Confess!: (became a) Religious Discussion

[BP]

Everyone in the USSR believed Stalin was tall for the same reason, no joke

[Lizard Dude]

Another issue: why does CE7 so readily accept these "historically witnessed" Christian miracles but not the countless other such bogus claims made by most other religions? (Or does he?) Why is he not a Buddhist because of Haedong Kosung-jon records of when an entire court gathering saw Ichadon's severed head fly to the sacred Geumgang mountains and milk spray 100 feet into the air from the neck of his corpse? Why isn't he a Muslim, for Muhammad once split the moon in two in view of the Quraysh tribe to convince them he was a prophet? Does he deny Sufi biographical records of their holy men who could turn invisible and teleport quickly across large distances? What of the much more historically recent group of witnesses who saw the golden plates from which Joseph Smith, Jr. translated the Book of Mormon?

Taking all the mythologies of man into account, everyone is 99% atheist. The 1% you Christians foolishly cling to is no less ridiculous and no less false.


In those parts of the world where learning and science have prevailed, miracles have ceased; but in those parts of it as are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue.
   ~Ethan Allen

[CrossEyed7]

Why do you accept the theory of relativity but not Lamarckian evolution? They're both scientific theories.

The account of Jesus in the New Testament is corroborated by reliable extrabiblical sources and fits with established history. Other religions' stories do not.

Admittedly, I haven't done enough research on that yet to defend it in an argument, but I've done enough to convince myself.

[Luigison]

I'm not well educated in the area either, but I could see a Muslim making a similar argument. 

"The account of Muhammad in the Quran is corroborated by reliable extraquranical sources and fits with established history. Other religions' stories do not." 

[PaperLuigi]

Why do you accept the theory of relativity but not Lamarckian evolution? They're both scientific theories.

The theory of relativity has a mountain of evidence supporting it. And Lamarckian evolution is no longer considered a theory because it was discredited by Darwin over a hundred years ago.

[CrossEyed7]

The theory of relativity has a mountain of evidence supporting it. And Lamarckian evolution is no longer considered a theory because it was discredited by Darwin over a hundred years ago.

That's what I'm saying. Some scientific theories are right, some are wrong. Believing in one theory doesn't mean you have to believe every theory ever. Religions should be treated the same.

I'm not well educated in the area either, but I could see a Muslim making a similar argument. 

"The account of Muhammad in the Quran is corroborated by reliable extraquranical sources and fits with established history. Other religions' stories do not." 

My impression is that most other religious texts have clear, major historical contradictions (for example, the Book of Mormon's account of ancient America is not supported by any contemporary evidence, and I believe the Quran says that Jesus was taken off the cross by angels before dying, which would clearly contradict historical consensus). But like I said, I haven't done nearly enough research on that, so I won't say anything more for now.

[Black Mage]

But like I said, I haven't done nearly enough research on that, so I won't say anything more for now.

But that goes back to LD's original statement, right? If you haven't done enough research to be able to discuss it, how could you possibly know enough to have come to an internal conclusion without having a double standard? I'm not out to get you here, it's just that you're dancing around the original point.

[CrossEyed7]

This guy makes a point kinda similar to the points I was making here last year, though in a more eloquent and also a more restrained, liberal way (those adjectives sound contradictory together now that I write them out, but you know what I mean, I think). And it turns out it was actually written before I said it, even though I just found it yesterday.

It’s not that miracles are by definition improbable and therefore historians, who only deal in probabilities, couldn’t ever affirm one. The problem is that our data sets are invariably inadequate to rule out the more probable naturalistic explanations.

But what if that wasn’t the case? Here’s a thought experiment: Suppose that Barack Obama were to suffer a tragic accident wherein he lost a leg. The accident happens in a very public setting and is viewed by millions in person and on television. Doctors try in vain to reattach the leg, but are unsuccessful. With the proceeds going to charity, the leg is purchased by a Las Vegas casino and is permanently displayed next to a grilled cheese sandwich bearing the image of Christ. In the months that follow, Obama is clearly seen by millions to have only one leg. He vacations in Hawaii and is photographed repeatedly wearing only a Speedo. It is self-evident that the leg is gone.

Now suppose that one day Obama goes to church and receives prayer for healing. Suppose he comes bursting out of the church with two good legs, claiming to be remarkably healed. Countless doctors examine him and agree that he now has two legs. DNA tests confirm that both legs are his and that this is indeed President Obama. He vacations again in Hawaii and the Speedo pics portray him clearly in all his bipedal glory. The old leg is still keeping company with the grilled cheese sandwich. Skeptics test the DNA from the old leg and find that it too matches Obama’s DNA.

What now? Must the historian still insist that the miraculous explanation is the least probable explanation?

If you rule out supernatural events categorically, well then yes, the miracle is still the least probable explanation. But only because you’ve decided that miracles have a frequency of zero. If you allow for the possibility of miracles, then it would be possible for a historian to affirm that a miracle probably occurred (at least in theory) where the data set was so compelling as to allow the historian to rule out all competing natural explanations.

There is merit to the idea that history, as a science of sorts, ought not to dabble in the supernatural. And if this is Ehrman’s position, I would probably agree. But we should not treat this methodological limitation of the discipline as though it were an argument against miracles. If historians have decided to exclude the miraculous from consideration in their discipline, the fact that historians cannot affirm that a miracle probably occurred does not mean that a miracle probably did not occur. It simply means that the discipline of history is, by definition, incapable of affirming the miraculous.