Lewis's Trilemma - split from Matthew topic

[Dicky Underpants]

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

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.
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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.
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.

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.


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
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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/

[Maeght]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Gordon]

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'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

You don't seem to have answered my question here. Let me guess. Like Gordon you have departmental manager syndrome, being used to ask the questions and being in a position of never having to answer any.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  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.

At no point have you said anything about anything.

[Nearly Sane]

At no point have you said anything about anything.

Diddums!

[Nearly Sane]

You don't seem to have answered my question here. Let me guess. Like Gordon you have departmental manager syndrome, being used to ask the questions and being in a position of never having to answer any.

I pointed out why it was both irrelevant and specious.

[Gordon]

You don't seem to have answered my question here. Let me guess. Like Gordon you have departmental manager syndrome, being used to ask the questions and being in a position of never having to answer any.

Your question "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." indicates that you really don't understand the implications of methodological naturalism, since if you did you wouldn't have asked that particular question.

[Maeght]

Or didn't. It's not a claim that makes sense in methodological naturalism

Indeed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your question "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." indicates that you really don't understand the implications of methodological naturalism, since if you did you wouldn't have asked that particular question.

I think Gordon, you'll find anyway not to answer the question.

[Gordon]

I think Gordon, you'll find anyway not to answer the question.

I don't think I need answer a question that, had you understood better, you wouldn't have asked.

[Dicky Underpants]

Indeed.

Ditto

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.


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

The study of history is primarily your concern. That it is "The discussion" is something you've steered yourself and attempted to steer me into. If the present study of history is methodologically naturalistic how can it be anything but not fully adequate in addressing that History is what happened.
A focus on methodological  naturalism is a philosophical choice.

Of course we must hear and know the methodological naturalistic narrative of history just as we must look at the methodologically naturalist narrative on anything and ask ourselves if we have in it the adequate explanation.

Saying or defending the sentiment "This never happened because it doesn't happen isn't History or the study of history.

[Nearly Sane]

The study of history is primarily your concern. That it is "The discussion" is something you've steered yourself and attempted to steer me into. If the present study of history is methodologically naturalistic how can it be anything but not fully adequate in addressing that History is what happened.
A focus on methodological  naturalism is a philosophical choice.

Of course we must hear and know the methodological naturalistic narrative of history just as we must look at the methodologically naturalist narrative on anything and ask ourselves if we have in it the adequate explanation.

Saying or defending the sentiment "This never happened because it doesn't happen isn't History or the study of history.

But i have specifically said that you can't say that something never happened because the study of history is methodologically naturalistic. Indeed that's why i separated 'history' from the 'study of history' and made the point that you can't use it being methodologically naturalistic to say that. So that's a complete misunderstanding of the point.

[Gordon]

Saying or defending the sentiment "This never happened because it doesn't happen isn't History or the study of history.

I suspect that the methodological naturalist historian would simply say that the claim (the resurrection of Jesus from being dead) isn't a valid historical question because it is a supernatural and not naturalistic claim - so it's out of scope.

One could say there there is no evidence that it did happen because there is no appropriate method of investigating  supernatural claims whereby evidence could be obtained: there are only anecdotes that lack provenance, which is where we came in I believe.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suspect that the methodological naturalist historian would simply say that the claim (the resurrection of Jesus from being dead) isn't a valid historical question.

You said that as if it were a good thing.

One could say there there is no evidence that it did happen because there is no appropriate method of investigating  supernatural claims whereby evidence could be obtained: there are only anecdotes that lack provenance, which is where we came in I believe.

I suspect historians rarely say that it's not a valid historical question, if at all, and I suspect this is just you making historians in your own image. If history is the question 'what happened' then everything is valid and there is no prior commitment to naturalism. Just 'What happened'.

Even if a historian actually said it was an invalid historical question we wouldn't know because you never provide citations.

[Dicky Underpants]

You said that as if it were a good thing.I suspect historians rarely say that it's not a valid historical question, if at all, and I suspect this is just you making historians in your own image. If history is the question 'what happened' then everything is valid and there is no prior commitment to naturalism. Just 'What happened'.

Even if a historian actually said it was an invalid historical question we wouldn't know because you never provide citations.

In fact, you have yet to cite one historian who is prepared to consider claims of supernatural intervention in history.

[Gordon]

I suspect historians rarely say that it's not a valid historical question, if at all, and I suspect this is just you making historians in your own image. If history is the question 'what happened' then everything is valid and there is no prior commitment to naturalism. Just 'What happened'.

Even if a historian actually said it was an invalid historical question we wouldn't know because you never provide citations.

I don't need a citation to point out that the resurrection is a non-naturalistic claim - it is a supernatural claim of 'God Did It'. If you believe it actually 'happened' then it is for you to explain how you've established this as a matter of historical  fact - but all you have is a bunch of anecdotes that don't stand much scrutiny (because they have no substantive provenance).

That some people said 'x happened', especially where 'x' is a fantastical claim, isn't sufficient to establish that 'x' did indeed happen and can be taken as being historical fact - unless of course you're highly credulous and/or you have an prior emotional commitment to the claim being true.

Anyway - it was you who was scampering off to consult 'the professionals': how is that going?

 

   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suspect that the methodological naturalist historian would simply say that the claim (the resurrection of Jesus from being dead) isn't a valid historical question.

Hang on, Gordon. A claim is not a question.
The question "Was there a resurrection?" is not invalid as far as I can see and indeed it has been the bread and butter of atheist historians like Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier for years.

You had me going for a bit but of course, your comment didn't stand up to closer inspection.

[Gordon]

Hang on, Gordon. A claim is not a question.
The question "Was there a resurrection?" is not invalid as far as I can see and indeed it has been the bread and butter of atheist historians like Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier for years.

You had me going for a bit but of course, your comment didn't stand up to closer inspection.

When are you going to actually start thinking: if you pose a question you would have an expectation of an answer, and an answer requires a basis to evaluate what the question implies. You may as well ask the question 'are there ghosts?', which requires a method to investigate the supernatural: and there are no methods that apply to the supernatural.

As Christians tend to have 'faith' in the claim 'there was a resurrection', and if they don't have 'faith' they aren't probably Christian (since that claim is the biggie for Christians), and if that is their position, then they are just making a claim. However, if they instead ask 'was there are resurrection' they introduce a degree of doubt and, more importantly, they would need a credible method to come to a credible answer - but since they have no method to confirm the 'God did it' supernatural aspect then the question is a meaningless one.