Jesus

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The “claim that the miracles especially fail standards of historical study” is not incorrect – evidently so as such claims are not taught as facts in mainstream academic institutions. Nor does Ehrman suggest otherwise.

What do you suppose that is?

Oh, and you seem to have forgotten to withdraw your error of telling me Ehrman didn't say what I told you he'd said even after I’d given you the quote when he said exactly that.

Would you like to row back from that mistake now?

What is taught in academic situations is a movable feast as you well know Hillside. How much History is taught as fact also puts a question mark on your suggestion that all history is taught as fact with no recognition that much remains conjecture.
What you and the posse seem to be presenting here is the old
"When Dr Ehrman says a historian is not obliged to deny miracles he's not really saying a historian is not obliged to deny miracles" routine.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I have already stated that as per Ehrman a historian is not obliged to dismiss miracles. In his view anybody that says they definitely happened cannot rely on history to support that.

Progress! I’m glad that you now seem to understand that the tools and methods of academic history do not justify biblical miracle stories.

That is not to say a historian can definitely say it didn't happen…

For the same reason that you cannot definitively say that leprechauns don’t leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. Nonetheless, as a practical matter you proceed on the basis that leprechauns aren’t real. So what though?

…because history does not definitively provide that proof.

Academic History doesn’t deal in proofs at all, and even if it did yu can’t prove a negative.

Cosmology doesn’t definitively prove that an orbiting teapot doesn’t exists either.

So what though?
 

So to return to Ehrman's first statement Historians aren't obliged to deny miracles.

And to undo your quote mining, when they do accept them nonetheless that has nothing to do with them being historians. 

Your disbelief in miracles is therefore a priori any historical consideration.

No more than your disbelief in leprechauns is the same thing. You’re conflating here epistemic truth with practical behaviour as if a proposition is false. You can’t prove that ere are no leprechauns; you proceed nonetheless on the basis that there are no leprechauns.

Can you see the difference between these positions now?     

[Maeght]

What is taught in academic situations is a movable feast as you well know Hillside. How much History is taught as fact also puts a question mark on your suggestion that all history is taught as fact with no recognition that much remains conjecture.
What you and the posse seem to be presenting here is the old
"When Dr Ehrman says a historian is not obliged to deny miracles he's not really saying a historian is not obliged to deny miracles" routine.

Why do you keep ignoring the latter part of the quote from BE?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He says they are not obliged to deny miracles but that 'When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer.'

The rest of your post seems quite muddled, but regards the last bit, a historian, acting as a historian, would likely need to say what they think happened but an atheist is under no such duty. They only have to say that they don't believe in the miracle claims.

Think or say what? You seemed to have missed out what they say or think.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But he goes on, effectively to say that historians, while operating as historians, are obliged to ignore miraculous claims.

So Bart is the one who is confused?

[Maeght]

Think or say what? You seemed to have missed out what they say or think.

That the miracles happened.

'Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer.'

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What is taught in academic situations is a movable feast as you well know Hillside.

Relevance?

How much History is taught as fact also puts a question mark on your suggestion that all history is taught as fact with no recognition that much remains conjecture.

Drivel. Various events are accepted as historically true because they pass the applicable tests of historicity. That’s not to say that they cannot be shown to be untrue at a later date (maybe the evidential documents turn out to be forgeries for example) but it is to say that – on the basis of the available evidence – they are deemed to be historically sound.

Miracle stories on the other hand fail these tests. QED. 

What you and the posse seem to be presenting here is the old
"When Dr Ehrman says a historian is not obliged to deny miracles he's not really saying a historian is not obliged to deny miracles" routine.

Stop lying, What I’ve actually said Ehrman actually said is what Ehrman actually said, supported by the direct quote of him saying it that you said he didn’t write – a mistake you’ve still to withdraw by the way.

[Nearly Sane]

Thanks. I have watched debates on this sort of thing on Youtube and know that people have said the same or similar, and I do get it, but am not an expert so sometimes my understanding needs refreshing 

I think it's a weird thought in many ways. One example ot it that used to annoy me was Randi's Million Dollar Challenge which when people failed just showed to me that whoever took it couldn't fool people under the conditiions. Had they succeeded it would not have been evidence that anything supernatural was happening.

Same issue with the studies into prayer. Whst they show is that prayer doesn't work as a method but nothing about whather some capricious god isn't occasionally curing cancer.

Worse is that the very concept of the 'supetnatural' doesn't seem to make any coherent sense - I think I have some common ground with Vlad on this, oddly enough.  If you take Clarke's quote 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic', then is the supernatural different from an advanced technology? It would seem that it would have to be but how?

That seems to mean that it breaks the 'laws of physics' but those are just descriptions of what happens, not proscriptive.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Why do you keep ignoring the latter part of the quote from BE?

Because he cited an article he thought supported him that then blew up in his face (he has form for that), so now he's quote mining to exclude those parts.

[Maeght]

Maeght,

Because he cited an article he thought supported him that then blew up in his face (he has form for that), so now he's quote mining to exclude those parts.

So it seems.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So Bart is the one who is confused?

No, you are. Or lying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That the miracles happened.

'Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer.'

