Is that a litmus test for whether they are a good historian, or whether they share your religious views?
1 Like
Am i right in thinking this is one of the postmodern theory idea. There is no objective truth everyone has there own subjective truth and no one can say one is better than the other. As an extreme example i say 1+1=2 you say it equals 5. It is all subjective.
2 Likes
If the historian cannot accept it as a possibility, then it would show a certain kind of bias that for me would be a red flag.
1 Like
Effectively yes, though I doubt it’s a deliberate choice as opposed to a way of trying to avoid losing. .
That would mean you reject the possibility of an atheist (or maybe even a member of any non-Abramic religion) being a good historian.
1 Like
How can they be a good historian if they will not accept a conclusion before the evidence is considered?
You’ve left out the case where they might have considered the evidence for the Abramic god and/or that Israel was favoured by said god, decided the evidence was insufficient, and then rejected it as a real possibility.
2 Likes
How do you see that working with the resurrection of Jesus?
The same way.
I could make 1+1=10 but not 5.
There has been a certain amount of tongue in cheek on this thread in line with the OP
Truth is a difficult concept but not in mathematics or in scientific data. It is not about truth or lies. Neither is it about the competance or honesty of those involved in science.
The Op was a parody (I hope), and about attitudes. The use of Historians I would also expect to be arbitrary but there are parallels that can be drawn (if you wish). The gib is at sciebce not historians (I sumise)
It has amused me to see how seriuos people have taken all this. It is said that Christians do not appreciate humour aimed at them, although there is a long running thead on this forum that might contradict that. Scientists on tis forum have shown a similar vulnerability.(above thread excepted)
So I will publically ask for forgiveness from @T_aquaticus if he misunderstood what was going on here.
It may nit be deliberate but there is an aloofness to much of the scientific input on this forum and I have been the butt of quite al lot of it, The fact is that, in terms of evolution at least, Scientists have set their store as holding the truth that cannot be argued against or even criticised and an imediate offence is taken if a scientist is challenged, as if to say
"what right have you to question me! I have… (Input qualiifications and or job details here) "
Ad Homiun does not even come close.
Buut I aruge from a perspective that is not comfortable (so it seems) for scientists, tthat goes beyond plain facts and data.
I will respect you, if you return the compliment (@T_aquaticus please note I have found you both polite and respectful, and it has been a breath of fresh air)
Richard
1 Like
How does a supposed lack of evidence disprove a possibility?
1 = 0.999…
1 Like
How does a supposed lack of evidence you are embezzeling from your employer, cheating on your wife, and supplementing your income selling drugs disprove the very real possibility that you are?
Does “disprove” even make sense in the context of the problem?
What is your purpose in setting up the question in this way?
2 Likes
Sorry, I just don’t see how a claim can be dismissed out of hand for lack of evidence.
We are not talking about suspending judgement. At least I assumed that was understood.
1 Like
@Vinnie would probably say there is sufficient historical evidence for the resurrection… or he may call it a coin toss
1 Like
How does this work with child protection programs? I assume someone who passes a background check still shouldn’t be left alone with a kid.
I think it’s totally fair to say that you have philosophical or theological difficulties with ToE. Many of us have been able to reconcile ToE as a scientific theory, as completely neutral with respect to a Creator, with faith in God the Creator as described in the Bible. Do we have everything figured out? I certainly don’t.
I think the difficulty you can run into is to use unscientific arguments that are really philosophical, to argue with really solid science, done by many honest (Christian, Hindu, atheist, whatever) scientists, on ToE over the past 200 years.
We can certainly debate theological issues related to ToE, or science in general. I believe that is the purpose of this forum 
3 Likes
I’m applying your logical maneuverings to other situations to demonstrate how your own method works in other situations.
Using your logic, how would you answer your own question and why:
Does your method work adequately outside your “Israel scenario”? How are these situations (Israel, Jesus’ Resurrection, your own behavior, person who passes a background check) similar or different? To what degree? Would the scenario involving a man’s behavior or a person who passed a background check be different, if the people in question lived 100/200/700/5583 years ago, and we were investigating today?
Does your admission or lack of admission of similarities and differences show your own biases?
If you are accepting a claim as historical without evidence, you are suspending judgement. That’s how gossip, slander, and propaganda work.
My comment to Vinnie was the following:
Whether the historian can admit the very real possibility that Israel was God’s uniquely elected nation makes for a good litmus test in my opinion
That’s my opinion and it has worked pretty well for me. Whether the critic is a good historian, I will usually leave to the judgement of other historical experts who I trust and share my Christian belief.
With Vinnie, he probably understood my comment to be with respect to OT criticism. Other readers might not have picked up on that connection.
In debates over the resurrection, I found scholars can agree Jesus was crucified, he was buried in a tomb, believed to be risen by his followers, and a fourth point I can’t remember. However, for historians who agree on these points, the resurrection of Jesus may still not be possible because of prior beliefs.
2 Likes
To be doubly clear, it was a matter of whether the historian can say Israel was not elected or Jesus did not rise from the dead.
Sometimes epistemology can go sideways though. Look at what Gettier did to 2500 years of JTB 