Science and spirituality

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh, Gordon's post has reminded me, I forgot to add historians actually read the evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh, Gordon's post has reminded me, I forgot to add historians actually read the evidence.

and are methodologically naturalists so the concept of evidence does not apply to supernatural claims. Therefore by your own position in using the study of history as your method, you exclude the claim of a resurrection from it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

and are methodologically naturalists so the concept of evidence does not apply to supernatural claims. Therefore by your own position in using the study of history as your method, you exclude the claim of a resurrection from it.

If they are some kind of Methodological naturalist then they will methodological physicalists also therefore a physical resurrection comes under there remit and the New testament suggests a physical resurrection.

[Maeght]

I'm not sure a historian would agree on the notion of independent witness, so I go with the term of historical fact as something which actually occurred. Historians are not scientists since there is an unrepeatability about historical events.
We are then down to best evidence and interpretation and here
Modern atheist or scientismatists clearly show more bias in what they accept as evidence and how they interpret.

Going back to my definition of fact. None of us were there at that point in history so unless you can demonstrate impossibility....improbability is the best you can hope for.

They would consider that ideally, which is what I said. In the absence of independent sources the likelihood of accepting something as an historical fact is reduced.

I don't think you can define something as a fact just because you can't disprove it. You can say something is more likely to have happened or not based on the evidence.

No idea what a scientistmatists is - but clearly people form opinions based on their own interpretation of things but that doesn't mean anyone's interpretation is a fact. That requires evidence.

I'm not saying that the resurrection didn't happen because I can't demonstrate that but I don't think there is sufficient evidence for me to believe it did. I'm not going to believe something based on reports written down decades after the events and on the fact that other people believe. To believe it I would need evidence that Jesus died and was seen again alive several days later. I don't know of any contemporary evidence of that - only later reports/stories written by those with a belief that Jesus was God incarnate.

[Maeght]

Oh, Gordon's post has reminded me, I forgot to add historians actually read the evidence.

I've read a lot on the topic. What evidence are you referring too other than the NT?

[Nearly Sane]

If they are some kind of Methodological naturalist then they will methodological physicalists also therefore a physical resurrection comes under there remit and the New testament suggests a physical resurrection.

Nope, it's a supernatural claim. It falls outside of methodological naturalism.

[Nearly Sane]

They would consider that ideally, which is what I said. In the absence of independent sources the likelihood of accepting something as an historical fact is reduced.

I don't think you can define something as a fact just because you can't disprove it. You can say something is more likely to have happened or not based on the evidence.

No idea what a scientistmatists is - but clearly people form opinions based on their own interpretation of things but that doesn't mean anyone's interpretation is a fact. That requires evidence.

I'm not saying that the resurrection didn't happen because I can't demonstrate that but I don't think there is sufficient evidence for me to believe it did. I'm not going to believe something based on reports written down decades after the events and on the fact that other people believe. To believe it I would need evidence that Jesus died and was seen again alive several days later. I don't know of any contemporary evidence of that - only later reports/stories written by those with a belief that Jesus was God incarnate.

The concept of evidence as defined by the study of history does not apply to a supernatural claim such as the resurrection. 

[Maeght]

The concept of evidence as defined by the study of history does not apply to a supernatural claim such as the resurrection.

Evidence that Jesus died and then was seen later alive would be evidence he came back from the dead but not how that happened - but history can't really provide that evidence I agree.

[Nearly Sane]

Evidence that Jesus died and then was seen later alive would be evidence he came back from the dead but not how that happened - but history can't really provide that evidence I agree.

No, if there is a supernatural ckaim, history cannot study it. You can have evidence that someone was thought to be dead, and then it was established that they were not. Since the study of history is methodological naturalistic the conclusion is either that the reports of their death were greatly exaggerated, or that some naturalistic method of revivification that was not understood had been used. Miracle/supernatural claims are about a suspension of all the assumptions on which the study of history is based.

[Maeght]

No, if there is a supernatural ckaim, history cannot study it. You can have evidence that someone was thought to be dead, and then it was established that they were not. Since the study of history is methodological naturalistic the conclusion is either that the reports of their death were greatly exaggerated, or that some naturalistic method of revivification that was not understood had been used. Miracle/supernatural claims are about a suspension of all the assumptions on which the study of history is based.

Yes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, if there is a supernatural ckaim, history cannot study it. You can have evidence that someone was thought to be dead, and then it was established that they were not. Since the study of history is methodological naturalistic the conclusion is either that the reports of their death were greatly exaggerated, or that some naturalistic method of revivification that was not understood had been used. Miracle/supernatural claims are about a suspension of all the assumptions on which the study of history is based.

I think you are burdening us with your definitions of supernatural and methodology.
The supernatural claim is that God raised him from the dead. The physical claim is that Jesus returned from the dead.
Can there be a natural materialistic explanation for this? Well yes there can, rather like say, a virgin birth could be explained by advanced cloning techniques.
I think you are taking the impossibility line by the back door.

Finally, I'm approaching history as whatever happened and arbitrarily limiting history to repeatable events within an empiricism isn't the ticket.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you are burdening us with your definitions of supernatural and methodology.
The supernatural claim is that God raised him from the dead. The physical claim is that Jesus returned from the dead.
Can there be a natural materialistic explanation for this? Well yes there can, rather like say, a virgin birth could be explained by advanced cloning techniques.
I think you are taking the impossibility line by the back door.

Finally, I'm approaching history as whatever happened and arbitrarily limiting history to repeatable events within an empiricism isn't the ticket.

Nope. The claim to a resurrection is not that Jesus was from a sufficiently advanced civilisation. You are just showing your ignorance of both the study of history, and indeed an ignorance of the theology of Christianity which is where the 'impossibility' idea arises from.

This isn't about repeatability, and nothing in my post relates to that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope. The claim to a resurrection is not that Jesus was from a sufficiently advanced civilisation. You are just showing your ignorance of both the study of history, and indeed an ignorance of the theology of Christianity which is where the 'impossibility' idea arises from.

This isn't about repeatability, and nothing in my post relates to that.

There are two claims here a physically resurrected person. And God did it.

An advanced civilisation is not mooted but an advanced technology, technology in the simplest sense of technique, seems necessary in the case of a resurrection.....although you could dispense with advanced whatever by suggesting this is a fluke natural event I suppose.

You are though turning historians into scientists .....it seems. On what warrant. Citations please for history being methodologically and arbitrarily naturalist.

[Nearly Sane]

There are two claims here a physically resurrected person. And God did it.

An advanced civilisation is not mooted but an advanced technology, technology in the simplest sense of technique, seems necessary in the case of a resurrection.....although you could dispense with advanced whatever by suggesting this is a fluke natural event I suppose.

You are though turning historians into scientists .....it seems. On what warrant. Citations please for history being methodologically and arbitrarily naturalist.

Just to be clear I am talking about the study of history being methodologically naturalistic. You seem to use history/study of history as occasionally interchangeable  and occasionally different. Given your excerable prose, it's impossible to tell if that is because you are being ignorant, lying, can't write clearly, or some combination of the 3.


As for citation on the study of history being methodologically naturalistic, I'll cite all courses at UK universities.

Of course, to evaluate any supernatural claim you would need a suitable methodology. I am not aware of any, and desite me asking you for one, many hundreds of times, you have provided none.

[Gordon]

Tell me, Vlad, if somebody told you they had seen a ghost, and if you regarded this person as being sincere, would that be enough for you to conclude that ghosts existed?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to be clear I am talking about the study of history being methodologically naturalistic. You seem to use history/study of history as occasionally interchangeable  and occasionally different. Given your excerable prose, it's impossible to tell if that is because you are being ignorant, lying, can't write clearly, or some combination of the 3.


As for citation on the study of history being methodologically naturalistic, I'll cite all courses at UK universities.

Of course, to evaluate any supernatural claim you would need a suitable methodology. I am not aware of any, and desite me asking you for one, many hundreds of times, you have provided none.

