Featured Why do historians reject the supernatural?

[AgnosticBoy]

I've been having a lot of discussions lately on the resurrection. One thing that I'm not understanding is why do historians reject stories involving the supernatural, especially if they are well documented.

For debate:
1. Why are all accounts of the supernatural rejected by historians?
2. Are historians justified in that approach?
3. If not, then what evidence or historical criteria should be used to label the resurrection as fact? If multiple attestation alone make something a historical fact, shouldn't that same standard apply to supernatural accounts?

 

[Data]

I've been having a lot of discussions lately on the resurrection. One thing that I'm not understanding is why do historians reject stories involving the supernatural, especially if they are well documented.

For debate:
1. Why are all accounts of the supernatural rejected by historians?
2. Are historians justified in that approach?
3. If not, then what evidence or historical criteria should be used to label the resurrection as fact? If multiple attestation alone make something a historical fact, shouldn't that same standard apply to supernatural accounts?

History is a record of past events. The resurrection hasn't even taken place yet. Supernatural events are isolated and very rare, and the Bible recorded those, so yes, historians are justified in that approach. Supernatural accounts? Do you place alleged supernatural accounts in the present day as being as authentic as those in the past as recorded in the Bible?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The resurrection hasn't even taken place yet.

I'm assuming that you're referring to the resurrection in REvelation 20:13. I was referring to Jesus' resurrection.

Do you place alleged supernatural accounts in the present day as being as authentic as those in the past as recorded in the Bible?

I think it's possible for both events to be authentic regardless of when they occur. They wouldn't be evaluated in the same way, because we could do a more thorough examination for present-day claims.

I honestly don't think historians have any justification for rejecting the supernatural, entirely. And I think it's worst on them that they don't even address it by developing criteria to use to determine if such accounts should be accepted. That's similar to how scientists have done little to nothing to deal with UFOs in any systematic way despite there being good documentation for them.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Why are all accounts of the supernatural rejected by historians?

Found some good information!

Here are some perspectives that I found on this issue:

1. On the critical historian's epistemology

To the extent we can be certain or justified in having very high confidence that something or other existed in ancient times, this is due to two factors: archeological evidence and the mundaneness or naturalness of the posited thing. For example, if the question is whether there were swords in general in the ancient period, you can be highly confident one way or the other, because the swords have been found and scientifically dated. You can see them in a museum.

What if the question, instead, is whether a particular person existed many centuries ago, such as Socrates, Julius Caesar, or Shakespeare? Archeology can’t settle the matter so directly, unless the body could be dug up and some distinguishing features in the bones or the gravesite could be detected and explained.

Assuming the person of interest is just an ordinary human, albeit a famous one whom we could identify, the historian’s principle of induction or analogy (that the past should be expected to have been generally like the present) can lower the bar of evidence required, by establishing the plausibility of the person’s historicity. Socrates was purported to be a philosopher, Caesar a statesman and emperor, and Shakespeare a playwright, and we have lots of archeological as well as present-day evidence that those types of figures are real.

To pinpoint whether those individuals were historical, you would generally need to satisfy two further conditions. First, you would need to posit the person’s historicity to have the best explanation of some body of data such as the many plays attributed to Shakespeare. You’d have to switch, that is, from induction to abduction, from considering a very general analogy between past and present, to appealing to the best explanation of a specific data set.

Source: Article by Dr. Benjamin Cain (philosopher), Assessing the Christ Myth Theory

2. Regarding how historians handle supernatural claims:

but such claims are not the purview of historians and they run contrary to our human experience and a more rational scientific understanding of birth and death. Historians likewise deal with “beliefs” about the afterlife and the unseen world beyond, but without asserting the historical reality of these notions or realms. We can evaluate what people claimed, what they believed, what they reported, and that all becomes part of the data, but to then say, “A miracle happened” or this or that “prophet” was truly hearing from God, as opposed to another who was utterly false prophecy, goes beyond our accessible methods. I don’t want to oversimplify things here and I realize that the question of “faith” and “history” and the assumptions modern historians make in terms of a so-called “materialistic” worldview can be challenged, even philosophically. But for the most part historians are willing to leave the “mystery” in, but in terms of advocating this or that view of the so-called “supernatural,” as an explanation, they properly, in my view, remain wary.

We will probably never know with absolute certainty who Jesus’ father was, or what happened to the body of Jesus, or whether Paul “really” talked with Jesus after his death, but I prefer the “odd arguments” of the historian in investigating those matters, however inconclusive and speculative, to the dogmatic assertions of theology that are problematic from a scientific point of view.

Source: Dr. James Tabor (historian)

 

[Data]

I'm assuming that you're referring to the resurrection in REvelation 20:13. I was referring to Jesus' resurrection.

I can be so obtuse. Sorry, I didn't even think of that.

I think it's possible for both events to be authentic regardless of when they occur. They just wanted be evaluated in the same way, because we could do more thorough examination for present-day claims.

Hmmm. I don't know, I would have to think that through. Consider Moses and the magic practicing priests of Pharaoh. They both put on a pretty good show. On the other hand, consider giant squid and whales both, at one time, were supernatural. Supernatural is defined as "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature: manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts."

When I was about 16 years old, long before I became a believer, I witnessed a supernatural event. Two ghosts. I couldn't explain the experience. I didn't know what to make of it. Later, I learned what "ghosts" or "spirits" are and I am aware of what happened. From the Bible though, not science. Do you think science could explain that? I don't think so. Partly because I think that actual experiences are rare, and often other causes are mistaken as such, but mostly because the supernatural is outside of what we currently perceive as natural law, beyond current scientific understanding.

