I watched the new Why No One Can Prove the Resurrection episode
Before I flag anything I want to say I think it’s one of the cleaner things Bart has done on this topic. The reason isn’t the burial material, good as it is. It’s a single discipline he keeps up for the whole forty-five minutes: he never lets “history can’t establish this” drift into “history has shown this didn’t happen.” He says it outright, more than once: you can’t prove a miracle, and for the same reason you can’t disprove one; he is not arguing it didn’t happen. That restraint is rare. Most people on both sides can’t hold that line for a paragraph, let alone an episode.
If I put a finger on one spot, it’s the very end. After keeping those two things apart for forty minutes, Bart says the resurrection “can’t be the most likely explanation.” That’s a small step past where the rest of the episode stands. “History can’t reach it” and “it’s the least likely option” aren’t quite the same claim. The first says the question is outside history’s range; the second puts it back inside and ranks it last. It doesn’t damage his case, but it’s interesting that the one place the discipline slips is the exact place where the comment section then loses the distinction.
I downloaded and read through the comment section, because I wanted to see whether viewers kept Bart’s distinction intact. The pattern was striking. A rough count gave me about 65 comments making the slide from “not historically demonstrable” to “false/debunked/fantasy,” about 36 using probability analogies such as Elvis sightings, urban legends or Sherlock Holmes, and only about 27 that clearly preserved Bart’s distinction; the rest were jokes, asides, burial sub-debates, or unrelated. The irony is that the comments preserving the distinction usually sit near the bottom with very few votes, while the probability-punchline comments are among the most liked.
The title and thumbnail already push in that direction a little: Why No One Can Prove the Resurrection is fair enough if “historically” is understood, but “The tomb proves nothing” is punchier than Bart’s actual argument. The comment section then pushes the same simplification much further.
Because that’s where the interesting thing happens. The audience overwhelmingly agrees with Bart, and yet the most upvoted comments almost all discard the discipline that makes the video good. A large share takes the step Bart specifically refused: “so it’s been debunked,” “so it obviously didn’t happen,” “so the Bible is false.” That is not Bart’s conclusion. It’s a different and stronger claim, and it needs its own argument, the same argument Bart just declined to make in the other direction.
Is that a valid inference? I don’t think so, at least not without another argument. Nothing in “history can’t reach it” gets you to “it’s been shown false.” The move is a slide, not an inference. And it’s the same slide in both directions. The few believers in the thread make the mirror version (“the Shroud of Turin proves the resurrection”), claiming exactly the certainty Bart denies to everyone. Both sides treat the historical record as settling a question Bart spent the episode saying it cannot settle either way.
The thread half-knows this. One commenter tells someone who calls the whole thing “fantasy from the start”: fine, but then prove it, because “you can’t prove or disprove it” cuts your way too. Another notes you could define “resurrection” narrowly enough that it would, in principle, be checkable. These are the sharpest comments in the section. They sit near the bottom, at almost zero votes.
My question for the forum is sharper than “why are commenters sloppy.” It’s this:
Why does an audience that shares Bart’s conclusion so reliably fail to keep his reasoning? Once everyone agrees on the destination, “not demonstrable” and “false” quietly stop feeling like different sentences, which is the very slide the episode was built to avoid. Curious whether others read it the same way.
You’re a braver man than I to read the comments section. With some exceptions (this blog’s are pretty good), reading them gives me a picture fitting of Bleak House.
I take it they’re not coming at it with the same intellectual rigor, and their primary interest is in having particular beliefs affirmed.
Ha, yes, Bleak House is about right for much of YouTube, and I think you’re right that belief-affirmation is doing a lot of work.
What interested me here was the specific form it took. If it were only believers wanting their beliefs confirmed, the “Shroud proves it” comments would be the whole story. And those are there. But the more striking thing to me was that the skeptical comments, which already agree with Bart, often make the same kind of move in the other direction: “can’t be established” becomes “debunked” or “fantasy.”
