I just finished reading a debate between Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig, where Craig presents Earman's paper as a refutation of Bart Ehrman's position on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus as being impossible to determine using historical analysis, which is basically Hume's problem of miracles. Craig presented Earman's paper as being representative of the general attitude of modern academic philosophy towards Hume's argument, implying that Hume's argument is antiquated and refuted.
I have got hold of the paper and will spend the next few evening reading it, but in the meantime, is this considered a good argument by Earman?
As an aside: Craig said that Earmans position was that establishing the historicity of a miracle is not impossible if you can establish a historical context under which such a miracle is probable. Which confused me because in order to establish a historical context like that, you would need to establish the historicity of the miracles upon which the historical context you are establishing rest.. and those miracles will need their own historical context of prior miracles which will need their own contexts and so on and so on, and it all just looks quite silly if thats what Earman was actually saying. Anyway, ill read the paper and see if thats what its actually saying. While im at it, does anyone have any thoughts?
John Hume came up in the comprehension for HL Irish today, I find this interesting… Maybe the civil rights movement will be a big them for History tomorrow i.e Nicra, Coleraine, and Bus boycott
I can't believe he actually said that openly. First time encountering this quote, and I'm actually shocked at it. How is this man still published, let alone listened to as a political adviser by Micheál Martin?
