Sheshbazzar

supernatural=insanity also works both ways.

If you are 'seeing' or think that you are 'experiencing' supernatural phenomenon that violate all of the known laws of physics and science, it is exceedingly more likely that you experiencing a metal aberration or are perhaps unknowingly under the influence of some psychoactive substance, rather that well known workings of physics and science have been actually have violated.

With reference to the existence of the supernatural, it is the supernatural which is not the norm, and is the exceptional, thus any favor towards a supernatural explanation can only be supported upon the holding of an irrational bias favoring a unatural supernatural explanation.
Reason, logic, and rationality, based upon observation, experience, repeatable experiment, and the known natural workings of Physics, that have never been demonstrated to to be violable, place the natural explanation at the forefront of all human experience without resort to any irrational bias.

Anything that ever actually occurs, and is by some claimed to be of a supernatural origin invariably will be found to have been of a natural origin.
IF such natural explanation is not forthcoming, this still does not entail that the supernatural is thereby proven to exist, or has been established, only that our present level of knowledge and sciences are not yet advanced enough to provide that explanation.

Diogenes the Cynic

Yes they are. No such possibility exists.

Diogenes the Cynic

You are extraordinarily misinformed about historical method.

andrewcriddle

limited may be the wrong word. What I meant is that there must be a presumption in scholarly debate in favour of naturalistic explanations. The issue is how strong that presumption should be.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Initial doubt might well be sensible. The issue is whether it would ever be rational to be persuaded that your initial doubts were unjustified.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Ernst Troeltsch's argument IIUC seems to assume that modern miracles are incredible. This position would have been generally accepted by Troeltsch's Protestant colleagues. (It would have been a distinguishing point between them and their Roman Catholic contemporaries.) However modern Protestant charismatics, for example, might well disagree.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

Andrew, this is an issue only for believing scholars of their own religion. It's not an issue elsewhere in the scholarly and scientific disciplines. I've read hundreds of history works about other topics and in not a single one is any event attributed to a supernatural miracle. Ever.

The "debate" about methodological naturalism in this field is solely the outgrowth of the ideological position held by certain scholars that Jesus was really the son of god. Since this "debate" occurs only in fields where the scholar has a vested interest in affirming a social identity that is based on the supernatural, it is safe to say that the debate is the result of holding such beliefs and social identities, and not of any fundamental problem with a commitment to methodological naturalism.

The irony of holding the position that methodological naturalism is wrong is that you cannot demonstrate that your own position is likely correct. Once you give up the position that the universe runs on law and mathematical regularity and claim that it runs on miracles, you give up the ability to demonstrate anything by force of logic and evidence. You also give up the ability to conduct experiments or develop reliable and useful knowledge about the world. At that point all you can do is engage in ideological posturing ("my Jesus is correct and your Guru Nanak is wrong!"), and that can only end in one way, as it always does, with drawn swords.

Methodological naturalism is not only our one way to develop reliable and useful knowledge about the world, Andrew, it is also our only reliable and useful way to peacefully settle disputes about the nature of "what's out there."

Vorkosigan

sotto voce

Who ever did that?

Toto

Possibly it would be rational if the miracle passed Randi's tests and someone collected the $1 million prize. Otherwise, the probability of trickery, mistake, or chemically altered states of mind is significantly higher.

All modern claims of supernatural miracles that have been investigated have failed to stand up to even a little scrutiny.

Steven Carr

Just as all claims made by books featuring albino assassins have failed to stand up to even a little scrutiny.

And so can be dismissed without further thought.

Nevertheless, some books which feature things which have failed to stand up to even a little scrutiny can be assumed to have a historical core, and it is simply prejudice to doubt that.....