![]() This ground rule makes sense in the macroscopic world that we live in. Suppose in science, I had a ground rule that subatomic particles could not pass through an energy barrier higher than the energy of the particle. For if a miracle occurred in the past, the majority of historians still would not decide that a miracle transpired because the ground rules of their discipline require that they cannot confirm a miracle. This presents a real problem if a miracle did actually occur in history. If a ground rule, or presupposition, of a discipline like history precludes a certain conclusion, then by definition, the majority of those practicing the discipline cannot come to that conclusion. In the lecture series "The Historical Jesus," the historian Bart Ehrman states, "Because historians can only establish what probably happened, and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable, the historian cannot say it probably occurred." 1 In a debate with William Lane Craig in 2006, Ehrman said, "Historians cannot establish miracle as the most probable occurrence because miracles, by their very nature are the least probable occurrence." 2 One of the ground rules that most historians hold to is that miracles cannot be affirmed as historical events. There are disagreements about the extent to which this is occurring and the role that human activity has contributed to climate change, but the evidence that the climate is changing and warming is strong, accepted by the majority of climate scientists, and accepted by me as a scientist.īoth scientists and historians have ground rules on which the practice of their discipline is based. For instance, it is clear from the evidence that the climate on the earth is changing and becoming overall warmer. As a scientist myself, I am well aware that the scientific method provides a reliable method for determining the truth about nature. When it comes to most subjects of science, I accept the consensus of the majority of scientists. After all, aren't historians the experts when it comes to understanding history? Shouldn't we accept their conclusions? On the surface, this seems like a reasonable request. A number of times I have been asked if I would be willing to accept the consensus of the "majority of historians" when it comes to various conclusions about the biblical gospels, including the time of their writing and their claims about the miracles of Jesus.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |