Lundahl 2022L

mardi 24 mai 2022

The Philosophy of History of Henke : Given without References, Refuted without References

Second Round essays: Henke Can't Read · Henke Can't Argue Philosophy Very Well Either · Henke Still Can't Read - Or Hasn't Done so To Lewis · To Reaffirm "Earliest Known Audience" · The Philosophy of History of Henke : Given without References, Refuted without References · He Applies It · (Excursus on William Tell and Catholic Saints) · Continuing on Section 5 · We're Into Section 6!

The next tirade has fortunately an emphasised (both italic and bold) resumé:

unless a claim in an ancient history is confirmed with independent external evidence, either in another manuscript or from archeology, there’s no reason to accept it as reliable history. There’s a big difference between an historical claim and a reliable historical claim.

This involves two things, from my perspective, as I disagree with the first, and agree with the second, with a qualification:

(1) unless a claim in an ancient history is confirmed with independent external evidence, either in another manuscript or from archeology, there’s no reason to accept it as reliable history.

This is where I diagree, and which would make Alexander's carreere unknowable. And lots of other things.

(2) There’s a big difference between an historical claim and a reliable historical claim.

Indeed. but the difference is bigger between any historical claim and straightforward fiction. This is key to my argument.

The rest actually is a padding on the routine token methodology of historians (dealing with ancient history).

(2 bis) In his second essay, Lundahl (2022b) complains that when I rank a supernatural event as “highly unlikely”, I’m taking my worldview “as a test of historic facthood.” Actually, I’m ranking supernatural events as highly unlikely because I see absolutely no evidence of the supernatural.

The reference is to On Verifying the Supernatural.

Henke sees no evidence "of the supernatural" because he discounts all historic accounts of supernatural events, and he discounts all historic accounts of supernatural events, because he sees no evidence "of the supernatural." Anyone (except Henke, so far) detect a "circulus vitiosus in probando?"

After this, Henke directly goes to what at least he considers as bad evidence of the supernatural, as if this automatically meant there were never good evidence for the supernatural, while generalising this into a non sequitur and very hazy model for how supernatural events could be made up and believed. Here is the whole passage:

I think that it’s far more probable that someone just made up the supernatural story and that enough gullible people believed it, so that it was recorded for future generations. Recently, I saw TV “prophets” frequently making demonstrably false prophecies about covid disappearing in March 2020 and false claims of miraculous healings and other miracles. In recent history, Joseph Smith Jr. made numerous well-documented false prophecies.

And here is the analysis, bit by bit:

(3) I think that it’s far more probable that someone just made up the supernatural story and that enough gullible people believed it, so that it was recorded for future generations.

Let's see how he tries to examplify this:

(4) Recently, I saw TV “prophets” frequently making demonstrably false prophecies about covid disappearing in March 2020 and false claims of miraculous healings and other miracles.

I do not know or claim to know if the claims of healings are false or true. Let's stick with the demonstrably false prophecy : "covid will disappear in March 2020" - is it anywhere near likely that future generations, however gullible, will remember this as "covid disappeared in March 2020, as pastor so and so predicted?

(5) In recent history, Joseph Smith Jr. made numerous well-documented false prophecies.

Is this about the book of Mormon? This would be of interest to the case. While Mormons do believe Nephites are a historically accurate book, they also do not believe it was transmitted as history in a normal way, instead they still recall it as "supernaturally recovered history" which is something else.

Or if it is about prophecies Joseph Smith was making about the future. In that case, it is very significant that they are usually not remembered by Mormons even (or, if ever recalled by someone else, explained away, very discretely, with a kind of gatekeeping attitude about it). Very far from proving anything near Henke's scepticism on history involving at least seemingly supernatural events, it basically proves the opposite.

(6) Ancient people also made up numerous far-fetched stories about gods and goddesses that few people now believe and no one should believe.

This very disingeniously bypasses my distinction between "divine myth" and "heroic legend" - and the ways in which either is supposed to be in any way known by those back then believing them.

I confirm that no one should believe Chaos gave birth to Gaia, Eros, Erebos and Nyx, and Gaia then to Ouranos. It is also not in any usual way a historic claim. The historic claim involved is, Nine Muses revealed this to Hesiod. And to Hesiod alone.

This is a very far call from Achilles facing battle after battle with no wound - which was explained by his mother being a goddess who had gotten half way through the process of making him into a god. Francisco Franco faced battle after battle on the Rif, and was never wounded, and Muslims on the Rif had their fairly superstitious stories about why this was. We should believe Franco wasn't wounded, we should not believe in the superstitions on how you become what is called "kugelfest" in German. Dito with the difference between Achilles and his lack of wounds, and the "divine mother" - similarily, believing Romulus founded Rome doesn't involve believing Mars was his actual physical father or even existed, and believing "Hercules was a strong man, not a god / not God" does not involve believing Zeus was his father or even existed. Unlike Gaia and Ouranos, Achilles, Romulus and Hercules have evidence of the type I classify as historical.

