matter how preposterous, and, second, we only know about God's actions through our observations of the world. Hume said this already:

We only know about the actions of God from our observations, and therefore we know God is not apt to raise people from the dead very often, if at all. Thus, a story about someone being raised from the dead, whether attributed to God or someone else, is not something likely to be true, as God (or someone else) does not commonly do such things.