Comments on: Why DeConick is wrong about history and scholarship http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/09/why-deconick-is-wrong-about-history-and-scholarship/ an everyday tale of stardust, spit and spirit Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:12:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Vinny http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/09/why-deconick-is-wrong-about-history-and-scholarship/comment-page-1/#comment-1299 Vinny Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:43:52 +0000 http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/09/why-deconick-is-wrong-about-history-and-scholarship/#comment-1299 I don't think there is anything "hasty" about the generalization that dead bodies don't rise nor do I think that DeConick is relying merely on the fact that she has not seen a dead body rise. I think the generalization is so well supported by centuries upon centuries of observation that it is almost inconceivable any historian would ever consider it the most likely explanation or even a possible explanation absent extraordinary evidence. I don’t think there is anything “hasty” about the generalization that dead bodies don’t rise nor do I think that DeConick is relying merely on the fact that she has not seen a dead body rise. I think the generalization is so well supported by centuries upon centuries of observation that it is almost inconceivable any historian would ever consider it the most likely explanation or even a possible explanation absent extraordinary evidence.

]]> By: Rod http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/09/why-deconick-is-wrong-about-history-and-scholarship/comment-page-1/#comment-1200 Rod Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:01:30 +0000 http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/09/why-deconick-is-wrong-about-history-and-scholarship/#comment-1200 "It is also worth teasing out what we mean by an historical event. At its most nugatory we might define it as an event that has historical causes and itself leaves historical effects. That clearly poses problems for classifying the resurrection as an historical event, since it is of the essence of any claim made for it that it is directly and eschatologically caused by God, and has no historical cause whatsoever. From that angle the resurrection is not an historical event, either to the sceptic or the believer. But historical events also leave significant effects, footprints, ripples. Things happen because other things have happened. And it has to be said that a great deal happens because of the resurrection – whether that is understood as experiences of vision, convictions of the heart, or an empty tomb." Doug, I do not know what you think of Jurgen Moltmann, but he argues something similar in his Theology of Hope. “It is also worth teasing out what we mean by an historical event. At its most nugatory we might define it as an event that has historical causes and itself leaves historical effects. That clearly poses problems for classifying the resurrection as an historical event, since it is of the essence of any claim made for it that it is directly and eschatologically caused by God, and has no historical cause whatsoever. From that angle the resurrection is not an historical event, either to the sceptic or the believer. But historical events also leave significant effects, footprints, ripples. Things happen because other things have happened. And it has to be said that a great deal happens because of the resurrection – whether that is understood as experiences of vision, convictions of the heart, or an empty tomb.”

Doug, I do not know what you think of Jurgen Moltmann, but he argues something similar in his Theology of Hope.

]]> By: Peter Kirk http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/09/why-deconick-is-wrong-about-history-and-scholarship/comment-page-1/#comment-1181 Peter Kirk Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:09:02 +0000 http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/09/why-deconick-is-wrong-about-history-and-scholarship/#comment-1181 Perhaps April's real problem is that she is relying on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization" rel="nofollow">the logical fallacy of hasty generalisation</a>, that because she has never seen a dead body rise no dead bodies can ever rise. By her argument you can "prove" that the extinction of the dinosaurs was not caused by a collision with an asteroid. After all, for the last 20 billion days or so no large asteroids have hit the earth, so asteroids don't hit the earth, so something else must have killed off all those giant reptiles. Perhaps April’s real problem is that she is relying on the logical fallacy of hasty generalisation, that because she has never seen a dead body rise no dead bodies can ever rise. By her argument you can “prove” that the extinction of the dinosaurs was not caused by a collision with an asteroid. After all, for the last 20 billion days or so no large asteroids have hit the earth, so asteroids don’t hit the earth, so something else must have killed off all those giant reptiles.

]]>