This is round 11 in the debate between Lenardos and Jacobsen on the topic, "Do Extraordinary Events Require Extraordinary Evidence?"
Paul writes:
You argue the scientific method isn't applicable
to history, and therefore we must use the historical method. I wonder if
you would even consider history to be a science at all? If not, what would
it be?
It is not scientific in that it does not use the scientific method, as do the “hard” sciences. But “science” also has a broader meaning. The term comes form the Latin term meaning, “to know.” In this sense it is science, because it seeks out knowledge. But to directly answer your question, it is an inductive methodology.
Paul continues:
Anyway, even if I accept this much, your
assertion that the scientific method isn't applicable to history, and we need to
use "the historical method", the problem is, there is no cut-and-dry
"historical method". You have proposed the Sanders' method.
Which I don't have too much problem with, other than to note it is just one
possible method, there is simply no single "The Historical Method."
And to also note that it is NOT objective, to which I will cover next.
The fact that there are several methods for doing history is no revelation. I pointed this out in my original paper and have continued to make note of it throughout our discussion. I only brought Sander’s method in because you challenge me to come up with a methodology after you could not. If you go back through our debate you will find that I also suggested another methodology. The fact that historians have come up with different inductive methods to determine what happen in the past is not a hindrance, but a help. Your problem is that it doesn’t matter what the method is we use. The amount of evidence for the resurrection is so abundant and of such a high quality that I can continually challenge you and any other atheist (as I did in my paper and our debate) to use any method they like and show the baseline from which we will be working. The result is always the same: The resurrection is vindicated.
Paul wrote:
You seem to not understand what it is for
something to be "objective". To be "objective" means
that the measurement is the same independent of the person doing the
observation.
In our debate I have gone over what “objective” means on at least two occasions that I remember. In both I pointed the above out, I think I do understand it.
Paul continues:
If I look at a voltmeter and it says 10 volts,
then if you look at the voltmeter it will still say 10 volts. Of course
nothing is absolutely objective, one or the other of us could be delusional or
have bad eyesight and say the meter says something other than 10 volts.
But if 99.9% of the people who look at the voltmeter all agree it says 10 volts,
we feel that we can say with confidence that the voltmeter says 10 volts is an
objective measure. But if you ask 10 people how certain we can be that
text 'A' is an accurate representation of the original, we will get 10 answers.
How certain the accuracy of a document is, is SUBJECTIVE, each person asked that
question will give a different answer.
The last part of your statement is simply not the case. Once again, I agree with the first part of your statement. In all conclusions there is a subject involved and it is possible for the subject to make a mistake. But we must understand that for a person to have a different answer using an objective methodology, a mistake must be made. However, the fact that there is a subject involved does not make the conclusion subjective.
Now, if we take 10 people off the street and ask them if we have an accurate copy of the NT, we will get a number of different answers. But, if we train them in textual criticism give them a baseline and the evidence at hand, we will not get 10 different answers. I contend that we will get just one answer. But more than just getting answers we will also get the reasoning behind the answers. Which means we can check for mistakes. Even you finally had to concede that the NT text we have now is accurate representation of what was written 2000 years ago.
You continue:
The other items of the Sanders' method have the
same problems. For example, you go on to say, "the last two tests try
to answer the question, 'compared to artifacts..." I didn't need to
bother quoting any further. Once you say "compared to something
else" you are immediately talking subjective. "Objective"
means the measurement is independent of what anything else might measure!
If a battery reads 10 volts, it reads 10 volts no matter what any other battery
reads. So, yes, Sanders' method is SUBJECTIVE! I don't have any
problem with that, for history IS SUBJECTIVE. What I have a problem with,
is your trying to corner me into producing an objective measure when there is
none to be produced, not even your own.
There are two issues here. First, the last two criteria deal with the content of the documents in question. Through archeology and other historians of the era that we have already determined have some degree of accuracy, we can compare and determine the accuracy of the content of the NT documents where they inner lap. For instance, If you have a couple of reliable sources that say that Romans used large millstones, but the Greeks and the Jews only used small millstones, then you find only small millstone in Israel and a number of large millstones in Rome. You would have a pretty good case for the assertion. If the NT then said that all of Israel used only large millstones, you could claim a problem with the text. However, if the NT agreed with the external evidence, then you would have a verification of at least some of the NT content. This is not subjective, but objective.
