Do you not believe that historical research is based on …

Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Sean Pitman.

Do you not believe that historical research is based on a form of scientific reasoning and understanding?

Do you think all the historical accounts are accurate, especially the ones saying that Alexander was divine?

What historical accounts claim that Alexander was Divine? While Alexander eventually took upon himself the title of a god (probably for political reasons), I am not aware of any reliable historical source who claims that he was actually a god. To the contrary, his personal historian was killed, by Alexander, for pointing out to Alexander that he wasn’t a god – that he was only a man.

So, yes, historians do in fact believe that the general accounts of Alexander’s life, to include accounts of what he did and what he said, are largely correct. Why do historical scientists believe this? After all, there remains no physical evidence as to many of the battles he fought, much less the conversations that he had or the speeches that he made. Upon and what then do historians make the claim that he actually did and said these things? Does not they believe these historians arrest largely on the credibility of the witnesses? – With regard to those elements of the testimony of the witnesses that are testable?

Without corroboration how do you choose or know which story is true? Do you think historical accounts based on eye witness accounts are as accurate as scientific experimentation?

Again, the science of history is based on establishing the credibility of the witness or the document in question. This is done based on testing those elements of the testimony of the witness or witnesses they can actually be tested. History cannot be done by directly testing of the event in question. Yet, it can still be researched in a scientific manner by testing those elements or claims that can actually be subjected to empirical evaluation. Successfully passing these tests adds credibility to those elements or claims that cannot be directly tested in a scientific or empirical manner.

Indeed, then how can such accounts subject to human error ever reach the status of scientific observation and testing? Think about it….

All sciences are subject to human error. It seems like you are suggesting that the historical sciences are not true sciences. Is that true? The reason why I believe historical sciences are true sciences is because they do actually invoke testing and potential falsification of those elements of the account of that are actually testable. This adds or takes away from the credibility of those claims that cannot be directly tested.

That is why I ask you, yet again, upon what basis are the accounts of the various battles, conversations, or speeches of Alexander the Great, or any other similar historical figure, at all credible? Is the truth of these accounts entirely dependent upon blind faith? I think not. And, in this particular position, I am firmly on the side of the vast majority of historians.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
What is interesting is that the older the creation/Flood stories (which are practically universal in cultures around the world), the closer they match the Biblical account. In other worlds, the evidence at hand strongly favors that the Biblical account in the original account from which all other accounts are derived. Also, the details of the Biblical account described in Genesis are supported by archaeological evidence that confirms various details long believed to be in question or even mythical – such as the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other cities that were catastrophically destroyed (mentioned in the same order in the Ebla Tablets).

In any case, you’re not mentioning anything new here. These attempts to challenge Biblical credibility have been around for a long time. However, the Bible keeps trumping all efforts to undermine its credibility. It has shown itself to be the most reliable historical text that we have. No other historical text or resource comes remotely close.

For a further discussion along these lines, to include a discussion of the origin of the 7-day weekly cycle in history, see: http://ssnet.org/blog/origin-of-sabbath-7-day-week/


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Thank you for your clarification Bob. I certainly agree.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith

Thanks Bob for your candour in recoznizing the likelihood of redaction in the Bible. What got left out, amended, embellished?

As already noted, the names of places were likely updated over time, but not the historical narrative – information which was lost outside of the Scriptural accounts. In fact, this is one of the best evidences that the authors cited by Scripture really did write these accounts in their own day.


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.