Why do so many still have these religious beliefs?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

it would look like an set of methods which intra subjectively we could look to validate claims with no assumption of natural causes.

In English please.

[Sebastian Toe]

OK. Supernatural is that which cannot possibly be proved or demonstrated by methodological naturalism.
Therefore nature is either eternal....or it popped out of an unnatural nothing. Both of these things are not demonstrable by methodological materialism therefore the supernatural has been demonstrated.....without God having been mentioned.

Is math supernatural?

[Nearly Sane]

In English please.

Not sure what you are not getting. A methodology is a set of methods. People make claims, but in order to validate them for more than just them, I.e. to achieve inter subjectivity we agree on a set of assumptions. Naturalistic methodology, which is more than just science, it applies in law, history and linguistics amongst others, assumes natural cause and effect! For a non natural claim, we cannot not make that assumption.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not sure what you are not getting. A methodology is a set of methods. People make claims, but in order to validate them for more than just them, I.e. to achieve inter subjectivity we agree on a set of assumptions. Naturalistic methodology, which is more than just science, it applies in law, history and linguistics amongst others, assumes natural cause and effect! For a non natural claim, we cannot not make that assumption.

How does it apply to law, history and linguistics. If the Lord appeared streaking across the sky scientists might try to shoehorn it, law would rely on witness, history would be forced to record it and linguistics would have to establish a new vocabulary or borrow from religion...I think you are putting to great a stock in methodological naturalism.

I understand methodological naturalism to be science...the study of the property and dynamics of the physical.....and I think you do too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is math supernatural?

Since there is maths which isn't embodied in our universe then ......maybe.

[Walter]

OK. Supernatural is that which cannot possibly be proved or demonstrated by methodological naturalism.
Therefore nature is either eternal....or it popped out of an unnatural nothing. Both of these things are not demonstrable by methodological materialism therefore the supernatural has been demonstrated.....without God having been mentioned.

just to let you know
I still pity you , have a nice day

[Nearly Sane]

How does it apply to law, history and linguistics. If the Lord appeared streaking across the sky scientists might try to shoehorn it, law would rely on witness, history would be forced to record it and linguistics would have to establish a new vocabulary or borrow from religion...I think you are putting to great a stock in methodological naturalism.

I understand methodological naturalism to be science...the study of the property and dynamics of the physical.....and I think you do too.

They are all carried out on an assumption of naturalism. That's why when I was evaluating in my history essay things about JC, Julius Caesar, that I didn't write about the chances he was descended from Venus, though i did about whether the crossing of the Rubicon happened. It's why when writing about delict, I didn't have to write about whether someone magically placed a snail in a lemonade bottle, but rather where the responsibility for the snail getting in the bottle in a naturalistic fashion lay. It's why in linguistics, I had to write about the likelihood of words being passed down rather than being the words of angels.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

just to let you know
I still pity you , have a nice day

Thank you............would there be any monetary consideration allied to that sense of pity by any chance?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They are all carried out on an assumption of naturalism. That's why when I was evaluating in my history essay things about JC, Julius Caesar, that I didn't write about the chances he was descended from Venus, though i did about whether the crossing of the Rubicon happened. It's why when writing about delict, I didn't have to write about whether someone magically placed a snail in a lemonade bottle, but rather where the responsibility for the snail getting in the bottle in a naturalistic fashion lay. It's why in linguistics, I had to write about the likelihood of words being passed down rather than being the words of angels.

Come of it...You and I know there are a million approaches to history. One chooses the perspective one writes from.

Methodological naturalism is science and the operation of that becomes less certain and focussed the further you get from pure science......... so sayeth Chomsky....and he is one of your lot.

[Nearly Sane]

Come of it...You and I know there are a million approaches to history. One chooses the perspective one writes from.

Methodological naturalism is science and the operation of that becomes less certain and focussed the further you get from pure science......... so sayeth Chomsky....and he is one of your lot.

How we study history, do law or linguistics are all methodological naturalistic. You have missed the point of what Chomsky is saying which is about accuracy, not about them being naturalist in approach.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How we study history, do law or linguistics are all methodological naturalistic. You have missed the point of what Chomsky is saying which is about accuracy, not about them being naturalist in approach.

Methodological naturalism is science, Nearly Sane. How does science come into ,say, a history of philosophy or religion? or 'great men'. Would history, law and linguistics shut down after the second coming(careful now...problem of induction and all that)? Does history finally state that the resurrection never happened (does science for that matter?)

Any way, while you argue that all study is basically science, I still don't know what you are taking to be ''method''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How we study history, do law or linguistics are all methodological naturalistic. You have missed the point of what Chomsky is saying which is about accuracy, not about them being naturalist in approach.

How we study history is a choice, how we do law is on witness, philosophy and religion are or have their own linguistic framework.

[Nearly Sane]

Methodological naturalism is science, Nearly Sane. How does science come into ,say, a history of philosophy or religion? or 'great men'. Would history, law and linguistics shut down after the second coming(careful now...problem of induction and all that)? Does history finally state that the resurrection never happened (does science for that matter?)

