A Chat with ChatGPT about naturalistic bias in history.
​“ --
GW: If the non-miraculous parts of the New Testament are generally accepted, isn't it inconsistent to reject the miraculous parts?
The difference in accepting non-miraculous versus miraculous events in the Gospels isn't necessarily an inconsistency, but rather a difference in methodology. Historians rely on evidence, testimony, and context to assess the non-miraculous parts of Jesus' life, which can be studied within the confines of natural law. Miracles, however, by their nature, fall outside the realm of what can be verified by [this] historical method and are therefore often approached with skepticism from a historical perspective.
That being said, many theologians and scholars would argue that miracles are part of a different kind of truth—one that relates to faith and divine revelation rather than historical evidence.

GW: Doesn’t imposing naturalism into historical methodology limit conclusions to naturalistic conclusions only?
Yes, imposing naturalism into historical methodology does indeed limit conclusions to naturalistic explanations. By adopting a naturalistic framework, historians often exclude supernatural explanations from their analysis, because these events cannot be observed, tested, or verified in the same way natural phenomena can. This limitation, while useful in maintaining rigor and objectivity in historical research, can be seen as a philosophical constraint for those who believe that the supernatural can and does influence historical events.
Whether this is a necessary constraint or an epistemological [how we know] limitation is a matter of philosophical debate, and it depends on one’s perspective on the relationship between faith and history.

GW: Historical events themselves are not repeatable or observable because they are in the past.
Exactly — and that’s a crucial insight.
You're absolutely right: historical events are, by definition, unrepeatable and not directly observable, because they occurred in the past. Historians can't rerun the past like a science experiment. So, when we assess historical claims, we do so by examining:
- Eyewitness testimony (if available),
- Contemporary records or writings,
- Physical evidence (artifacts, inscriptions, architecture),
- And how well a particular event explains or fits into a broader historical context.
This means that in both miraculous and non-miraculous events, we are relying on indirect evidence — what people said, wrote, or left behind.
So where does this leave us with miracles? [Why are they not assessed by the same criteria?]
The core issue is not whether the event is repeatable, but whether it is naturally explicable.
A battle, a coronation, or a crucifixion can’t be repeated either — but they’re still studied historically because they fit within natural expectations of human behavior and the laws of nature.
A resurrection, on the other hand, defies those laws. So, even if the evidence for it were very strong, some historians would still hesitate to affirm it, because the supernatural character of the event requires going beyond what [their predetermined] historical methods are equipped to conclude.
So what’s the distinction really about?
✅ Historical events (natural or supernatural) are all unrepeatable.
❌ But miracles aren’t just unrepeatable — they’re seen as inexplicable by natural causes. 
That’s why many historians adopt what's called methodological naturalism: not necessarily because miracles are ruled out as impossible, but because their tools are only designed to assess natural explanations. It’s like trying to detect radio signals with a telescope — the method isn’t suited for it.

[So they are using the wrong tool, a method biased against a possible result.
The naturalistic bias prevents us from ascertaining whether a miracle happened. The method should be adjusted to not pre-emptively exclude a hypothesis that may reasonably report the truth.] 

Does this mean miracles are ruled out in principle?
Not necessarily.
Some scholars and philosophers argue that if the evidence for a miracle is strong enough, it should be considered, even if it’s extraordinary. 
Others maintain that miracles are theological truths, not historical conclusions — and must be discerned through faith, revelation, or theological reasoning, not just historical analysis. 
So your observation puts a finger right on the tension: if all history is inferred from indirect, unrepeatable evidence, then we must ask: Why treat supernatural claims differently — purely because of their content? 
That's the big philosophical and methodological question.
Would you like to explore how different historians or philosophers approach that question — maybe looking at someone like N.T. Wright, Bart Ehrman, or David Hume?

GW: Compare the views of these authors on this point: NT Wright, Bart Ehrman, David Hume, Craig S Keener.
Great choice of thinkers — each brings a distinct lens to the issue of miracles and historical method:
N.T. Wright – a historian and theologian who argues for the historical credibility of the resurrection. 
Bart Ehrman – a critical scholar who accepts the historical value of some Gospel content, but firmly rejects miraculous claims.  
David Hume – a philosopher whose argument against miracles is one of the most influential ever written. 
Craig S. Keener – a New Testament scholar who defends the plausibility of miracles, even today, with extensive documentation.
Philosophical Stance on Miracles:
- Wright: Critical Realism, synthesise history and theology.
- Ehrman: Natural methodological skepticism, that's all history can truly demonstrate.
- Hume: Naturalistic empiricism.
- Keener: Epistemological openness with global data - rejecting miracles a priori is itself a philosophical bias.
Final Thought:
The disagreement isn’t mainly about evidence — all four acknowledge that people believed miracles happened. The real divide is over how we’re allowed to interpret that evidence:
Wright and Keener: Argue that if the evidence supports a miracle, we should follow the evidence, even if it points to something supernatural. 
Ehrman and Hume: Argue that history and reason should never conclude a miracle, because doing so steps outside the boundaries of what is provable or likely. 