Now, Hesiod getting a revelation from the Muses is confirmed by no miracles, but Moses getting revelations from God is confirmed by miracle after miracle - according to the kind of evidence I consider as historical. The amount of material in Genesis that depends on Moses' getting a revelation is basically the six days account - the rest involve human observers and an at least theoretical lineage of memory, and this involves Genesis 3. Very few aspects would need Moses or some other previous person to be prophetically known - it would involve the identity of the four rivers and the divine plan behind the confusion of languages at Babel - that behind driving Adam and Eve out could have been known directly to them.

Now, see again how Henke introduces the topic of "Greek mythology:"

(6) Ancient people also made up numerous far-fetched stories about gods and goddesses that few people now believe and no one should believe.

It's a sweeping statement. No difference is made between Ouranos and Gaia (where the stories are indeed about gods and goddesses in the main) and heroic legend, which being mainly about human actors (though seen as interacting on some planes with gods and goddesses) are seen as having human observers. I don't feel like taking Ulysses' word for his men being literally turned into pigs or Hercules' for getting down to Hades to fetch Cerberus, but their shooting of the wooers or killing of a lion had human observers apart from themselves. Indeed, Henke will not believe a place was infested with a hydra and I will believe it was a demonic manifestation, and we will disagree there, but so much could be explained by things both Henke and I believe possible, there is no reason to disagree with his descendants later returning to the Peloponnese and becoming kings of Sparta. Except in Henke's case, he thinks it's an argument that his birthmyth is impossible (which as it stands I agree it is, in some parts, though the snakes could have been brought by demons who also helped his tiny hands tie them in a knot) and involves false deities (which I agree are false) and a false explanation of the Milky Way, and being lumped together with Hesiod's Ouranos and Gaia thing.

Hercules having lived was believed to be a historic fact, making it at least a historic claim. That false explanations and fictions are involved in the overall story doesn't justify taking all of it as a fiction and somehow glossing over how it came to be taken as overall historic. And there is even less of that in Achilles or Romulus.

Ouranos and Gaia may have been believed as a prophetic revelation, given to Hesiod, or it may be more like make-believe. Indeed, that is how Chesterton classes it. St. Hippolytus of Rome considers a materialistic and superstitious Zarathustra equalling Ham, grandfather of Nimrod, as the first, and Homer and Hesiod as the last of the philosophers - and the non-Homeric philosophies, if such before him, in that case survived him.

Now Henke likes to quizz me on my stating my sources, but he gives this sweeping statement without either source or proof. Here is how I would analyse it:

(6 a) Ancient people also made up numerous far-fetched stories about gods and goddesses

Correct for Ouranos and Gaia, unless the nine muses were demons, in which case "people" is the wrong word. Incorrect about Hercules, Achilles and Romulus.

(6 b) that few people now believe

Fortunately true for Ouranos and Gaia, undortunately true of Hercules, Achilles and Romulus.

(6 c) and no one should believe.

Agreeing about Ouranos and Gaia, I disagree about Hercules, Achilles and Romulus.

When it comes to their "divine parents" no Atheist or Christian should believe these, but I can't force Hindus and Shintoists into that mold. They are usually very marginal to the story anyway. Most relevant when Theseus asks "his father Poseidon" to kill his son, whom he considers an incestuously adulterous mind, having tried a horrible crime, and "his father Poseidon" grants it. An Atheist will shake his head and be at a loss, I am reminded of diabolical contracts. Of "all the gods of the gentiles are demons" - also very true of Apollon in the Iliad song one and in much of the Greek Tragedy. When it comes to Oedipus, I'm afraid an Atheist will take it as pure coincidence that a young girl in an alpha state said words which, when believed, triggered their own fulfilment, while I take it, a demon controlled her imagination in that occasion (not because of the alpha state as such, but because she had deliberately invoked Apollo or whatever deity it was they actually consulted back in Oedipus' days). We'll agree to disagree. But if Henke asks me for references to demons existing, Iliad I, Aeneid VI, most of Greek Tragedy are clear extra-biblical references to me.

This is the point of the distinction I made between "divine myths" and "heroic legends" - that heroic legends are handed down as history, divine myths as prophecy, guesswork or reconstruction (the latter being also the case for Evolutionism).

And this is very pertinent to the case about Alexander, more on whom later, since I take it, Maccabees author, Arrian and a few more had more or less equal access to Alexander's life as Homer to Achilles' or Ulysses'.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Paris

Sts Manahen and Joan

24.V.2022

Antiochiae natalis sancti Manahen, qui fuit Herodis Tetrarchae collactaneus, atque, Doctor et Propheta exsistens sub gratia novi Testamenti, in eadem urbe quievit. Item beatae Joannae, uxoris Chusae, procuratoris Herodis, quam Lucas Evangelista commemorat.

Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 10:09

Libellés : Kevin R. Henke