Creation vs. Evolution: Forrest Valkai Debunked Will Spencer, or So He Thought · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: How Do We Know History?
It's one of these topics where a Christian and an Atheist (or for that matter very vague Theist) are not likely to agree.
Here an ex-Christian is giving his point of view:
Do Apologists Prove Anything? Why Christian Arguments Fail? The Bible Is NOT Reliable As History.
DEBUNKING CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM | 24 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD5_5QpCBd0
- 5:34 — 5:50 sth
- "they are not doing historical research, they are taking the Biblical story as true to begin with, accepting the supernatural myth as true to begin with, and then trying to manipulate the actual historical facts to make them fit their world view, which is based on non-facts"
History is an art of finding (or keeping) a reliable source, and drawing facts out of it. Or more reliable sources.
Reliable being to some degree subjective in evaluation, this means, not all will agree on what sources are reliable.
But here we have a man taking "the actual historic facts" as sourced in any material outside the Bible and outside the supernatural, and more specifically summaries by modern historians or archaeologists.
If one knew from a philosophical or religious viewpoint that the Bible were wrong, one would not have the right to presume the Bible reliable on all, but it would not automatically presume the Bible unreliable on history.
Now, one actually doesn't know the Bible wrong from a religious or philosophical viewpoint even in theology. But even if one were on the edge, even if one were not sure about the Bible being right, two things should stand out:
- one would have to consider the Bible on an a priori equal footing with other ancient texts
- one would have to consider the evidence for miracles on an equal footing with evidence for other events.
And if one wanted to go further, consider how much of the Biblical miracles are proof of how much of the Christian theology. But that's another enquiry beyond the strictly historic one.
However. Charles Hurst does not agree. He's a very vague Theist. To him, the historic facts are what we, the public get from "legitimate historians" who have for rather long now (since Prussia, a power steeped in Scepticism, a culture where Voltaire left his mark on Sanssouci) "held" the miraculous and the Bible "at bay". As if they were harmful things. They have in other words "defended" their Historian's craft from "undue" influence from the Bible or from acceptance of miracles.
Part of the background is a philosophy steeped in Kant. To him, as to Hume, empiric historic facts do not support supernatural claims. This is purely a decision a priori, a decision, not an observation. It probably started with wanting to avoid becoming Catholic on hearing of Catholic miracles in the present (Hume was part time in France). Both Hume and Kant were Protestants, the Anglican and the Calvinist or possibly Lutheran.
Those people set the tone for what's "academically correct" and Charles Hurst thinks it's logically correct to follow that prejudice.
I do not. I would not take that tone even for Pagan sources.
History is about sources, texts, written, oral, or even oral and later written down. They are usually narrative. Non-narrative texts and non-textual artefacts give back-ground. They are not the main source of certitude, they provide a filter. But that source of "a filter" should not be confused with the filter from a non-Christian world view. So, he says that after seeing archaeological facts about Jericho, Tim Mahoney and David Rohl "make up facts" (beyond those of archaeology) "to fit the square peg in the round hole" (of the Bible being true). Well, what Charles Hurst calls "make up facts" is what is more usually referred to a making hypotheses. And when it comes to the purpose, to show the Bible being true, that involves treating the Bible as at least a historical source. Which one should anyway. If its statement fit the other sources of information about Jericho, that's more usually referred to as a confirmation. But to a man like Charles Hurst, when confirmations go the direction of confirming the Bible, one would need extreme confirmation bias to accept that confirmation.
You see, everyone has some kind of confirmation bias, including the most anti-Biblical scholar. I simply disagree it is of the more extreme or useless kind when accepting the Bible or Christianity or miracles.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Abbess St. Fare of Faremoutiers
3.IV.2025
Eboriaci, in territorio Meldensi, sanctae Burgundofarae, etiam Farae nomine appellatae, Abbatissae et Virginis.