GW: So, setting aside the limitation of naturalism, using the reliable historical data we have available, is it reasonable to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead? Are there any other explanations that can account for all the historical evidence?
That's a profound and central question — and you're asking it exactly right: “Given the historical data, setting aside a naturalistic limitation, is the resurrection of Jesus the best explanation of the facts?”
Let’s look at this carefully, step-by-step.

✅ Step 1: What are the core historical facts?
Most critical scholars, across a wide range of theological positions, agree on a few minimal facts that are well-attested by historical evidence (including sources inside and outside the New Testament). These include:
1. Jesus was crucified and died (under Pontius Pilate).
This is among the most certain facts in ancient history.
Confirmed by Roman sources (Tacitus), Jewish sources (Josephus), and all four Gospels.
2. Jesus’ tomb was found empty (according to early sources).
While not universally accepted, many scholars agree the empty tomb tradition is early and rooted in Jerusalem, where the resurrection was first proclaimed.
It’s mentioned in multiple independent sources (Mark, Paul, John, Acts) and women as primary witnesses is a mark of authenticity (since women’s testimony wasn’t valued in that culture).
3. Disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus. This belief is early, sincere, and transformative.
Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, writes of appearances to Peter, the Twelve, James, and 500 others — many still alive when he was writing (~20 years after Jesus’ death).
These experiences turned a defeated, fearful group into bold proclaimers of resurrection, many facing persecution or death.
4. Paul and James (skeptics) converted due to post-crucifixion experiences.
Paul was a persecutor of Christians and James, Jesus’ brother, was not a follower during Jesus’ life.
Both became leaders in the early church after what they described as encounters with the risen Jesus.

✅ Step 2: What explanations are proposed?
Let’s compare major naturalistic explanations versus the resurrection hypothesis, and ask which best explains all the data.
⚙️ 1. Legend or myth development
Claim: The resurrection stories are just legends that developed over time.
❌ Problem: The resurrection belief appears immediately — not gradually. Paul’s letters (e.g., 1 Cor 15) date to within 20 years of Jesus’ death, and he’s quoting earlier creeds that go back to within a few years of the crucifixion.
❌ Problem: Myths don’t usually produce mass conversions of skeptics and martyrdoms in real time.
⚙️ 2. Hallucinations or visions
Claim: The disciples had grief-induced hallucinations.
✅ Strength: Explains post-crucifixion appearances and sincerity of the disciples.
❌ Problem: Hallucinations are individual and internal, not group experiences (like the 500).
❌ Problem: Doesn’t explain the empty tomb.
❌ Problem: Doesn’t explain James’ or Paul’s conversions, since neither expected or wanted to see Jesus.
⚙️ 3. Stolen body / Conspiracy
Claim: The disciples stole the body and invented the resurrection.
❌ Problem: Why would they die for a lie they made up? That’s psychologically unlikely.
❌ Problem: The Gospels portray the disciples as confused and fearful, not scheming.
❌ Problem: No motive — they gained persecution, not power.
⚙️ 4. Wrong tomb
Claim: The women went to the wrong tomb.
❌ Problem: Jewish and Roman leaders could easily disprove the resurrection by producing the correct tomb/body.
❌ Problem: Doesn’t explain appearances.
⚙️ 5. Spiritual resurrection (not physical)
Claim: Jesus rose only spiritually or symbolically, not bodily.
❌ Problem: First-century Jews didn’t believe in spiritual-only resurrection — resurrection always meant bodily.
❌ Problem: Disciples and Paul both insist on bodily resurrection (see Luke 24, John 20, 1 Cor 15).

✝️ Resurrection Hypothesis
Claim: God raised Jesus from the dead, bodily.
✅ Explains: The empty tomb, appearances, disciples’ transformation, conversions of skeptics, early proclamation, and the explosive growth of the church.
✅ Fits Jewish context: Resurrection was expected at the end of time — the disciples weren’t predisposed to invent a single-person resurrection in the middle of history.
✅ Paul’s change of heart: Not easily explained by any other natural cause.
✅ Coherence with claims of Jesus: He predicted this, and the event fulfills the trajectory of his life and message.

