(September 1, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Atom Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 4:52 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: And in the fashion of reductio ad absurdum, all "serious historians" don't believe in the resurrection or Jesus' deity, therefore, you shouldn't either. So why are you still a Christian, Atom?

Professional historians writing for peer reviewed articles are prevented from concluding that Jesus was resurrected because of the assumption of naturalism that is an essential, and I would even say proper, part of their methodology. If the presupposition of naturalism is set aside, the resurrection can be deduced directly from the historical events acknowledge by most critical historians.

That's irrelevant. The point of my argument is that's it's absurd to dismiss a position simply based on numbers.

The fact that Erhman is an agnostic doesn't prove anything either about the creditability of historicism. There could be many reasons that would biases him to wanting Jesus to be real, despite his agnosticism.

Another reason it's absurd to dismiss a position based on numbers is that often times views that are now mainstream among scholars were once "fringe" theories that were dismissed by the majority. Minimalism in bible archeology has a strong support now whereas 20 to 30 years ago, it like mythicism now, was similarly dismissed. (read for instance this new article by Philip Davies http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/dav368029.shtml ).

(September 1, 2012 at 5:47 pm)Atom Wrote: No conspiracy is involved, methodological naturalism is one of the philosophical assumptions used for most scientific inquiry. You can read about it here.

No, you said that historians are prevented from reaching the conclusion of JC's resurrection. Methodological naturalism has nothing to do with that. If it can be shown that such a resurrection actually took place and was a real, verifiable historical event - and remember, JC was (in the story) not the first person to be resurrected, then such a phenomenon is by its very nature a natural condition that may be investigated scientifically. Why would historians find themselves under a gagging order regarding the resurrection? It makes no sense.

(September 1, 2012 at 5:36 pm)Stimbo Wrote: No, you said that historians are prevented from reaching the conclusion of JC's resurrection.

I did. That's because it would never pass muster in a peer review. There are professional historians that have published peer reviewed articles that separately draw the conclusion that the resurrection occurred in their non peer reviewed publications.

(September 1, 2012 at 5:47 pm)Atom Wrote: No conspiracy is involved, methodological naturalism is one of the philosophical assumptions used for most scientific inquiry. You can read about it here.

Atom, do you know what they call a supernatural phenomena that has been proven to be real and can be inspected by science?

They call it "natural".

If ghosts were real, we have Dr. Venkmen style gadgets that could detect ectoplasmic readings to sense if ghosts were nearby. There would be an entire scientific field devoted to the study of ghosts. Ditto for faeries, ditto for magical spells, ditto for anything else.

Why?

Because if it can be shown to really exist, it can be studied.
If it can be studied, it can be understood.
If it can be understood, it can be explained.
If it can be explained, TA DA, it's natural.

See the "placebo effect" for something that sounds like woo but is real and studied by medical science.

I don't know how you did that but you quoted Stim's comment with my name. Must be another one of those "miracles."

In any case I agree with Stim.

Would you expect "professional historians" to attest to the notion of holy zombies climbing out of their graves and wandering around Jerusalem?
What about the "veil of the temple" being torn in two? How would someone know the exact moment of jesus supposedly dying on the cross while being in the Holy of Holies watching the drapes? Was he on a cell phone to someone on Calvary? What about the darkness? The earthquake?

How much silly superstition do you expect them to swear to?

And, if you are too rational to expect them to buy such obvious bullshit, WHY would you expect them to attest to someone coming back from the DEAD?

Ehrman's rebuttal to the "minimal facts approach" to proving the resurrection is quite good:

