Lewis's Trilemma - split from Matthew topic

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Canada you point me in the direction of where you argue this? It's difficult to conceive of what the origin to methodological naturalism can make any difference to it being methodological naturalism and not as you elided philosophical naturalism in a funny hat

I cantada point out where I've argued that merely that I've said they are different. I will argue it if you like.

You are arguing that history doesn't do God, it's naturalistic but science unlike history is 100% empirical in a physicalist sense.

History deals with human motivations.

Both the chosen directions for science and history come from differing aspects of naturalism. In history God cannot be the final ultimate agency but Man shares that role with chance and geography and in science it's the laws of nature.
History is a blend of philosophy and methodology. So where as you can be a scientist and avoid philosophy, you can't escape it in History. Unless you are arguing that history should only deal with where and in what state matter and energy we're in at a certain time and place.

That's my view but as I've said, I'm prepared to be educated by "The Professionals".

[Nearly Sane]

I cantada point out where I've argued that merely that I've said they are different. I will argue it if you like.

You are arguing that history doesn't do God, it's naturalistic but science unlike history is 100% empirical in a physicalist sense.

History deals with human motivations.

Both the chosen directions for science and history come from differing aspects of naturalism. In history God cannot be the final ultimate agency but Man shares that role with chance and geography and in science it's the laws of nature.
History is a blend of philosophy and methodology. So where as you can be a scientist and avoid philosophy, you can't escape it in History. Unless you are arguing that history should only deal with where and in what state matter and energy we're in at a certain time and place.

That's my view but as I've said, I'm prepared to be educated by "The Professionals".

. Human motivations are in the terms of historical study, theoretically empirically.  That science and history have different goals and different restrictions dies not mean their methodological naturalism comes from different approaches. And as i suspected it makes no difference even if they did, because they both are based around the assumption of methodological naturalism. So the study of history is carried out in all recognised universities in the UK on the assumption of methodological naturalism. Note this is not a point about 'god' specifically but all non naturalistic claims.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

. Human motivations are in the terms of historical study, theoretically empirically.  That science and history have different goals and different restrictions dies not mean their methodological naturalism comes from different approaches. And as i suspected it makes no difference even if they did, because they both are based around the assumption of methodological naturalism. So the study of history is carried out in all recognised universities in the UK on the assumption of methodological naturalism. Note this is not a point about 'god' specifically but all non naturalistic claims.

The History of where matter was and what state it was in is history. But is that exhaustively the definition of History? Seriously? So the questions I want to ask are Is History whatever happened in the past? And How does methodological naturalism of all things help elucidate that comprehensively.

You...don't have to take any action in answering these.

[Nearly Sane]

The History of where matter was and what state it was in is history. But is that exhaustively the definition of History? Seriously? So the questions I want to ask are Is History whatever happened in the past? And How does methodological naturalism of all things help elucidate that comprehensively.

You...don't have to take any action in answering these.

As you often do on this you elide the concept of history with its study. If, for example, Jesus did miraculously rise from the dead, then it happened, and if we define what happened as history then it is part of history. That's not what is being discussed here though, and won't be what any professional historian you talk to will have a method of establishing. The study of history, as the various posts you have replied to have clearly been talking about, is methodologically naturalistic, for the same reason science is - because that's the methodology we have. Thete is, as far as I can see no methid for studying non natiralust claims, and despite the multitude of times, you have been asked for one, none had appeared.

[Gordon]

I cantada point out where I've argued that merely that I've said they are different. I will argue it if you like.

You are arguing that history doesn't do God, it's naturalistic but science unlike history is 100% empirical in a physicalist sense.

History deals with human motivations.

Both the chosen directions for science and history come from differing aspects of naturalism. In history God cannot be the final ultimate agency but Man shares that role with chance and geography and in science it's the laws of nature.
History is a blend of philosophy and methodology. So where as you can be a scientist and avoid philosophy, you can't escape it in History. Unless you are arguing that history should only deal with where and in what state matter and energy we're in at a certain time and place.

That's my view but as I've said, I'm prepared to be educated by "The Professionals".

History certainly deals with what different people believe, how various religious beliefs are enacted, the roles that religion has had in politics, power and social conventions and, of course, how those aspects change over time and place and those changes are also within the scope of historical study.

For example, the current role religion plays in US politics differs from its role in UK politics or that in certain areas (like where I am) the influence of Christianity is waning (as confirmed by the last census in Scotland). All of these are within the scope of history and the study of them is methodologically naturalistic so that, for instance, how religion operated in ancient Egypt can be studied without reference to whether or not Ra really did exist.

