Atheist Debates - Mythicism 101 with David Fitzgerald

This is a short response to something Matt mentioned when responding to David Fitzgerald in the video they made together on the subject of Mythicism and the evidence for Jesus. Just as background, these are two atheists who are both pretty much ambivalent whether Jesus existed or not since it is his so called 'miracles' including his resurrection, that is key for Christians and therefore atheists, when in discussion with them.

In this section of the episode, at around 14:00, David explains how there is little evidence for Jesus' miracles or his 'mundane' activities. Although Matt agrees with this, he says that even so, historians take what is written about Jesus sans miracles, as the default position since that is all they have.

At this point, David rightly corrects him on this by saying - 'all written work by anyone in history is met with initial scepticism and historical study starts from ground zero and builds on what evidence they actually have - but Matt persisted with the same argument 3 more times. He goes on to explain that he has also spoken to many historians, and they all agree with him in that, if there are no grounds for rejecting a story or event, then it assumed to be the default position, which seems to imply that they accept it as true. Additionally, he says that we would be rejecting stories throughout the historical landscape if we adopted that approach. He says - 'It has to be that way because if we don't accept it then we must reject it. How could the opposite be true?' For me, nothing could be further from how historians actually work.

David basically got into a mess at this point while attempting to argue from two different positions. Firstly, that historian didn't work the way MD suggests and secondly, that the mundane stories were part of the fabric of the mythical narrative and couldn't be separated in any case. The upshot was, for most of the time, they ended up talking past each other.

So to start with, what is history all about? Simply put, history is the study of what probably happened in the past and the word 'probably' implies a probability running from 0 to 1, with both of those numbers implying certainty at either end of the scale i.e. there needs to be positive evidence for the event to be considered true or false, whatever it was. When some event or action acquires the status of Historical Fact, that means there is a high/very high probability that it actually happened. To reach this level, the supporting evidence will need to be voluminous and will often come from many different fields of study. Where the evidence is weak or there is only a single source, then the position taken is 'We don't know' or 'We can't confirm that it happened'. Note, though, it is NOT saying that we must conclude that it did not happen. I know many Christians (and some atheists) won't want to hear this but it is similar to the 'Lack of belief' position that most atheists hold. In other words, it cannot be confirmed one way or the other. David was correct about that.

This can be seen in how historians describe an event from the past. For example, they might say that 'The Magna Carta was signed by King John in 1415'. There is much supporting evidence that this was actually was the case. We have copies of the documents, accounts from witnesses who were there, consequences of the content coming to fruition etc.

Alternatively, they might say that - 'Josephus writes that X did Y'. Notice they won't say that X did Y or it is probable that X did Y if there is nothing else available to confirm the event. However, they do not say that Josephus must be wrong and X did not do Y, simply because there is not supporting evidence that X didn't do Y. The default position is that, from a historical perspective, we don't know if X did Y or not.

But, as other evidence becomes available they may say - 'Josephus writes that X did Y. This was noted by Tacitus, and we also have evidence that X was in the region at the time when Y happened'. Eventually, as further evidence accrues, the historian will say - 'We have good evidence from many sources that X did Y' - and then finally they may go on to say - 'It is deemed to be a historical fact that X did Y' - when it appears conclusive. Generally speaking, there are very few occasions when there is certainty in history.

Another favourite example of mine comes from I Corinthians 15. From the perspective of paying attention to historical evidence, the case of the 500 seeing the resurrected Jesus at one time is about as poor as it gets short of not being anything at all. See also post #2 Paul and the 500 - A historical Perspective on 1 Cor 15

- Paul was not present at the event, and so he is NOT a primary source.

- We have absolutely no information about the event or who was there.

- There is not a single alternative attestation of the event anywhere in first century literature, including the NT.

- It is not clear that Paul knew what the event was or who was there or when it took place.

- Paul's mentions that some would be still alive can easily be an inference to the possible ages of people who might have attended such an event compared to when Corinthians was written.

- Paul frequently appeals to his credibility in his letters and this event could easily be seen as a springboard for that, in this particular passage.

Now I know Matt would say that relates to a miraculous event which he would disagree with, but the same logic would apply to any other event if it took place during Jesus' lifetime. It would NOT be taken as being the case by default.

As I say, for anyone to appeal to the 500 as evidence aside from on theological grounds, is irrational in the extreme from the historical viewpoint based on the lack of evidence to support this story.

In summary, if there is no evidence to support a claim of any sort, positive or negative, then the needle will not move on the probability scale at all. That doesn't mean it is stuck on zero, it is simply indicating that there is nothing to push the needle in any direction in regard to the current evidence.

July 2018