81
News:
E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
Recent Posts
82
Politics & Current Affairs / Re: Trans rights: a perspective
« Last post by Nearly Sane on August 26, 2025, 04:10:08 PM »'Health bosses failed to act on NHS clinic prescribing gender drugs to kids for five years'
The medical experimentation on children
https://archive.vn/iqEgk
83
Christian Topic / Re: Lewis's Trilemma - split from Matthew topic
« Last post by Gordon on August 26, 2025, 03:54:32 PM »And AI tells me frequently that the New Testament does not lack provenance which was Gordon's point.
If all of history in the UK is methodologically naturalistic that imposes as far as I can see limitations IMHO opinion Technically then, Should Historians be able to declare that the resurrection never happened rather than "the resurrection is outside the scope of history" and even the latter sounds odd.
You seem confused about the two forms of naturalism, as NS notes.
If the study of history is naturalistic the historian could not claim as historical fact anything that is not amenable to naturalistic study: therefore supernatural claims would not meet that criteria - they would be out of scope. To claim the resurrection was a historical event would require a method of investigating the supernatural that doesn't exist, and if it did then 'faith' becomes redundant, so be careful what you wish for.
The best that can be said is that some anecdotes claimed a resurrection but these are decades post hoc, their authors are uncertain, the extent to which mistakes, bias or lies crept in and to what extent there was later editing are all unknowns - therefore provenance is an issue in relation to the resurrection claim. As such it could be said that the resurrection claim is too weak to be a serious proposition from a naturalistic perspective.
Some may choose to believe it but I'd say they couldn't claim it was historical fact without a means to establish that 'fact'.
84
Christian Topic / Re: Lewis's Trilemma - split from Matthew topic
« Last post by Nearly Sane on August 26, 2025, 03:31:01 PM »Historians can say that people believed in or reported a resurrection but since they deal in what is most likely they really can't declare that a supernatural event happened.Or didn't. It's not a claim that makes sense in methodological naturalism
85
Christian Topic / Re: Lewis's Trilemma - split from Matthew topic
« Last post by Maeght on August 26, 2025, 03:12:13 PM »oh look you have once again elided the study of history and 'history' . At no point have I said that in recognised universities in the UK. it is declared that the resurrection did not happen. You seem to be confused again by the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism.
Historians can say that people believed in or reported a resurrection but since they deal in what is most likely they really can't declare that a supernatural event happened.
86
Christian Topic / Re: Lewis's Trilemma - split from Matthew topic
« Last post by Dicky Underpants on August 26, 2025, 03:11:35 PM »And AI tells me frequently that the New Testament does not lack provenance which was Gordon's point.
If all of history in the UK is methodologically naturalistic that imposes as far as I can see limitations IMHO opinion Technically then, Should Historians be able to declare that the resurrection never happened rather than "the resurrection is outside the scope of history" and even the latter sounds odd.
Just thought I'd post this link on how modern historians view the matter of the historical Jesus. I'd thought the Jewish apocalyptic prophet view was dominant, whilst Dominic Crossan's Jesus the Cynic Sage gained some notoriety for a time. There's a "Jesus the magician"* somewhere - the pagans liked that one, but it has all the drawbacks that Gordon and NS have pointed out with regard to 'supernatural' matters.
*by Morton Smith
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/jesus-as-a-figure-in-history-how-modern-historians-view-the-man-from-galilee/
87
Christian Topic / Re: Lewis's Trilemma - split from Matthew topic
« Last post by Nearly Sane on August 26, 2025, 02:43:24 PM »And AI tells me frequently that the New Testament does not lack provenance which was Gordon's point.oh look you have once again elided the study of history and 'history' . At no point have I said that in recognised universities in the UK. it is declared that the resurrection did not happen. You seem to be confused again by the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism.
If all of history in the UK is methodologically naturalistic that imposes as far as I can see limitations IMHO opinion Technically then, Should Historians be able to declare that the resurrection never happened rather than "the resurrection is outside the scope of history" and even the latter sounds odd.
88
Christian Topic / Re: Lewis's Trilemma - split from Matthew topic
« Last post by Walt Zingmatilder on August 26, 2025, 02:21:55 PM »All recognised UK history departments teach the study of history as a methodological naturalist discipline.And AI tells me frequently that the New Testament does not lack provenance which was Gordon's point.
If all of history in the UK is methodologically naturalistic that imposes as far as I can see limitations IMHO opinion Technically then, Should Historians be able to declare that the resurrection never happened rather than "the resurrection is outside the scope of history" and even the latter sounds odd.
89
Literature, Music, Art & Entertainment / Re: Music was my first love...
« Last post by Nearly Sane on August 26, 2025, 12:17:07 PM »90
Christian Topic / Re: Lewis's Trilemma - split from Matthew topic
« Last post by Nearly Sane on August 26, 2025, 10:41:02 AM »The closest thesis to what I think Vlad is talking about is Richard Bauckham's 'Jesus and the Eye Witnesses'. Here he does stray from methodological naturalist disciplines into 'supernatural' territory. I understand that he sticks to the 'academic guidelines' better in many of his other works.Eye witness testimony works as part of a methodology, rather than being one, and I argue is part of how we might establish what happened in history. However, both in the study of history, and it's more usual area, law, eye witness testimony is understood within a methodological naturalist framework. It isn't evidence of non naturalistic events because we don't have a methodology for it to fit into for those.
As for eye-witness testimony: well, the preface to the Book of Mormon contains the sworn statement that various witnesses had 'seen and hefted' the golden plates which Joseph Smith claimed the angel Moroni helped him find. Eye witness testimony is better than third-hand reports, but still offers no methodology for arriving at the truth.
I have no problems accepting that there will be professional historians who believe in non natiralustic events but that's not really the discussion which is how is the study of history carried out, and as far as it is taught in recognised universities in the UK, it is methodoligically naturalistic