What is out of scope for history are the study of specific metaphysical and/or non-naturalistic claims, such as Gods or someone miraculously not staying dead, since those sorts of claims would require a method of study suited to claimed non-naturalistic phenomena and that, dear boy, doesn't exist.

It's important to avoid the trap of thinking that because some people believed in a supernatural 'x' that, therefore, this 'x' must be true. If that were the case then the history of religion would become a series of ad pops

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As you often do on this you elide the concept of history with its study. If, for example, Jesus did miraculously rise from the dead, then it happened, and if we define what happened as history then it is part of history. That's not what is being discussed here though, and won't be what any professional historian you talk to will have a method of establishing. The study of history, as the various posts you have replied to have clearly been talking about, is methodologically naturalistic, for the same reason science is - because that's the methodology we have. Thete is, as far as I can see no methid for studying non natiralust claims, and despite the multitude of times, you have been asked for one, none had appeared.

A lot of this is imo non sequitur to what I've been saying.
Worse it looks like you just tub thumping your wizard realisation that only naturalism has a methodology is 'the most superist, knockdownist response I've ever seen in the annals of Religionethics. You are saying that human motivations are theorietically empirical in History and I reckon that such a belief is unnecessary in history. It is also a positive assertion on your part so you know what you have to do.

[Gordon]

A lot of this is imo non sequitur to what I've been saying.
Worse it looks like you just tub thumping your wizard realisation that only naturalism has a methodology is 'the most superist, knockdownist response I've ever seen in the annals of Religionethics. You are saying that human motivations are theorietically empirical in History and I reckon that such a belief is unnecessary in history. It is also a positive assertion on your part so you know what you have to do.

In that case, Vlad, it is a relief that you aren't a professional historian (for if you were you wouldn't have lasted long).

Any luck in finding a professional historian who states that NT miracle claims are historical facts? I hope not, for it would be a career-ending moment for them.

To add: 'human motivations' are indeed empirical since they are just examples of biology doing what it does, and the effects of collective/group motivations can also be considered in sociological terms.

[Nearly Sane]

A lot of this is imo non sequitur to what I've been saying.
Worse it looks like you just tub thumping your wizard realisation that only naturalism has a methodology is 'the most superist, knockdownist response I've ever seen in the annals of Religionethics. You are saying that human motivations are theorietically empirical in History and I reckon that such a belief is unnecessary in history. It is also a positive assertion on your part so you know what you have to do.

Again you are eliding history, and the study of history. My statement as was made clear is about studying history based on the use of methodological naturalism. Which is what is used in all recognised UK universities. Misrepresenting me after I already pointed out your problem is simply tedious. When you want to have a good faith discussion instead of this cheap wankery that you indulge is, ger back to me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In that case, Vlad, it is a relief that you aren't a professional historian (for if you were you wouldn't have lasted long).

Thanks, but I'd be looking to professional historians for an opinion on that.

Any luck in finding a professional historian who states that NT miracle claims are historical facts? I hope not, for it would be a career-ending moment for them.

In my own time Gordon, in my own time.

To add: 'human motivations' are indeed empirical since they are just examples of biology doing what it does

Oh f......Not that again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again you are eliding history, and the study of history. My statement as was made clear is about studying history based on the use of methodological naturalism. Which is what is used in all recognised UK universities. Misrepresenting me after I already pointed out your problem is simply tedious. When you want to have a good faith discussion instead of this cheap wankery that you indulge is, ger back to me.

I don't think I'm eliding History with the study of history. Are you sure you aren't projecting?
What I am saying is I'd rather check your facts vis a vis the study of history in the UK. If you are right then I question how much that approach tallies with the spirit of History as everything that ever happened.

How history is studied is an arbitrary decision in academia isn't it?

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think I'm eliding History with the study of history. Are you sure you aren't projecting?
What I am saying is I'd rather check your facts vis a vis the study of history in the UK. If you are right then I question how much that approach tallies with the spirit of History as everything that ever happened.

How history is studied is an arbitrary decision in academia isn't it?

See my reply #103.

[Gordon]

How history is studied is an arbitrary decision in academia isn't it?

No - else we'd all be qualified historians.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No - else we'd all be qualified historians.

Eh?

[Gordon]

Eh?

It's simple, Vlad - academic study of history isn't arbitrary: it needs relevant methods, knowledge, resources and competence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's simple, Vlad - academic study of history isn't arbitrary: it needs relevant methods, knowledge, resources and competence.

My apologies, What I meant is that the UK history curriculum in academia is decided by people or persons.
They decide what methods, what knowledge, what resources and what constitutes competence. We also know that those choices change and methods, knowledge and competences go in and out of vogue depending on preferences and opinions.

