Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Hagiography and the Benefit of the Doubt Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]osmoticdespair[/m] at 9:23 am on July 2, 2009[quote]Once again Dan Mitsui has posted [url=http://www.danielmitsui.com/hieronymus/index.blog/1921510/hagiography-and-the-benefit-of-doubt/]something with which I concur wholeheartedly[/url]. To summarise he is criticising the approach to hagiography that is by default skeptical of the miraculous. That gives the benefit of the doubt to the materialist ideology of the day over and above the testimony of the hagiographers. However he sums it up best himself in the final part of the post: [quote]But this really is beside the point. The debate over the worth of the traditional hagiography should not be reduced to an argument over different categories of authority. For the Bible is not just a book of stories whose veracity we are not permitted to question; it is a record of God's action among men and as man, a record of events that really occurred - and it speaks of marvels. [b]We either live in a world in which these sort of things happen, or we do not.[/b] If we believe that we live in such a world, the hagiographies no longer appear ridiculous. If we do not, the Resurrection itself appears ridiculous. The idea that we can save the reputation of the Church by conceding every allowable criticism to the skeptics, and that this will prevent them from crossing the uncrossable line of doubting Revelation itself - is like the idea that a man is less likely to fall off a cliff if he dance as close as possible to its precipice, rather than build his home and live his life miles away.[/quote][/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post osmoticdespair Posted at 9:23 am on July 2, 2009 Once again Dan Mitsui has posted something with which I concur wholeheartedly. To summarise he is criticising the approach to hagiography that is by default skeptical of the miraculous. That gives the benefit of the doubt to the materialist ideology of the day over and above the testimony of the hagiographers. However he sums it up best himself in the final part of the post: But this really is beside the point. The debate over the worth of the traditional hagiography should not be reduced to an argument over different categories of authority. For the Bible is not just a book of stories whose veracity we are not permitted to question; it is a record of God's action among men and as man, a record of events that really occurred - and it speaks of marvels. We either live in a world in which these sort of things happen, or we do not. If we believe that we live in such a world, the hagiographies no longer appear ridiculous. If we do not, the Resurrection itself appears ridiculous. The idea that we can save the reputation of the Church by conceding every allowable criticism to the skeptics, and that this will prevent them from crossing the uncrossable line of doubting Revelation itself - is like the idea that a man is less likely to fall off a cliff if he dance as close as possible to its precipice, rather than build his home and live his life miles away.

Replies Moridin Posted at 4:38 am on July 12, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 11:55 pm on July 11, 2009 I do not argue that only science is rational. I agree. But the key thing here is that you argue that history is simultaneously (1) not science yet (2) a study of events in the empirical world, which has these absurd implications. History would then be a form of pseudoscience and not a single observation or piece of evidence could be inconsistent with any given historical model (if it was possible, history would be science). So all we are left with is essentially cultural bigotry since the empirical part of history has been stripped naked. osmoticdespair Posted at 1:55 pm on July 11, 2009 I do not argue that only science is rational. Moridin Posted at 6:53 am on July 11, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 12:26 am on July 11, 2009 Oh but its consensus not democracy. The significant difference between the two is....? More people supporting it? If you reject history as science, you must also reject crime scene investigation as science. After all, the crime has occurred in the past, so according to your logic, no rational conclusion based on evidence is possible in any case file. Moridin Posted at 6:52 am on July 11, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 12:18 am on July 11, 2009 Try the same methodology for the 8th century and see where it gets you! also regarding So if all historians one day decided through a democratic vote that the Holocaust did not occur, history would change itself? If, sometime in the future, large quantities of data having been missing for a long time, people did this, yeah, the history as recorded and known by people would change. But of course the reality of "what actually happened" would not have changed, only the fact that in the absence of the data people would come to alternative conclusions and promulgate them. But this change in perspective would be a result of evidence, not because of cultural influences. osmoticdespair Posted at 2:26 pm on July 10, 2009 Oh but its consensus not democracy. osmoticdespair Posted at 2:18 pm on July 10, 2009 Try the same methodology for the 8th century and see where it gets you! also regarding So if all historians one day decided through a democratic vote that the Holocaust did not occur, history would change itself? If, sometime in the future, large quantities of data having been missing for a long time, people did this, yeah, the history as recorded and known by people would change. But of course the reality of "what actually happened" would not have changed, only the fact that in the absence of the data people would come to alternative conclusions and promulgate them. But that wouldn't happen now, anymore than if you had a trial with a video of a guy doing a murder and laughing and saying "I love murdering people" he'd be likely to get an aquittal. Moridin Posted at 1:45 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 11:37 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 9:34 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 11:04 pm on July 10, 2009 Treating history as science is a very first 19th century/first half of the 20th century kind of thing.   Generally people are more guarded about seeking scientific objectivity in history now.    