I understand your need to try to make this subjective. I have said many times that the only way you can get rid of the resurrection is to get rid of all the history of the period. Trying to make it all subjective is a very nice way to do that. But it is not the case that history or historical method is subjective. It is not the case that these methodologies or their conclusions are based on the historian’s preference, likes or dislikes. And that is what we mean by subjective, conclusions based on preference. It even might be suggested that your conclusion that all history is subjective, is subjective. It is indeed nothing but your own preference. I say this because you have not given us a deductive or inductive argument for that conclusion, just your opinion. Since the nature of your conclusion is a universal negative, you will need to provide a deductive argument. If you have one, let’s hear it.
Paul continues:
I argued that history cannot validate minutiae,
to which you replied, "historical investigation will validate whatever
there is sufficient evidence for, regardless of the size of the event."
The problem is, small events cannot, by definition, have sufficient evidence or
they wouldn't be small events!
A while back in a Grecian archeology dig, a papyri was found. It was basically a grocery list. Now, I think you will agree that buying groceries is pretty low on the small event totem pole. However, here was sufficient historical evidence that the people who lived in that house bought groceries; and not only that, but we know what groceries they intended to buy on that specific occasion. So, we see that the size of the event is not what dictates what can or cannot be validated, but the evidence. By the way, what historian told you that nonsense about small events? Or did you just make it up?
Paul continues:
By the way, I like your quote, "once again,
what we mean by irrationality is a holding a conclusion that goes against the
evidence." Very interesting. I've got very strong evidence that
people do not rise from the dead. I could produce a multitude of doctors
who would all attest to this. I can also produce lots of evidence that
religious beliefs are very often completely erroneous. Therefore, it
would seem that by your definition of irrationality, holding onto a belief that
a man rose from the dead two thousand years ago is irrational is it not?
This is once again a categorical fallacy. What does your evidence show? It shows that people in and of themselves don’t rise from the dead. What would the doctors attest to? They would say that people in and of themselves don’t rise from the dead. But of course, the resurrection of Jesus is not a claim that a mortal in and of himself rose from the dead, is it? So, the case of Jesus doesn’t fall into the same category as your evidence or of your doctor’s attestation. Your argument is analogous to saying because you have strong evidence that a man can’t flap his arms and fly and you have many physicists that can prove that a man can’t flap his arms and fly, therefore a man in an airplane can’t fly. This is the same type of categorical fallacy. In both cases the first category is without sufficient power or means to accomplish the desired effect and the second category is with sufficient power and means.
Regarding your statement on religious beliefs being in error. What were you thinking? Even you had to realize when you wrote that, that it was fallacious. It is called “the fallacy of accident.” It is usually defined as a fallacy that argues from a general truth to a particular case regardless of the qualifications of the latter.
Those are the specific fallacies, but there is even a greater fallacy here (gee, you hit three fallacies in two points): Arguing outside the evidence. Even if you came of with other similar arguments that weren’t fallacious, they still would not be the kind of arguments we use to determine what happened in the past. We have the evidence needed to conclude this matter one-way or the other. We have methods and a baseline by which to judge the evidence. However, you attempt to bypass all of this and bring in methods (fallacious methods in this case) that do not deal with any of the evidence.
Paul writes:
Doherty's response was indeed pretty modest, but
Tobin linked to four of his articles (which are each quite extensive articles)
with good evidence for why the Gospels decidedly do not meet Sanders' method.
I conceded that Tobin did not support the specific challenge about taking
another historical figure of the time. But even so, his letter does indeed
provide great support on the issue of the Gospels not meeting the requirements
of Sanders' method.
We have already gone over this. His position is no different than yours, just a little more extensive. His problem is the same as yours, namely if you apply his standard for evidence to any other work of the period, in the same way that he applies it to the NT, all of history would be destroyed. Paul, you need to get this: if the NT falls, so does all of ancient history. Why? Because, there is far more and better evidence for the NT than any other work of the period.
You need to understand that without a baseline, anything can be proven and everything can be disproved. Isn’t it interesting that it is the Christian that keeps demanding a baseline and the atheists who run away from it? Could it be that once a baseline is applied to the atheist’s arguments that they will be seen for the nonsense they are? Hmmm…..