That is what makes it more interesting than just lack of rigor. The agreement itself seems to make the distinction feel unnecessary. Once everyone already shares the destination, “not demonstrable” and “false” stop feeling like different claims.
That’s the part I find genuinely interesting, not just bleak: what happens to a careful distinction once nobody in the room feels they need it anymore.
Ha Robert, the second half of your answer may be the most honest answer in the thread, and the funniest.
Further on, I think we may be answering different questions. I never claimed the miraculous is “every bit as plausible” as ordinary explanations. That wasn’t the claim I was making, and nothing in my point depends on it.
What I noted was narrower and it was descriptive: “outside the range of the method” and “ranked lowest within the method” are two different kinds of statement. Your reply joins them: miracles are rare, therefore history can’t reach them. But that join is the very thing I was separating.
Rarity, if it does the work you give it, makes a miracle improbable within historical explanation. That is a ranking. It is a different operation from saying the question lies outside what the method can settle at all. One puts the resurrection on the table and scores it low; the other says the method does not reach it. You may think those collapse into one, but that is a position to argue, not a definition. Noticing that they can come apart was the whole of my small point about the ending.
Which is why this loops back to the comments rather than to the miracle question. My thread was not about whether miracles are likely. It was about a room: why an audience that already agrees with Bart so readily turns “not demonstrable” into “debunked.” That last step is the one I find interesting, and it is a step about people, not about probability.
Robert, no apology needed. I think your inference was understandable, and this is indeed the difficult point.
I don’t hold the radical separation that history can say nothing about miraculous claims. Historians can say a great deal: whether the sources are early or late, whether they are independent, what the claims actually are, what alternative explanations are available, and how such claims compare with ordinary human experience. All of that is proper historical work.
My point does not require treating miraculous and non-miraculous explanations as equally likely. A historian can quite reasonably say that, within ordinary historical explanation, a miraculous explanation ranks lower than explanations drawn from common human experience.
The narrower distinction is this: “least likely explanation of the evidence” and “verified act of God” answer different questions. The first is a historical ranking. The second is a theological or metaphysical judgment that historical method cannot finally certify. One way to see the difference is that a ranking is responsive to evidence: stronger attestation could raise the historical probability of an unusual event. But even stronger evidence would not turn historical method itself into a detector of divine agency, because divine agency was not the variable being weighed.
And I think you are right that different historians define the method differently. A believing historian and an unbelieving historian may draw the line in different places. That is partly why I wanted to keep the steps visible.
Which brings me back to the comments. The careful claim is: “least likely within ordinary historical reasoning.” The comment-section version often becomes: “debunked” or “fantasy.” That is the upgrade I was trying to name. It turns a ranking, made within a method, into a verdict that sounds much stronger than the method itself can carry.
And this is clearly a real question, Robert, one you’ve lived with longer than a comment reply deserves. If this takes us much further, it may deserve its own thread: the relationship between historical method, probability, and the supernatural is a topic in its own right, not really a footnote to mine. I’d read that thread with interest.
Robert, this helps me sharpen my own wording. I didn’t mean Bart’s historical method broke down, and “slip” was too heavy a word, so I’ll take it back.
And you’re right that “the physical resurrection is the least likely historical explanation” is the clean way to put it. Bart himself says “if you’re just looking at historical grounds,” which is the same qualification, so on that formulation I think we agree. I tried to give him that credit throughout: I called it one of the cleaner things he’s done, precisely because he keeps “not demonstrable” and “shown false” apart.
What I was pointing at was narrower. That kind of probability language, careful as it is in his mouth, is easy to hear as a broader verdict once it lands in a comment section. His own claim still isn’t “therefore false” or “debunked.” But plenty of the comments hear it that way.
So I think we’re closer than it sounded. The methodological question is real and could carry its own thread. I just didn’t want it to swallow the small thing I started with: what a comment section does with a carefully worded sentence.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)