So to you history is merely a form of cultural bigotry? Do you think that we can use historical methods and be justified in that the Holocaust happened? How? There is more in the world than on the one hand science and on the other cultural bigotry. The Holocaust is one of the most documented events to have happened in history, and one of the most analysed. History though is more like trial by jury than science, and in that regard we can say the holocaust is "beyond reasonable doubt". So if all historians one day decided through a democratic vote that the Holocaust did not occur, history would change itself? 1. Do you think it is possible to make empirical predictions from historical models? For example, do you think that the Holocaust model predicts that demographics taken before and after the Holocaust will differ substantially with the latter demographics showing a much smaller number of Jews than prior ones? 2. Do you think that it is possible to test empirical predicts from historical models? Do you think it is possible to investigate various demographics taken around that time? Or investigate archaeological findings? 3. Do you think it is possible to have enough corroboration from independent sources that all converge on a single conclusion or set of conclusions? Do you think it is possible to find that physical-historical necessity, physical evidence, unbiased and counter biased writings and the generalities of eyewitness testimony to converge on a single conclusion regarding the Holocaust? If you answered yes to any of this you agree that history is science, or uses scientific methods to draw conclusions. osmoticdespair Posted at 1:37 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 9:34 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 11:04 pm on July 10, 2009 Treating history as science is a very first 19th century/first half of the 20th century kind of thing.    Generally people are more guarded about seeking scientific objectivity in history now. So to you history is merely a form of cultural bigotry? Do you think that we can use historical methods and be justified in that the Holocaust happened? How? There is more in the world than on the one hand science and on the other cultural bigotry. The Holocaust is one of the most documented events to have happened in history, and one of the most analysed. History though is more like trial by jury than science, and in that regard we can say the holocaust is "beyond reasonable doubt". Moridin Posted at 1:34 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 11:04 pm on July 10, 2009 Treating history as science is a very first 19th century/first half of the 20th century kind of thing. Generally people are more guarded about seeking scientific objectivity in history now. So to you history is merely a form of cultural bigotry? Do you think that we can use historical methods and be justified in that the Holocaust happened? How? osmoticdespair Posted at 1:04 pm on July 10, 2009 Treating history as science is a very first 19th century/first half of the 20th century kind of thing. Generally people are more guarded about seeking scientific objectivity in history now. Moridin Posted at 12:47 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 9:42 pm on July 9, 2009 I actually said that "unabashed" skepticism, the belief that nothing can be believed without conclusive evidence to support it undermines the discipline of history. I stand by that. As for history and science, history is necessarily not observable. We see only the effects and speculate the cause. There is no way to test those theories in the way science tests theories. One can only interpret or reinterpret evidence until new evidence is found. This is of course pure nonsense. There is, in fact, conclusive evidence to support pretty much all scientific theories within the field of history. Name one currently accepted historical theory that you think is not supported by the evidence. Are you really claiming that historical theories are not testable? This is almost as absurd as creationists claiming that evolution is not science because some evolutionary changes happened in the past. Both of these twisted ideas are mistaken. It is not the events, but the tests that needs to be repeatable. In history, as well as other areas of science, you make predictions from models and test these predictions. If the predictions are confirmed, then the historical model is corroborated. If the predictions are confirmed to be false, the historical model is refuted. The models we have enable us to make dangerous predictions about future findings, and it is this that makes history (and evolution) science. Prince o palities Posted at 11:42 am on July 9, 2009 I actually said that "unabashed" skepticism, the belief that nothing can be believed without conclusive evidence to support it undermines the discipline of history.  I stand by that. As for history and science, history is necessarily not observable.  We see only the effects and speculate the cause.  There is no way to test those theories in the way science tests theories.  One can only interpret or reinterpret evidence until new evidence is found. Moridin Posted at 10:47 am on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 8:06 pm on July 9, 2009 You clearly didn't bother to read my posts in this topic. I already argued that hagiographies have to be approached with skepticism. I did. You argued that skepticism as the default position would somehow undermine the content of history as a discipline. I simply showed that this was not the case. Also, please address my refutation of your "history is not science" claim. Thanks. Prince o palities Posted at 10:06 am on July 9, 2009 You clearly didn't bother to read my posts in this topic.  I already argued that hagiographies have to be approached with skepticism. Moridin Posted at 9:59 am on July 9, 2009 Quote: from osmoticdespair at 7:53 pm on July 9, 2009 It's not that a bit of writing is evidence for its own correctness. It's that a bit of writing is evidence for the things it makes reference to. So Mien Kampf is evidence for the genetic inferiority of International Jewry since it refers to it? Hardly. Written texts are only reliable as evidence if it can be corroborated with physical evidence or other unbiased or counterbiased texts. That's why we have categories such as physical-historical necessity direct physical evidence etc. not just the category "this person wrote it, it fits my a priori ideology, therefore it is true". Most recent 15 of 64 previous replies displayed.