Paul writes:
I thought my strong challenge to "try
putting up some evidence" was indeed a charge for you to put up your
evidence for the rest of the criteria. As far as your suggestion to
discuss "epistemology," I don't think we are done yet with this
discussion. By the way, what about my suggestion of having a poll about
who is winning?
Very well, I will begin with my next post, under the condition that for every objection you make, you must supply baseline support. In other words, every time you say that the evidence is not good enough, you must show from other works of the period how the evidence for them is superior. Agreed? If you don’t agree, I’m not going to bother.
Paul closes:
P.S. I tried to order
The
Presuppositions of Critical History by Francis H. Bradley from amazon.com,
but it is out of print, and they didn't have any used copies available at this
time. Basically, I understand that among the points made by Bradley is
some of the points I have been claiming, that historians have to assume that the
laws of physics don't break, or anything goes.
I hope you understand
the difference between the laws of physics being broken and a miracle. Once
again, we are not saying that a mortal in and of himself rose from the dead, but
that a sufficient power raised him from the dead. Just like we don’t say that
an airplane breaks the law of gravity, but it provides a sufficient power.
As for the poll, I am
really not interested in what your friends or my friends think. Arguments are
cogent or not cogent, valid or not valid, sound or unsound, strong or weak. How
our friends feel about them is unimportant. But, feel free to set up a poll if
you like.
Regards,
Brady
This
debate has gone on far longer than I ever imagined. I've received some
e-mails from people following the debate, but not that many. I hope the
debate has been of value to some of those following it. So, here we go
again! In the last round, I had
said:
You seem to not understand what it is for something to be
"objective". To be "objective" means that the
measurement is the same independent of the person doing the observation.
Which seemed to “pull your chain” a bit.
You replied:
In our debate I
have gone over what “objective” means on at least two occasions that I
remember. In both I pointed the above out, I think I do understand it.
Okay,
cool, we have some fair agreement on what “objective” means.
Maybe some better progress will be made soon! Next, you said,
Now, if we take 10 people off the street and ask them if
we have an accurate copy of the NT, we will get a number of different answers.
But, if we train them in textual criticism give them a baseline and the evidence
at hand, we will not get 10 different answers. I contend that we will get just
one answer.
Hmm.
Is that so? I remember when
I was discussing the ending of Mark, and that it is now generally considered
fraudulent (not a part of the original work) and you said:
I personally don’t think the long ending of Mark is
fraudulent.
Very
interesting. Now, if training in
textual criticism leads to exactly one answer, then why the heck do you not get
the same answer on the issue of the ending of Mark as other people trained in
textual criticism? The obvious
answer is that training in textual criticism does not always lead to one answer.
Your claim is so obviously fallacious that I’m astonished you would try
to assert this!
Let me add
an analogy to this to make it even more clear.
Why do sometimes people decide to get a second opinion from a second
doctor? Medical tests have a high
degree of objectiveness. A doctor
can measure to high degree of accuracy a patient’s medical condition.
And despite this, you will not always get the same answer from two
well-trained doctors! And yet
you’re going to try to tell me that everybody trained in textual analysis is
going to give the same answer to the same problem?
On a document written 2,000 years ago???
PUH-LEAZE! If this were so,
there wouldn’t be 35,000 sects and denominations of the Christian church now
would there? (I heard that number
somewhere, don’t remember the source.)
Eh, I
suppose you would try to respond that textual criticism doesn’t always lead to
the same answer, but would do so in the face of overwhelming evidence.
But, that really isn’t the issue.
The issue is, in the general case, is textual analysis an objective tool
that leads to tell the specific likelihood that a particular document is
accurate? And the answer is no.
Even you finally
had to concede that the NT text we have now is accurate representation of what
was written 2000 years ago.
Please
don’t consider my concession as a feather in your cap, I merely conceded the
point because I figured it wasn’t worth debating any further.
I do genuinely agree it is at least reasonably likely true.
But how likely? 99%? 95%? 90%?
80%? I don’t know, and neither can you.
If you were to give me a number, it would be just a number pulled out of
the air. You have no "baseline" (one of your fave terms) to say
exactly how probable our current NT texts are to what degree accurate. In
other words, we are talking about the subjective again.