Yes they would recognise themselves that ancient history provides no one any 100% copper bottom proof for pretty much any event.
The historian though is still not obliged to deny miracles I.e. History provides no evidence that miracles cannot, do not or have not happened

[Maeght]

Yes they would recognise themselves that ancient history provides no one any 100% copper bottom proof for pretty much any event.
The historian though is still not obliged to deny miracles I.e. History provides no evidence that miracles cannot, do not or have not happened

Historians do not, if they follow the historical method, deal in miracles. As I said, they deal in what is most likely to have happened so of course there is no 100% copper bottom proof in ancient history. Not sure that bit is relevant to what is being discussed though.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes they would recognise themselves that ancient history provides no one any 100% copper bottom proof for pretty much any event.
The historian though is still not obliged to deny miracles I.e. History provides no evidence that miracles cannot, do not or have not happened

It wouldn't since it's carried out in a methodologically naturalist approach.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes they would recognise themselves that ancient history provides no one any 100% copper bottom proof for pretty much any event.

No, but it does sometimes provide reasonable grounds for believing something to be more probably true than not - which the point you keep deflecting from.

The historian though is still not obliged to deny miracles I.e. History provides no evidence that miracles cannot, do not or have not happened

Nor is the cosmologist obliged to deny the orbiting teapot. You think you're making a salient point, but you're not. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Historians do not, if they follow the historical method, deal in miracles.

I’m going to have to call wishful thinking and complete denial of what historian Bart Ehrman has said namely historians are not obliged to deny miracles.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I’m going to have to call wishful thinking and complete denial of what historian Bart Ehrman has said namely historians are not obliged to deny miracles.

Stlll quote mining then I see. What does the rest of Ehrman's quote that I had to point you towards because you didn't bother reading the article say?

[Nearly Sane]

I’m going to have to call wishful thinking and complete denial of what historian Bart Ehrman has said namely historians are not obliged to deny miracles.

Except it's not. The historical method says nothing about 'miracles' either for or against, because and you can all join in it's METHODOLOGICALLY NATURALISTIC.

And indeed that's what Ehrman says.

[Maeght]

I’m going to have to call wishful thinking and complete denial of what historian Bart Ehrman has said namely historians are not obliged to deny miracles.

Call what you want. Nothing I have posted disagrees with what Bart Ehrman said.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It wouldn't since it's carried out in a methodologically naturalist approach.

Again how history is carried out is a moveable feast and as Bart Ehrman has pointed out Historians are not obliged to deny miracles.

Do you think methodological naturalists are obliged to deny miracles.

[Nearly Sane]

Again how history is carried out is a moveable feast and as Bart Ehrman has pointed out Historians are not obliged to deny miracles.

Do you think methodological naturalists are obliged to deny miracles.

Can you show me where history is not studied in a methodological naturalist approach? If not your claim that it is a moveable feast is an unevidenced assertion. If you can, then you would be producing evidence for the supernaturalist methodology that you have been asked for so many times, and never provided.

The quote from Ehrman also shows that he thinks history is carried out in a methodologically naturalist manner, and you ignoring that just looks sad.

Since, as I have covered, in the post you replied to that history studied in the a methodologically naturalist way doesn't have an opinion on 'miracles' whatever they are, I can't see why you ask the question.

And aren't you a methodological naturalist?

ETA - if you want to look on the Philosophy board, I've started a thread on 'miracles' because I don't really understand what people mean by the term.

[Maeght]

I’m going to have to call wishful thinking and complete denial of what historian Bart Ehrman has said namely historians are not obliged to deny miracles.

In addition to the earlier quote Bart Ehrman has said that anyone who believes in the resurrection is doing so for theological reasons. He has said it is not and cannot be based on historical proof.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you're confused. How can there be evidence for the supernatural absent a methodology for assessing it?

Firstly there is, of course, the notion that something purported to be supernatural actually turns out to be entirely natural.

But we also have to recognise that supernatural claims never exist completely outwith natural elements - the whole reason why someone claims there to have been a supernatural phenomenon is because of the impact and interaction with the natural world - Jesus raised someone from the dead - well that live/dead/live person is natural/materialistic. Jesus fed 5000 people from a bag of chips - the people, the bad of chips, the subsequent plentiful food etc are all natural/materialistic.

If a supernatural phenomenon were to exist that did not impact and interaction with the natural world then we could not know it was there and therefore there could be no claim for the phenomenon. The very notion that people claim supernatural phenomena exist is because of how they interpret very real world natural outcomes.

[Nearly Sane]

Firstly there is, of course, the notion that something purported to be supernatural actually turns out to be entirely natural.

But we also have to recognise that supernatural claims never exist completely outwith natural elements - the whole reason why someone claims there to have been a supernatural phenomenon is because of the impact and interaction with the natural world - Jesus raised someone from the dead - well that live/dead/live person is natural/materialistic. Jesus fed 5000 people from a bag of chips - the people, the bad of chips, the subsequent plentiful food etc are all natural/materialistic.

If a supernatural phenomenon were to exist that did not impact and interaction with the natural world then we could not know it was there and therefore there could be no claim for the phenomenon. The very notion that people claim supernatural phenomena exist is because of how they interpret very real world natural outcomes.

And therefore all you can do us have evidence for or against those natural outcomes. You cannot without a method have evidence for or against the supernatural.

[Dicky Underpants]

I’m going to have to call wishful thinking and complete denial of what historian Bart Ehrman has said namely historians are not obliged to deny miracles.

You are the one in complete denial. The relevant phrase from Bart Ehrman has been quoted back at you enough times. It is the qualifier to the phrase you're now homing in on to try and salvage something from your gross misrepresentation of what Ehrman wrote. Qualifier - yes, that's indicated by the word he goes on to use "however...." Geddit?