Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 03-13-2012, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Now the task of the historian is not to make value judgments about what is possible, and what is not.

A belief about what is possible is not a value judgment.

A value judgment about what is possible is a value judgment.

sotto voce · 03-13-2012, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

No one is immune to the lure of making a buck.

So which statement is to be trusted?

mountainman · 03-13-2012, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowfox

Why would biblical scholars or historians bother discussing a work of fiction with an albino assassin, such as Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code?

Why would they bother discussing a work where a character talks to Satan?

Satan is good for their business opportunities.

They are in possession of Satan's antidote.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-13-2012, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Now the task of the historian is not to make value judgments about what is possible, and what is not.

There's no "value judgment" involved. Scientific method requires that the impossible be presumed to be impossible until proven otherwise. The physical impossibility of physically impossible claims is a fact, not an opinion.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-13-2012, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

The difficulty is that scholars do not possess the means of demonstrating that these supernatural events did not occur.

Sure they do. It's called "physics." It is demonstrably, provably impossible to do things like levitate and bring dead bodies back to life. Anything which can be proven physically impossible proven ipso facto to be ahistorical.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-13-2012, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Nope. That's science.

It's not science. Science measures only repeatable phenomena. It cannot measure phenomena present when and where experimental science is inapplicable.

This is a tautology. You are presuming the existence of magic, a priori and than saying science can't Measure it." However, you have not demonstrated that any such phenomena actually exists or that fantastic claims made in ancient mythological literature need to be disproven.

Can you prove that Icarus did not fly with wax wings and get too close to the sun? Are there any claims at all that you would say it's fair to dismiss as impossible? If I told you that I was typing these words with my mind would you argue with anyone who said that was impossible?

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-13-2012, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

A belief about what is possible is not a value judgment.

A value judgment about what is possible is a value judgment.

An observation about provable physics is not an opinion.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-13-2012, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

That's not what was claimed. The possibility that Jesus was a physical manifestation of supernatural deity is accepted, because that is the claim made by the text.

This is not a possibility just because it's in the text. Writing a story down does not automatically make it a historical possibility.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-13-2012, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

No one is immune to the lure of making a buck.

So which statement is to be trusted?

You shouldn't "trust" anybody. Science has no use for "trust." Never take anybody's word for anything.

andrewcriddle · 03-13-2012, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

The difficulty is that scholars do not possess the means of demonstrating that these supernatural events did not occur. So perhaps they are now to be provided with it? Should we hold our breath?

Sotto, quit pretending to be stupid. Basic to scholarship is the notion of methodological naturalism. Of course you know what that is; don't pretend to me you don't. If you adopt methodological naturalism as your stance for inquiring into the past, present, and future, you are a scholar/scientist. Anything else, you're just a propagandist for some ideological position.

One problem with universal methodological naturalism is that it seems to require that even if someone witnessed a miracle they should not believe it.

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add

I fully support limited methodological naturalism, e.g. that one should rule out the idea that God created species directly but so as to look as if they had evolved. However, as used in this thread, methodological naturalism means something much stronger.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.