Next, you
charge that I’m guilty of making a number of fallacies.
So let’s go through them. I
mentioned that people don’t generally rise from the dead, and I can get
doctors to attest to this. You
replied:
What does your evidence show? It shows that people in and
of themselves don’t rise from the dead. What would the doctors attest to? They
would say that people in and of themselves don’t rise from the dead. But of
course, the resurrection of Jesus is not a claim that a mortal in and of himself
rose from the dead, is it?
Before I
respond, I’d like to quote you from Round 10:
The other error here is that you expect historical
investigation to necessarily show causes. But the primary job of historical
investigation is to demonstrate what the knowable effects are. So it is with
miracles and the resurrection. Let me give you an example: Let’s say that I
use one of my secret devices to levitate a woman 5 feet in the air. Let’s say
that a few moments later God does the same thing in front of the same crowd. The
crowd could not tell if I did both or one or neither of those levitations. But
they could report that they saw both. One was a miracle, one natural.
So, in
Round 10, you say historical investigation is primarily to demonstrate the
effects, not causes. But now you
say that doctor’s evidence that people don’t rise from the dead isn’t
relevant because the cause is different in the case of Jesus.
Well, which is it, are causes part of the picture or not?
Since you claimed that we are supposed to be looking at effects, not
causes, I can say that doctors can indeed testify that regardless of cause, they
don’t know of instances of people rising from the dead!
Besides,
who’s to say God doesn’t raise people from the dead today?
Jesus raised Lazarus, right? So
if you accept that God raised Jesus and Jesus raised Lazarus, then there seems to be
no reason to assume that there aren’t people being raised from the dead today.
And while one doctor may only be able to directly testify that none of
his dead patients come back to life, he presumably could also testify that none
of his colleagues or any of the medical journals have evidence of people rising
from the dead. So, again,
regardless of cause, I have good evidence that people don’t rise from the dead--at
least today. And there is no inherent reason to assume that if raising
from the dead is possible at all--even if only by God's help--that it wouldn't
happen today.
Next, I
asserted that religious assertions of supernatural events tend to be in error.
This seems to really pull your chain and you respond:
Regarding your statement on religious beliefs being in
error. What were you thinking? Even you had to realize when you wrote that, that
it was fallacious. It is called “the fallacy of accident.”
I hadn’t
heard of that specific category of fallacy.
So, I did a bit of web-surfing on this fallacy.
Here is a definition I found that I think aptly describes the fallacy:
The Fallacy of Accident: Applying a general rule to a
particular case for which a special circumstance makes the general rule
inapplicable.
So, now,
did I commit this fallacy? If I
did, it is up to you to prove that there is a “special circumstance” that
makes the general rule of “religious assertions of supernatural events are
generally false” inapplicable. Which
is of course what we’ve been arguing, you believe you have provided evidence
of “special circumstance” and I assert you have not.
And at least from my perspective, until you do, then I’m justified in
following this rule. Moreover, you
no doubt follow this rule yourself in regards to supernatural events purported
by other religions. If I were to
list some supernatural events believed by various Native American cultures,
would you not follow the same basic rule?
Those are the specific fallacies, but there is even a
greater fallacy here (gee, you hit three fallacies in two points): Arguing
outside the evidence. Even if you came of with other similar arguments that
weren’t fallacious, they still would not be the kind of arguments we use to
determine what happened in the past.
AAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Yes, it is exactly how we determine what happened in the past!
We conclude that things happened yesterday the way they happen today. For example, sometimes Creationists will try to argue against
evidence regarding the ancient age of the Earth and the universe by saying things like,
“well, how do we know light traveled at the same speed, and radioactive
particles decayed at the same rate in the past?” Well, we have good evidence that the speed of light and
radioactive particles don’t change their decay rate--but ultimately we can’t
know with absolute certainty something bizarre didn’t happen to invalidate our
measurements. So ultimately we just
have to assume that things happened in the past the way they happen today.
Yes, using how things happen today is indeed a large part of how we
determine what happened in the past. People
don’t seem to be being raised from the dead today (whether by God or other)
and therefore it is reasonably likely to not have happened in the past.
