mountainman

"You're not good and you're not bad.
You blend and listen, and you dont trust anyone.
When you go undercover you're on your own."


NFS

aa5874

What you say cannot be shown to be true. You have NO evidence whatsoever that if someone witnessed a miracle that they would be required NOT believe it.

Toto

Why is that a problem? If I witnessed a miracle, my first inclination would be to suspect trickery or a mistake of some sort, rather than that the laws of nature had been suspended.

sotto voce

Very sensible, too. Like Faraday, Boyle, Clark Maxwell and Darwin, you would not discount the possibility that the laws of nature could be suspended by a creator of those laws. Some, however, are wiser than Faraday, Boyle, Clark Maxwell and Darwin.

dog-on

In order for a supernatural explanation for an occurrence to be at all probable, each and every possible natural explanation, known or unknown, must be shown to be impossible.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by a "limited" methodological naturalism.

DCHindley

Wouldn't you think that Methodological Naturalism is an extreme application of Ernst Troeltsch's "Principle of Analogy"?

Ernst Troeltsch's essay "On Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology" (1898) formulated the principles of historical criticism. The essay still haunts theology. According to Troeltsch, the historical method of thought and explanation has three principles:

(1) the principle of criticism or methodological doubt, which implies that history only achieves probability. Religious tradition must also be subjected to criticism (pp. 731-32).

(2) The principle of analogy makes criticism possible. Present experience and occurrence become the criteria of probability in the past. This "almighty power" of analogy implies that all events are in principle similar (p. 732).

(3) The principle of correlation (or mutual interdependence) implies that all historical phenomena are so interrelated that a change in one phenomenon necessitates a change in the causes leading to it and in the effects it has (p. 733). Historical explanation rests on this chain of cause and effect. The third principle rules out miracle and salvation history (pp. 740-42).

The above is from this college course outline, formatting is mine. He is quoting directly from:

Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method, Guides to Biblical Scholarship (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 55. Emphasis supplied; page references are to Troeltsch's original: "Ueber historische und dogmatische Methode in der Theologie," Zur religioesen Lage, Religionsphilosophie und Ethik (2. Aufl., Ges. Schr. II, Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1962 = 1922), pp. 729-53

"Methodological Naturalism" adds an interpretive level to T's principal of analogy. "Naturalism" is a post enlightenment concept, which carries quite a bit of baggage with it. I suppose that Naturalism is being equated with the principal of correlation (cause & effect) that supposes that the laws of nature can not change, reflecting the deterministic thrust of Modern scientific experimentalism. Of Troeltsch's principles, this third one is - to me - is a rather arbitrary refinement of principle two, explaining why principle two must be valid.

Troeltsch's second principal is not "miracles do not happen today, thus miracles did not happen in antiquity" but "the miracle in the ancient source would seem highly improbable by today's experience."

DCH

Doug Shaver

I guess it would be, if anyone ever made one, but I've never heard any historian do that. "It is possible that Oswald did not kill Kennedy" is only a statement of fact, not a value judgment of any kind.

Doug Shaver

Sure they are, provided you measure their wisdom by the extent to which they agree with you.

Because, anyone who is truly wise knows that you can't be wrong, don't they?

sotto voce

:grin:

sotto voce

Indeed. Anyone who decides that the supernatural cannot occur cannot be a historian.

Circularity can work both ways.