And you seem to have an issue sorting physical claims from supernatural claims. This is an intellectual difficulty on your part.
In terms of equating history with science which you stubbornly refuse to move away from I'm pretty sure that if universities succumbed to your interpretation they could save money by the combination.

SO to recap a resurrected person is a physical claim.
God doing the resurrecting is a supernatural claim.

[Gordon]

SO to recap a resurrected person is a physical claim.
God doing the resurrecting is a supernatural claim.

So - you say that the 'resurrection' claim has two elements: the physical and the supernatural. Therefore, and putting the physical to one side for now, what specific methods would be suited to investigating the supernatural bit of the claim?

[Nearly Sane]

And you seem to have an issue sorting physical claims from supernatural claims. This is an intellectual difficulty on your part.
In terms of equating history with science which you stubbornly refuse to move away from I'm pretty sure that if universities succumbed to your interpretation they could save money by the combination.

SO to recap a resurrected person is a physical claim.
God doing the resurrecting is a supernatural claim.

You not having a method for your supernatural claim is your problem.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So - you say that the 'resurrection' claim has two elements: the physical and the supernatural. Therefore, and putting the physical to one side for now, what specific methods would be suited to investigating the supernatural bit of the claim?

Another topic which I will gladly discuss with you on another thread. If only to stop such a diversion from what sort of claim the resurrection is, appearing like a turdpolish...
Will it be you who starts the new thread?

[Nearly Sane]

Another topic which I will gladly discuss with you on another thread. If only to stop such a diversion from what sort of claim the resurrection is, appearing like a turdpolish...
Will it be you who starts the new thread?

More evasion from you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You not having a method for your supernatural claim is your problem.

I don't find my inability to satisfy you to be any kind of a problem for me.

[Gordon]

Another topic which I will gladly discuss with you on another thread. If only to stop such a diversion from what sort of claim the resurrection is, appearing like a turdpolish...
Will it be you who starts the new thread?

Which is code for: a) you don't have a basis to support your spurious claims of supernatural agency (and those of the religion you subscribe to), and b) you'd rather indulge in some goal-post moving as a diversion, albeit a failed one. More naunced Christians would tend to have avoided the hole you dug for yourself, and well before you then decided to jump in.

Your easy way out now is to concede that your belief that the 'resurrection' actually happened is a faith-based one and not a historical fact - that way your struggle against reality will be over, and we'll leave you to it!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is code for: a) you don't have a basis to support your spurious claims of supernatural agency (and those of the religion you subscribe to), and b) you'd rather indulge in some goal-post moving as a diversion, albeit a failed one. More naunced Christians would tend to have avoided the hole you dug for yourself, and well before you then decided to jump in.

Your easy way out now is to concede that your belief that the 'resurrection' actually happened is a faith-based one and not a historical fact - that way your struggle against reality will be over, and we'll leave you to it!

Since you do not want to discuss this elsewhere in order to divert from your failure to justify your positive assertions it looks like we will have to do this here.

First of all I think you need to tell us what you mean by methodology and also supernatural and why we should even be using the term. That then gives a proper frame of reference with which to proceed.

[Gordon]

Since you do not want to discuss this elsewhere in order to divert from your failure to justify your positive assertions it looks like we will have to do this here.

This thread is fine.

First of all I think you need to tell us what you mean by methodology and also supernatural and why we should even be using the term. That then gives a proper frame of reference with which to proceed.

No I don't - the claim is yours, so you need to explain how supernatural claims are verifified, and if you think the term 'supernatural' is wrong then you need to explain how not staying dead can be natural.

You have a dilemma though, since in your #390 you said "God doing the resurrecting is a supernatural claim."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This thread is fine.

No I don't - the claim is yours, so you need to explain how supernatural claims are verifified, and if you think the term 'supernatural' is wrong then you need to explain how not staying dead can be natural.

You have a dilemma though, since in your #390 you said "God doing the resurrecting is a supernatural claim."

I can't proceed to even attempt to answer your question if you aren't prepared to outline what you mean.

I KNOW WHAT I mean by supernatural . What do you mean by it? Same goes for methodology.