Also, we
have evidence that today, there are people that exaggerate the powers of their
preferred deity. Therefore, it is
reasonable to conclude that people in the past exaggerated the powers of their
preferred deity. Not a fallacy, a
valid observation.
Next up, I
requested that you defend the Gospels as meeting the rest of Sanders’ method
Very well, I will begin with my next post, under the
condition that for every objection you make, you must supply baseline support.
In other words, every time you say that the evidence is not good enough, you
must show from other works of the period how the evidence for them is superior.
Fortunately
for me, you provided me with that baseline. (Thanks for saving me the
effort.)
You said:
A while back in a Grecian archeology dig, a papyri was
found. It was basically a grocery list. Now, I think you will agree that buying
groceries is pretty low on the small event totem pole. However, here was
sufficient historical evidence that the people who lived in that house bought
groceries; and not only that, but we know what groceries they intended to buy on
that specific occasion.
Notice how
this little grocery list “blows the doors” off the NT.
It wasn’t written 30-50 years after the event.
It’s not that case that someone wrote down, “thirty years ago, what I
bought at the store was…” It
isn’t a copy of a copy written several hundred years after the original
grocery list was written. What you
got is an original copy documenting the current event.
A massive difference, and an excellent baseline.
Thanks for the tip!
Now, just
for a hypothetical situation, if we were to learn that people of the time tended
to write imaginary grocery lists for things that they couldn’t afford, then we
would no longer be so sure about the grocery list being genuinely for things
that they were intending to buy. Of
course I know that is not true, the only reason for pointing it out is, it is
indeed reasonable to consider not just what was written down, but the possible
motivations of the people who wrote it. If
we somehow did have reason to suspect that the grocery list was written for
reasons other than the apparent, then we would have genuine reason to view it in
a different light.
You seem
to commit the “Fallacy of Accident” by saying that if documents written by
people with no particular motivation for exaggeration are accepted as generally
reliable, then documents written by people with plausible motivation for
exaggeration should be equally accepted. In
other words, a Fallacy of Accident. (Hey,
thanks for teaching me about it, it’s really going to come in handy I see!)
So, now
that I’ve demonstrated that it clearly is reasonable to consider motivations
along with the direct evidence, let’s now compare the grocery list to the NT.
As far as we know, my hypothetical situation of people exaggerating
grocery lists is not true--therefore there is no plausible reason to suspect
deception. Nor are people known to
worship grocery lists. Nor are people known to believe that grocery lists have the
key to salvation and eternal life. And
since we have the original grocery list, what we have is NOT a copy of a copy of
a copy of the grocery list with all of the intermediate copyists being people
that also worship the grocery list and/or think the grocery list holds the key
to salvation. So again, the grocery
list is quite a bit different qualitatively than the NT.
So, let’s formalize the differences:
Grocery
list:
1.
Original copy.
2.
Documents current event at time of writing.
3.
No plausible reason to suspect exaggeration or deception.
The New Testament:
1.
Is not original copy.
2.
Does not document a current event at the time of writing.
3.
Written by people who worshiped subject.
4.
Written by people who believed subject held key to eternal salvation.
5.
The copies we have, save a few verses, date hundreds of years after the
original writing, and the intermediate copyists also worshiped subject and
believed subject held key to eternal salvation.
So, with
your provided baseline of the grocery list, we can see that the NT pales in
comparison. So now I’ve met your
challenge. But you’ve regularly
charged me to do things that you yourself have so far not done.
For example, you regularly claim that I don’t back up my claims, that I
just give my opinions with no evidence. Well,
Mr. Lenardos, you are the king of claims with no evidence.
Basically, you have a rather annoying habit of making sweeping dismissals
of anything I present to the table as just being my opinions and speculations,
or the opinions and speculations of those whom I quote. Well, just exactly why is it that you get away with these
broad dismissals? And then you get all smug and say things like:
Could it be that once a baseline is applied to the
atheist’s arguments that they will be seen for the nonsense they are?
Well,
frankly, I ain’t putting up with this double-standard no more.
If you’re going to dismiss some arguments, you need to provide a
baseline to show your point, or admit it’s just your opinion with no facts
behind it. For example, I provided
links to several articles by Paul Tobin that gave good reason to doubt the
authorship of the Gospels being to whom they are attributed to.
