What criteria do you use to determine the level of probability or
improbability that a story from ancient history, such as the conversion
of Saul on the road to Damascus, is factual?
Another question: what characteristics of an ancient story make you
regard it is something less than 100% factual?
And finally, the criteria that most atheists use, which leads them to
the conclusion that most of the bible is false, is historical
uniformitarianism, which means "the present is the key to the past".
For example, it is safe to say that NO elephant on the face of the
earth has EVER had wings and flew through the air like a bird, because
all the evidence we have in the PRESENT shows that elephants are not
winged creatures.
Knowing that most Christian bible believers would decry this criteria
for the sake of avoiding the immediate exclusion of miracles, I'd like
to know what exactly you think is so wrong with interpreting the past
by using the present. Doesn't a denial of this skeptical criteria
force you to remain "open-minded" to such absurdities as a mouse
lifting up a navy ship? After all, just because it doesn't happen in
the present.....
....and thus leaving you with virtually zero ability to call ANY
assertion absurd or improbable?
And are you aware that historical reconstruction (i.e., trying to
separate fact from fiction in historical testimony) procedes upon
varying degrees of probability, and that it is a mistake to say things
like "Jesus either rose from the dead or he didn't"? Do you agree with
atheists that historical evidence is never as concrete a science such
as math or chemistry? If so, then how exactly do you get "Jesus rose
from the dead without a doubt" from historical sources which you agree
are not as concrete as math or chemistry? Do you agree that a certain
measure of faith is needed to bridge the gap from "probability" to
"certainty" in the case of Jesus' resurrection, or in the case of
Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus?
.
|
