Vlad,
You’re really going off the deep end now:
Sorry, but philosophical naturalism is still just a punt.
You know that and I know that because I've been through that phase.
Science doesn't help you Blue not even waving it shamanically like wot you are doing.
Evasion noted, and it’s only a “punt” if you ignore what it observably achieves.
Again you seem to be pleading for science as a non overlapping magisterium and yet posturing as a POMA exponent......in other word you have been stretched to breaking point in your gymnastic opposition.
I do no such thing. Stop lying.
Science doesn't help and support your arguments Blue.
“Science” exactly helps the argument that claims made by the religious of the scientific truth of those claims are wrong.
I don't think historians reject gospel accounts because they do not follow the doctrines of philosophical naturalism. Nor conversely would any academics be drummed out for treating the gospel accounts as historical evidence.
They don’t reject them, they’re
indifferent to them – for the good reason that the claims made cannot engage with the methods historians use. History no more has anything to say about miracle claims than architecture has anything to say about morris dancing.
I think the philosophical naturalism of history is, as described something merely asserted. And as it is a positive one someone around here has the burden of proof.
Then you think wrongly, for reasons that have been explained to you many times but you ignore nonetheless. The naturalism of historicity produces outcomes that are consistent with the way the world appears to be. If you think that your claims outside of that paradigm are true, then still you have all your work ahead of you to provide a
method to distinguish those claims from guessing, mistake, lying etc.
And that, as we know, is the point at which you either vanish or throw more irrelevance at the question in the hope that no-one notices.
History is not science though Shakes. The Gospel accounts can therefore be treated as historical evidence so it is hard to see how history is a natural fit with er, methodological naturalism.
No, what I am saying is that there is no historical reason to reject the miracle accounts as being historical evidence. History cannot probably establish whether God was the cause.
Again. History doesn't reject accounts of unique events Nearly even if they don't fit in with what is considered natural.
The trouble is history cannot reject unique events since that is the raw material of history. History therefore has no mechanism for weeding out that which isn't considered natural without undermining it's own methodology.
Bullshit. Of course they can’t be treated as “historical evidence” at all for the good reason that they fail utterly the methods of verification on which academic history relies.
Oh so miracles don't come in the unique event category now?
Often they don’t, no – the resurrection myth is a basic re-telling of the same story from various previous theisms – a process called syncretism - which in turn are rooted in the turning of the seasons, the "birth" of the new year etc.
No, I have already stated that history does not reject records of events which do not fit a philosophical naturalists idea of ''natural'' since that undermines the method of history which is to study recorded events....although academic freedom does permit that.
Wrongly so. “History” cannot “reject records of events which do not fit a philosophical naturalists idea” because those claims are, for the purpose of the historic method, incoherent. That’s why history is jut
indifferent to them
Therefore you have to justify what is naturalistic about history.
No he doesn’t. It justifies itself because it fits exactly with the way the universe appears to be. If you want to posit claims outside of that, then finally propose a method to validate those claims.
yes it is historically unique as is the resurrection.
It’s not “historic” at all – at best it’s folklore, and there’s nothing unique about it.
Well one has to decide whether the accounts were written as reportage or myth or fiction and to establish the choice as far as I know historians collectively are of the general opinion that the Christian community at this time were ''sincere in their belief''.
What relevance do you think that sincerity has to accuracy?
The moment one makes a decision on whether it was a divine or not or whether it wasn't made up, one has strayed out of history and into anthropology, psychology, sociology, ''common sense'' etc.
You’ve “strayed” into none of these things. What you have jumped into with both feet though is
faith.
you have elevated science (The natur Nowhere have I given any judgment over the level of sincerity of belief. I merely point out that the Christians believed a substantial physical and historical event had taken place.
As have lots of people about lots of supposed miracles – the Vikings sincerely thought Thor was making thunder for example.
So what?
alistic method) to be the only source of truth. That is a leap of faith since the naturalistic method doesn't establish that.
No-one claims it to be the “only source of truth” at all. Rather what’s actually said is that it’s the only approach we have so far to distinguish probable truths from probable non-truths.
I don't recall the inability to falsify something means that thing cannot be merely that it is not subjectable to science.
You don't recall it because no-one says it. Anything
could be – your problem though is to get from the “could bes” of your particular suite of beliefs to a “probably is” with no intervening method to take you there.
What you are asking for is the scientific method for something not scientific. You know and we know that isn't possible.
No he isn’t. What he’s actually asking for is
a method, something, anything at all in fact to distinguish your claims from guessing, mistake etc.
For some reason you specially plead that your own views are exempt from this...They aren't.
Either there is or isn't a God. Either position cannot be demonstrated by science.
So what method would you propose instead to determine that?