Quote: What about the resurrection of Jesus? I’m not saying it didn’t happen; but if it did happen, it would be a miracle. The resurrection claims are claims that not only that Jesus’ body came back alive; it came back alive never to die again. That’s a violation of what naturally happens, every day, time after time, millions of times a year. What are the chances of that happening? Well, it’d be a miracle. In other words, it’d be so highly improbable that we can’t account for it by natural means. A theologian may claim that it’s true, and to argue with the theologian we’d have to argue on theological grounds because there are no historical grounds to argue on. Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and by definition a miracle is the least probable occurrence. And so, by the very nature of the canons of historical research, we can’t claim historically that a miracle probably happened. By definition, it probably didn’t. And history can only establish what probably did.
I wish we could establish miracles, but we can’t. It’s no one’s fault. It’s simply that the cannons of historical research do not allow for the possibility of establishing as probable the least probable of all occurrences. For that reason, Bill’s four pieces of evidence are completely irrelevant. There cannot be historical probability for an event that defies probability, even if the event did happen. The resurrection has to be taken on faith, not on the basis of proof.
Let me illustrate by giving you an alternative scenario of what happened to explain the empty tomb. I don’t believe this. I don’t think it happened this way, but it’s more probable than a miracle happening because a miracle by definition is the least probable occurrence. So let me give you a theory, just one I dreamt up. I could dream up twenty of these that are implausible but are still more plausible than the resurrection.
Jesus gets buried by Joseph of Arimathea. Two of Jesus’ family members are upset that an unknown Jewish leader has buried the body. In the dead of night, these two family members raid the tomb, taking the body off to bury it for themselves. But Roman soldiers on the lookout see them carrying the shrouded corpse through the streets, they confront them, and they kill them on the spot. They throw all three bodies into a common burial plot, where within three days these bodies are decomposed beyond recognition. The tomb then is empty. People go to the tomb, they find it empty, they come to think that Jesus was raised from the dead, and they start thinking they’ve seen him because they know he’s been raised because his tomb is empty.
This is a highly unlikely scenario, but you can’t object that it’s impossible to have happened because it’s not. People did raid tombs. Soldiers did kill civilians on the least pretext. People were buried in common graves, left to rot. It’s not likely, but it’s more likely than a miracle, which is so unlikely, that you have to appeal to supernatural intervention to make it work. This alternative explanation I’ve given you—which again is not one that I believe—is at least plausible, and it’s historical, as opposed to Bill’s explanation, which is not a historical explanation. Bill’s explanation is a theological explanation.
The evidence that Bill himself doesn’t see his explanation as historical is that he claims that his conclusion is that Jesus was raised from the dead. Well, that’s a passive – “was raised” – who raised him? Well, presumably God! This is a theological claim about something that happened to Jesus. It’s about something that God did to Jesus. But historians cannot presuppose belief or disbelief in God, when making their conclusions. Discussions about what God has done are theological in nature, they’re not historical. Historians, I’m sorry to say, have no access to God. The cannons of historical research are by their very nature restricted to what happens here on this earthly plane. They do not and cannot presuppose any set beliefs about the natural realm. I’m not saying this is good or bad. It’s simply the way historical research works.

Quote:A theologian may claim that it’s true, and to argue with the theologian we’d have to argue on theological grounds because there are no historical grounds to argue on.

Only if the theologian is allowed to argue that his fucking god exists...and they have no evidence to back up that claim which is as preposterous as any other which Ehrman dismisses.

(August 28, 2012 at 7:29 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 5:36 pm)Non-Minimalist Wrote: No, you said that historians are prevented from reaching the conclusion of JC's resurrection.

I did. That's because it would never pass muster in a peer review. There are professional historians that have published peer reviewed articles that separately draw the conclusion that the resurrection occurred in their non peer reviewed publications.

That's the whole point of peer-review; to weed out bad or inconsistent science. Without it we have the scientific equivalent of the creationist rumour mill, in which some preacher comes up with some slam-dunk 'fact' which is then spread around like some veneral disease without any attempt at correcting it or even verifying it.

At one time, the only way to explain the propagation of light through space was to propose the existence of a mysterious "æther " which carried the lightwaves in the same manner as air propagates sound. If not for peer-reviewed scientific investigation, we might very well believe in the æther's existence to this day.

On the other foot, we have the story of the infamous "Nebraska Man". The story as told by creationists is that in 1917, geologist Harold Cook found a fossilised tooth which appeared to be significant. The Illustrated London News carried an artist's detailed sketch of what became known as Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, family structure and all, based on the proportions of the species now identified as Homo erectus. Unfortunately the tooth was found some eight years later to have belonged to an extinct species of pig. This is cited by creationists to this very day by way of showing how stupid scientists are and how they're so desperate for evolution to be proved right that they'll invent fraudulent fossils left right and centre.

The bit they don't tell you is that the newspaper sketch had nothing to do with scientists, evolutionary or otherwise. It was never intended to be a scientifically-accurate depiction of the find; in fact the American palaeontologist Henry Osborn (who, sadly, was not the Green Goblin so far as we know) described the sketch in 1922 as "a figment of the imagination [of the artist] of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate."

The point I'm hoping to get across is that peer-review, far from being some kind of conspiratorial D-Notice, is a vital cog in the scientific process. Creationist preachers have no such equivalent, with the result that nothing is verified or corrected. Peer-review is no impediment to the scientific process, any more than the rules of cricket are an impediment to the game, or the rules of the courtroom are an impediment to the justice system. If something "would never pass muster in a peer review" there's a reason; it's not simply out of spite. Bad science, like bad historical research, will always be found out.

(September 1, 2012 at 7:02 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 28, 2012 at 7:29 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I did. That's because it would never pass muster in a peer review. There are professional historians that have published peer reviewed articles that separately draw the conclusion that the resurrection occurred in their non peer reviewed publications.

That's the whole point of peer-review; to weed out bad or inconsistent science.

I think we are in agreement on this point. I tried to make this clear in my original comment on the topic. I support the use of the assumption of naturalism in historical analysis. Claims to have historical evidence for miracles and religious causes should be done separately, in my opinion.

Atom, I think the reason why you haven't got an substantial argument for mythicism in this thread is because you haven't demonstrated that you'd fairly evaluate our arguments. It would be a waste of time. One of the members here could write a lengthy case for mythicism as has been done several times in past threads and you'd just dismiss it with your appeal to authority gimmick.