What constitutes history and historical study.Again people on this forum think of that question as being a done deal where as in the real world, it's still debated.

[Nearly Sane]

My apologies, What I meant is that the UK history curriculum in academia is decided by people or persons.
They decide what methods, what knowledge, what resources and what constitutes competence. We also know that those choices change and methods, knowledge and competences go in and out of vogue depending on preferences and opinions.

What constitutes history and historical study.Again people on this forum think of that question as being a done deal where as in the real world, it's still debated.

So when you said you are going to talk to 'The Professionals', which earlier you seemed to set greT store by, your actual position is that it's no more valid than Gordin's opinion.

And no one on here has said that what constitutes the study of history is a done deal, rather thar what is done as the study of history in all recognised UK universities is done methodologically naturalistically.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So when you said you are going to talk to 'The Professionals', which earlier you seemed to set greT store by, your actual position is that it's no more valid than Gordin's opinion.

And no one on here has said that what constitutes the study of history is a done deal, rather thar what is done as the study of history in all recognised UK universities is done methodologically naturalistically.

Of course it's better to get to get the view of Professional Historians than just rely on Gordon because they are (far) more informed on the subject. Gordon's view of History iimho s guided by what he believes is scientifically possible and impossible so his historical perspective is Jesus didn't rise from the dead because science forbids. Rather than Historical scholarship demonstrating it's wrong.

In a strange way then Gordon and his supporters are making the study of History redundant.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course it's better to get to get the view of Professional Historians than just rely on Gordon because they are (far) more informed on the subject. Gordon's view of History iimho s guided by what he believes is scientifically possible and impossible so his historical perspective is Jesus didn't rise from the dead because science forbids. Rather than Historical scholarship demonstrating it's wrong.

In a strange way then Gordon and his supporters are making the study of History redundant.

Except that isn't what Gordon has written. And again you are eliding your use of 'History' and 'the study of History' so that your meaning becomes a misrepresentation of what people write.

[Gordon]

Of course it's better to get to get the view of Professional Historians than just rely on Gordon because they are (far) more informed on the subject. Gordon's view of History iimho s guided by what he believes is scientifically possible and impossible so his historical perspective is Jesus didn't rise from the dead because science forbids. Rather than Historical scholarship demonstrating it's wrong.

In a strange way then Gordon and his supporters are making the study of History redundant.

Do you ever read what people actually write?

Since I don't think that the resurrection is a scientific question, given there is no available method to study non-naturalistic claims, then in the context of this discussion science isn't relevant anyway.

I've simply noted that since the provenance of the NT is so weak that it is not a reliable historical source given the problems and risks involved (see my #86 in this thread). It might satisfy theologians and the faithful, but I doubt it would been seen by professional historians as a reliable source.

[Gordon]

My apologies, What I meant is that the UK history curriculum in academia is decided by people or persons.
They decide what methods, what knowledge, what resources and what constitutes competence. We also know that those choices change and methods, knowledge and competences go in and out of vogue depending on preferences and opinions.

What constitutes history and historical study.Again people on this forum think of that question as being a done deal where as in the real world, it's still debated.

History is a specialised subject: so of course the 'how to go about it' elements are in the hands of people who have the training, experience and knowledge to pursue the topic.

Or would you prefer that next time an important source is discovered we bypass the professional historians and refer the issue to a bunch of sous chefs working in Italian restaurants?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you ever read what people actually write?

Since I don't think that the resurrection is a scientific question, given there is no available method to study non-naturalistic claims, then in the context of this discussion science isn't relevant anyway.

I've simply noted that since the provenance of the NT is so weak that it is not a reliable historical source given the problems and risks involved (see my #86 in this thread). It might satisfy theologians and the faithful, but I doubt it would been seen by professional historians as a reliable source.

I've already given you my prescription for claims you refuse to substantiate....outsource them to Professionals.

[Gordon]

I've already given you my prescription for claims you refuse to substantiate....outsource them to Professionals.

Let us know how you get on - with proper professional historians (and remember to cite them so that we can check their bona fides)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let us know how you get on - with proper professional historians (and remember to cite them so that we can check their bona fides)

Cite them I'll Cite when you do Pal.

[Nearly Sane]

Cite them I'll Cite when you do Pal.

All recognised UK history departments teach the study of history as a methodological naturalist discipline.

[Gordon]

Cite them I'll Cite when you do Pal.

Coward - you were the one who was going to consult 'the professionals'.

Mind you I can see why you'd run away from that commitment.