❓So, is it reasonable?
If we set aside the assumption that miracles can’t happen, and follow the evidence:
✔️ The resurrection is not only possible, but arguably the best explanation of the historical data.
❌ All naturalistic explanations face serious explanatory gaps — they may explain one piece of data, but not all.
This is why even skeptical scholars like E.P. Sanders and Gerd Lüdemann (both non-believers) acknowledge that the disciples genuinely believed they had seen the risen Jesus — and that something very powerful must have happened.
🔄 Final Thought:
If a person rejects the resurrection, it’s usually not because of lack of evidence, but because of a prior philosophical commitment to naturalism.
If a person is open to the supernatural, then the resurrection becomes deeply reasonable, even compelling. 
Would you like to explore how different scholars defend the resurrection in more detail — or maybe how the resurrection ties in with broader themes like justice, mercy, and new creation? “
— "

Conclusion:
The supernatural, bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the historical data. 

​Then the next question becomes, what are the implications of this historical event? 
Happy Easter!

In the most important article I've read this election so far, Greg Sheridan (The Australian 5/4/23) clarifies the problem with Big Government (vs responsible citizenship.) Big Government is what Socialism creates - Labor calls itself a socialist party and accordingly works for a bigger state (with the unions of course.) This article itself is a vote decider because it exposes the real-world economic & social consequences of socialism. Greg shows how big welfare makes us irresponsible and lazy while increasing the social problems it claims to fix.
​Read the stark facts:

How about this record of Albanese's term.
This is Australia's 8% decline in disposable income per capita 2022-24 compared to the rest of the developed world.
He doesn't admit it much less apologise for it.
This is not by mistake but by policy.

Further topics are covered here:
THIS IS THE ELECTION THAT WILL MAKE OR BREAK OUR AUSTRALIA. Peta Credlin - The Sunday Telegraph, March 29, 2025
...Peter Dutton is right: This election is a sliding doors moment. Re-elect Anthony Albanese and his green-left government and we will be poorer, weaker, and more divided: de-industrialised, thanks to an uncertain and expensive energy supply; increasingly estranged from our traditional allies; socially fractured thanks to the uncontrolled migration of people who aren’t expected to share our values; and saddled with deficits and a trillion dollars of debt.
Change the government and we still have serious challenges: How does a small economy like ours maintain resilience in a much less globalised world; how does a multiethnic society maintain social cohesion; and how do we defend ourselves as America retreats? But at least the Liberal-National Coalition has largely avoided falling under the spell of the climate cult, identity politics and the strange notion that communist China is our friend....
...Nuclear, not renewables; one flag, not three; education, not indoctrination; much lower immigration; 40,000 fewer bureaucrats; superannuation for homes; a defence of biological sex to protect women and girls; cracking down on foreign criminals; and more real support for defence. As Dutton made clear in his budget reply, countries can’t tax their way to prosperity or subsidise their way to success.
Under Dutton, Australians could expect something like Howard 2.0: Steady, predictable, incremental government; without the climate indoctrination and the energy madness that refuses to use here the coal and gas we still export to others (but won’t if Labor is re-elected with Greens support).
...Unlike Anthony Albanes ...who has overturned 70 years of bipartisan support for Israel at the UN, we could expect the former Queensland cop to be strong and sensible in a crisis. 

And australiavotes.org.au - is where to read parties' policy responses on the following matters:

1. Protection of Faith-Based Schools
2. Freedom of Speech
3. Competing rights for women
4. National Student Wellbeing Program (formerly National School Chaplaincy Program)
5. Consent Education
6. National Curriculum
7. Diversity, Equity & Inclusion in the Australian Public Service
8. Puberty Blockers
9. Online Gambling
10. Age Verification to Protect Children from Pornography Exposure
11. Family, Women and Children
12. Homelessness
13. Sex Trafficking
14. Indigenous Issues
15. Euthanasia by Telehealth
16. Legalisation of illicit drugs
17. Parental Rights
18. Foreign Aid
    

Click for the christianvalues.org.au checklist for WA in the Federal Election.

REMEMBER:
Vote 1 for your preferred minor party, then vote for your preferred major later in your preferences. Then your preferences will be counted as votes down to the final winner.
Here's a 5 minute video on the importance of preference voting.