I honestly don't think historians have any justification for rejecting the supernatural, entirely. And I think it's worst on them that they don't even address it by developing criteria to use to determine if such accounts should be accepted. That's similar to how scientists have done little to nothing to deal with UFOs in any systematic way despite there being good documentation for them.

I don't know. We can document spirit mediums, fortune tellers, UFO sightings, healings, speaking in tongues, things of that nature but we don't necessarily understand them.

So, for the sake of argument, aside from the resurrection of Christ, what well documented supernatural event would you suggest to historians. It seems to me that history, at least secular history, is better left to more mundane events. Would you disagree?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

On the other hand, consider giant squid and whales both, at one time, were supernatural. Supernatural is defined as "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:

I agree. Part of the problem of misclassifying something as supernatural also rests on the naturalists that claim to know exactly how nature works. When something is misclassified, the supernatural classification is wrong because the event was really natural or explainable, but the naturalists side was also wrong in their presumption that the event couldn't occur. Their saying that it couldn't occur would lead to the supernatural classification when someone claims that it does occur.

I don't know. We can document spirit mediums, fortune tellers, UFO sightings, healings, speaking in tongues, things of that nature but we don't necessarily understand them.

So, for the sake of argument, aside from the resurrection of Christ, what well documented supernatural event would you suggest to historians. It seems to me that history, at least secular history, is better left to more mundane events. Would you disagree?

I don't have any solid ideas yet, other than to only accept accounts of the supernatural where the events were observable by those making the claim. And remember, this is only a standard to apply for supernatural events back then, otherwise for events today, we could definitely test the event even more.

What I really take issue with is that historians seem to be doing nothing about it, and that seems to be the case no matter what, even if there was a strongly documented case. Just as in the case of UFOs, if we have well documented phenomenon, then that should be studied. The default position should not be to ignore that stuff or just view them as taboo, or even dismiss them entirely.
It would be a good start if scientists and historians acknowledged their existence, even if they can't explain it. That's better than trying to keep them under the table.

 

[Data]

Part of the problem of misclassifying something as supernatural also rests on the naturalists that claim to know exactly how nature works. When something is misclassified, the supernatural classification is wrong because the event was really natural or explainable, but the naturalists side was also wrong in their presumption that the event couldn't occur. Their saying that it couldn't occur would lead to the supernatural classification when someone claims that it does occur.

Well, yeah, I suppose. I think whether in the secular world or with spirituality balance is important; everything has to have its place to at least some extent. The two can occasionally coincide, for lack of a better term, but still there are boundaries. One's interest can favor one or the other but the two needn't negate one another. One has to use some degree of caution not to be too preoccupied in either direction, either pragmatic or abstract. That's why I say spirituality to me is practical.

The noticeable contrast apparent in individuals may manifest itself in the pragmatic extreme with an insistence on facts, the concrete, most evident in militant atheism, while the abstract extreme may with an insistence on the transcendent, spirituality, most evident in the religious. You seem to have an interest in both without the extreme towards one or the other, which is all well and good, I suppose, but validation of the supernatural within the secular arena is frustrating? I'm not typically frustrated in that regard since I have such a distrust of temporal authority.

What I really take issue with is that historians seem to be doing nothing about it, and that seems to be the case no matter what, even if there was a strongly documented case. Just as in the case of UFOs, if we have well documented phenomenon, then that should be studied. The default position should not be to ignore that stuff or just view them as taboo, or even dismiss them entirely.
It would be a good start if scientists and historians acknowledged their existence, even if they can't explain it. That's better than trying to keep them under the table.

One of the aspects of human nature, is a reluctance to wander too far from group think, maintaining a limit of X degrees of intellectual separation. Maybe that will change. Maybe you can change it.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

One of the aspects of human nature, is a reluctance to wander too far from group think, maintaining a limit of X degrees of intellectual separation. Maybe that will change. Maybe you can change it.

Something like that going on. I can say that a historical standard of evidence for the supernatural would involve something less than a scientific standard. That would have to be the case just for practical purposes since we're dealing with past events that can't be examined in the same way as present-day events.

Just to illustrate the need for such standards, just imagine Jesus's resurrection being attested to by multiple Jewish and Roman sources, both involving eyewitnesses, etc. In that scenario, you would have not only multiple independent sources, but also government sources and even ones from your adversary. Given all that, the historians just say that they can't touch it, or they just reject it outright, or worst yet, they only consider natural explanations. I find that to be very problematic, and it gets to a point where you gotta question if there's an anti-supernatural bias in the field. Even if the label supernatural is the problem, then we still have the event (x dies, then x is alive again) - call it natural if you want.

Let's even increase the level of evidence in my example. Let's say that there's audio/visual evidence. It would still get denied and dismissed or ignored. If anyone thinks I'm exaggerating just look at how UFOs have been handled by science given all of the documentation for it, including reported sightings by the US government.

 

[2Dbunk1]

The default position should not be to ignore that stuff or just view them as taboo, or even dismiss them entirely.

Scientists and historians are not in the business of ignoring potential facts or probable events. The present UFO situation is being studied with serious consideration -- what with the nanotechnology frontier in the immediate future if not now. As for historians, my experience says to me that they generally present facts as facts and myths as myths.

What I really take issue with is that historians seem to be doing nothing about it, and that seems to be the case no matter what, even if there was a strongly documented case. Just as in the case of UFOs, if we have well documented phenomenon, then that should be studied. The default position should not be to ignore that stuff or just view them as taboo, or even dismiss them entirely.

Ditto of my above.