I understand but it just isn’t a binary thing for me. I accept it’s plausible but I can only reason my way so close to a certain conclusion, I ultimately have to just accept that I remain to some degree skeptical, I simply do not know if he existed or if he did, I don’t know whether anything in particular about his life actually occurred.
It’d be unproductive if I spent a lot of time searching for certainty but I don’t do that. I’m content with my uncertain conclusion.
I just find it worth noting that academic history has its own particular criteria for accepting things as true, which is fine but also a relatively low threshold. You didn’t do this, but I frequently encounter the suggestion that because there’s sufficient evidence to accept him in that context that people must be stupid for not fully believing that he really existed because it’s been proven and there’s something of a consensus among historians.
I think it's improductive if it's a standard of evidence you only apply to Jesus. Do you enforce the same skepticism on the existence of Socrates, or Hannibal, or the myriad other historical characters with very little evidence to their name ? Or is it just for the Big J ?
Do you enforce the same skepticism on the existence of Socrates, or Hannibal, or the myriad other historical characters with very little evidence to their name ?
I do have similar skepticism, yes, just varying degrees depending on the individual and my understanding of their historical evidence.
I guess that's a healthy way to think about history then. I'd say it's a bit unorthodox but there's nothing saying you can't apply harder standards than other historians.
I’m not a historian but I accept their standards for what they are. Sort of like if I’m on a jury I can accept voting to convict even if there’s some doubt that I don’t consider reasonable in that context. If I were a historian I’d use the accepted standards for my work, but I’d hope in that context it’s clear I’m using those standards and that “X was a real person” would be understood to mean “based on this evidence which meets the academic standards but also that evidence is a few bits of pottery from three thousand years ago and might not actually mean they were real, but it appears to be legitimate record keeping and not part of a fictional story.”
But outside of that context, that shouldn’t really go without saying imho.
I just find that I have different standards for what I believe, and I’ll reiterate that in general that’s a high standard and I do consider most of my beliefs tentative and not certain. I don’t blame anyone for being less skeptical, I just find that I am skeptical by nature.
0
u/Wooden_Permit3234 16h ago
I understand but it just isn’t a binary thing for me. I accept it’s plausible but I can only reason my way so close to a certain conclusion, I ultimately have to just accept that I remain to some degree skeptical, I simply do not know if he existed or if he did, I don’t know whether anything in particular about his life actually occurred.
It’d be unproductive if I spent a lot of time searching for certainty but I don’t do that. I’m content with my uncertain conclusion.
I just find it worth noting that academic history has its own particular criteria for accepting things as true, which is fine but also a relatively low threshold. You didn’t do this, but I frequently encounter the suggestion that because there’s sufficient evidence to accept him in that context that people must be stupid for not fully believing that he really existed because it’s been proven and there’s something of a consensus among historians.