Any way, while you argue that all study is basically science, I still don't know what you are taking to be ''method''.

No, methodological naturalism is a set of methods based on an assumption of natural cause and effects. We carry out the study of history and linguistics, the discipline of  law based on methods with the assumption of natural cause and effects. I'm not saying history is science.

[Nearly Sane]

How we study history is a choice, how we do law is on witness, philosophy and religion are or have their own linguistic framework.

and all the choices I know of are based on the assumption of natural cause and effect. Do you have ones that aren't?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

and all the choices I know of are based on the assumption of natural cause and effect. Do you have ones that aren't?

How about the history of the universe?....is it eternal or does it pop up by itself out of nothing or is it all a no go area because history is methodological naturalism?

[Walter]

How about the history of the universe?....is it eternal or does it pop up by itself out of nothing or is it all a no go area because history is methodological naturalism?

what is this 'nothing' you speak of?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

what is this 'nothing' you speak of?

A good question....is it a 'physicists' nothing. Something with the ability to change AKA Something.(for the rest of us with our noses sufficiently far away from the problem)......or is it Nix, Nada, nothing, the genuine and ultimate non-article?

[Nearly Sane]

How about the history of the universe?....is it eternal or does it pop up by itself out of nothing or is it all a no go area because history is methodological naturalism?

So that would be a no. Plus a begging the question fallacy, and showing ignorance of how what history is as it is studied. If you want to engage, I suggest you read posts, rather than just returning to some random answer.

I really don't understand why you waste your time on this schtick. Your much better  sticking to the experience schtick.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So that would be a no. Plus a begging the question fallacy, and showing ignorance of how what history is as it is studied. If you want to engage, I suggest you read posts, rather than just returning to some random answer.

I really don't understand why you waste your time on this schtick.

No, If History is methodological naturalistic how can it adequately describe the history of the universe since it has supernatural ontology?

How history is studied is down to choice.

There is as you so pointed out the problem of induction so what has history to say about an intra subjective global supernatural occurance? Answer....it would report it.

[Nearly Sane]

No, If History is methodological naturalistic how can it adequately describe the history of the universe since it has supernatural ontology?

How history is studied is down to choice.

There is as you so pointed out the problem of induction so what has history to say about an intra subjective global supernatural occurance? Answer....it would report it.

So how do you choose to study history in a non naturalist way? His dies it establish a supernatural occurrence? That would be back at your methodology that you have admitted you don't have.

And I note further begging the question in your first sentence.

[Walter]

No, If History is methodological naturalistic how can it adequately describe the history of the universe since it has supernatural ontology?

How history is studied is down to choice.

There is as you so pointed out the problem of induction so what has history to say about an intra subjective global supernatural occurance? Answer....it would report it.

do you feel my pity? its real, its strong, can you see it , can you measure it?

[wigginhall]

No, If History is methodological naturalistic how can it adequately describe the history of the universe since it has supernatural ontology?

How history is studied is down to choice.

There is as you so pointed out the problem of induction so what has history to say about an intra subjective global supernatural occurance? Answer....it would report it.

Well, historians seem to report that people believed (and believe) in the resurrection, but I've never seen one who would factually report it as an event.    That would be like reporting that Caesar was a god, and not simply that people believed it.

[Walter]

Well, historians seem to report that people believed (and believe) in the resurrection, but I've never seen one who would factually report it as an event.    That would be like reporting that Caesar was a god, and not simply that people believed it.

History, that line from The History Boys puts it into perspective for me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, historians seem to report that people believed (and believe) in the resurrection, but I've never seen one who would factually report it as an event.    That would be like reporting that Caesar was a god, and not simply that people believed it.

Yes but here's the point. The jesus mythers put forward a history in which jesus does not even exist. Some also argue that it couldn't have happened because naturalism rules against it. I would argue that the former group are putting forward a history but the latter group are not.

Opposing the Jesus myth historians are the historians who produced the New Testament account.

Now how are we to judge these historians? By their history or by their naturalism.

How also would history, and I've asked this a couple of times, treat an intersubjective event not explicable by methodological naturalism?
Would it pack up it's tools and throw it's hands up? or would it report it?

If history is done as methodological naturalism that is a choice rather than a necessity....and one has immediately switched in any case from methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism.

History has no necessary commitment to methodological naturalism...unlike science which actually is methodological naturalism.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes but here's the point. The jesus mythers put forward a history in which jesus does not even exist. Some also argue that it couldn't have happened because naturalism rules against it. I would argue that the former group are putting forward a history but the latter group are not.

Opposing the Jesus myth historians are the historians who produced the New Testament account.

Now how are we to judge these historians? By their history or by their naturalism.

How also would history, and I've asked this a couple of times, treat an intersubjective event not explicable by methodological materialism?
Would it pack up it's tools and throw it's hands up? or would it report it?

If history is done as methodological materialism that is a choice rather than a necessity....and one has immediately switched in any case from methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism.

History has no necessary commitment to methodological materialism...unlike science which actually is methodological naturalism.

. Since you have admitted that you do not have a methodology that is non naturalistic, no one can choose such a methodology.