To which you responded:
His position is no different than yours, just a little
more extensive. His problem is the same as yours, namely if you apply his
standard for evidence to any other work of the period, in the same way that he
applies it to the NT, all of history would be destroyed.
Okay, well
since you are fond of baselines and all that, let’s have your baseline.
Go through Tobin’s articles, point by point, take other works of the
time, and show how, when studied in the same way as Tobin studies them, it
destroys all of history.
Hey, I’m only asking you to do what you asked me to do. Remember you said, “In other words, every time you say that the evidence is not good enough, you must show from other works of the period how the evidence for them is superior.” So, if you expect me to do that with your evidence, then you need to do that with mine. Fair is fair.
So now,
since you say Tobin’s evidence is not good enough, and that it would destroy
all history to use the same methodology, “you must show from other works of
the period” that Tobin’s methodology would destroy them. Also remember that you once said to me, “to have a
real argument, you need a real methodology”.
So, to have a real argument that Tobin’s arguments would destroy all
history, you need a real methodology to show this—you can’t just dismiss
them because you don’t like them. Remember
that you also said to me opinions have no persuasive force--and your opinion
that Tobin’s arguments would destroy all of history has no persuasive force.
Also,
I’ve charged you to prove Sanders’ method is objective. Well, you provided your opinions on why you think it is
objective. But, “your opinions
have no persuasive force” as you would say.
You need a real methodology to prove Sanders’ method is objective.
You also need to provide an expected error rate, which one would expect
of something objective. For example, if my wife goes to the doctor and has a
pregnancy test, the doctor can tell her that the results are accurate 99% of the
time. In other words, the test has
been shown to be objective--but not error free—but accurate within a
statistical measure.
But of
course you can’t do that. And if
you say that what I’m asking for would destroy all history, you are right, to
turn history into an objective science would indeed destroy it all because it
can’t be done. Though I don’t
have any great problem with Sanders’ method (other than it is obviously and
necessarily subjective) but more than that, there is no way to know for certain
if it works! I suspect it probably
does a fair amount of the time, but we really can not know it.
You say that it has been demonstrated to give good results—but how?
What methodology has been used to verify it gives good results? Let's see the methodology!
(You’re
gonna really hate yourself for demanding methodologies, ‘cuz I’m gonna have
lots of fun demanding them of you.)
If
Sanders’ method was ever wrong, how would we know it was wrong?
Where are the statistics on when it has been right and when it has been
wrong? These are the kinds of
things we would need for it to be objective, and we don’t have it and can’t
have it. It’s as simple as that.
The final topic for this round is, I made reference in the past round to a
book,
The
Presuppositions of Critical History by Francis H. Bradley.
It’s an old book, long out of print and I have not been able to get a
copy of it as yet. But, I noted
that one of the things that historians must assume is that the laws of physics
don’t break. To which you
responded:
I hope you understand the
difference between the laws of physics being broken and a miracle. Once again,
we are not saying that a mortal in and of himself rose from the dead, but that a
sufficient power raised him from the dead. Just like we don’t say that an
airplane breaks the law of gravity, but it provides a sufficient power.
As it so
happens, in my Strobel critique, on the chapter on miracles (Objection
2) I cover that extensively. The
first six paragraphs deal with the specific issue as to whether miracles are a
violation of natural law. Strobel used a
very similar analogy to yours--you used the example of an airplane not breaking the law of
gravity, and he said catching an apple before it falls does not break the law of
gravity. Both of those analogies are indeed accurate, but do not apply to
the supernatural (or at least we can not know if it does.) I hope you will
follow this link and at
least read the first six paragraphs. (Of course feel free to read more if you like.)
But beyond
the issue of whether miracles violate natural law or not, everybody’s religion
would say that the purported supernatural event was caused by their deity, and
claim a sufficient power. So every
member of every religion would try to make the same exception you are making.
You are basically saying that it is okay to reject other claims that
violate natural law because they weren’t done by your God.
But it doesn’t work that way. Once
you start to allow supernatural events into the equation, you can’t pick which
ones to consider based upon who’s deity supposedly did it, you have to
consider any and all of them. And
then anything goes and all of history is—indeed--destroyed.
Follow the 'Next' link to the next round.
