Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 03-15-2012, 12:23 AM

Similarly, 'respected' Bible scholars like Craig Keener can write books quoting anecdotal evidence by Christians in the Congo of people being raised from the dead, and his work is taken seriously by (some ) other Bible scholars.

'Craig Keener's MIRACLES Wins The Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship's 2012 Award of Excellence'

While Christian testimony of child witches in the Congo can be dismissed without hesitation by those same Bible scholars.

After all, Christians killing children makes Christianity look bad, so there is nothing wrong with dismissing the supernatural here.

While stories of Christians rising from the dead makes Christianity look good, so the full force of claims of 'anti-supernatural prejudice' can be used to defend them.

mountainman · 03-15-2012, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

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

Circularity can work both ways.

Primary and secondary causes have been differentiated since at least the time of Gibbon. Historians appear quite content to deal with the secondary causes, and leave the primary causes to the theologians.

sotto voce · 03-15-2012, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

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

Circularity can work both ways.

Primary and secondary causes have been differentiated since at least the time of Gibbon. Historians appear quite content to deal with the secondary causes, and leave the primary causes to the theologians.

Half right, if I may say so. Historians leave primary causes to the reader. Theology may or may not follow. That is the fundamental and extraordinary error of this thread, that seems in part to take the view that historians make value judgments about primary cause. Historians scrutinise primary and secondary historic sources and their contexts, and attempt to provide as full a record as possible, leaving their readers (as well as themselves) to interpret events in their own ways. Readers may use the work of historians to assist in reaching a world view, a view about primary source. It's a part of human experience by which such a conclusion may be reached.

Steven Carr · 03-15-2012, 02:48 AM

So what is the primary cause of somebody talking to Satan?

And do historians declare that somebody talking to Satan can't be assumed to be fiction?

sotto voce · 03-15-2012, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

So what is the primary cause of somebody talking to Satan?

So? Why sequitur?

It's for individual readers to decide on primary causes.

Quote:

And do historians declare that somebody talking to Satan can't be assumed to be fiction?

Or fact? Neither.

Historians cannot do history if they even think they can declare such things.

Historians scrutinise primary and secondary historic sources and their contexts, and attempt to provide as full a record as possible, leaving their readers (as well as themselves) to interpret events in their own ways.

Ok?

Steven Carr · 03-15-2012, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

So what is the primary cause of somebody talking to Satan?

So? Why sequitur?

It's for individual readers to decide on primary causes.

Quote:

And do historians declare that somebody talking to Satan can't be assumed to be fiction?

Or fact? Neither.

Historians cannot do history if they even think they can declare such things.

Historians scrutinise primary and secondary historic sources and their contexts, and attempt to provide as full a record as possible, leaving their readers (as well as themselves) to interpret events in their own ways.

Ok?

So a responsible historian does not dare to tell his readers that every story ever examined of somebody talking to Satan is fiction.

While a responsible historian has a duty to tell the general public that the 'Da Vinci Code' has no historical value?

sotto voce · 03-15-2012, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

So what is the primary cause of somebody talking to Satan?

So? Why sequitur?

It's for individual readers to decide on primary causes.

Quote:

And do historians declare that somebody talking to Satan can't be assumed to be fiction?

Or fact? Neither.

Historians cannot do history if they even think they can declare such things.

Historians scrutinise primary and secondary historic sources and their contexts, and attempt to provide as full a record as possible, leaving their readers (as well as themselves) to interpret events in their own ways.

Ok?

So a responsible historian does not dare to tell his readers that every story ever examined of somebody talking to Satan is fiction.

True.

Quote:

While a responsible historian has a duty to tell the general public that the 'Da Vinci Code' has no historical value?

Is this publication intended to have historical value?

Vorkosigan · 03-15-2012, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Once you give up the position that the universe runs on law and mathematical regularity and claim that it runs on miracles

Who ever did that?

Everyone who argues for the existence of the supernatural.

Vorkosigan

sotto voce · 03-15-2012, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Once you give up the position that the universe runs on law and mathematical regularity and claim that it runs on miracles

Who ever did that?

Everyone who argues for the existence of the supernatural.

So are these statements equivalent?

The universe runs on miracles.

The supernatural exists.

andrewcriddle · 03-15-2012, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Hi Vorkosigan

I've got two basically separate points.

Firstly I just don't think it true that historical writing is consistently committed to strong methodological naturalism. When dealing with apparent precognition or clairvoyance by pagans in the ancient world, (eg the alleged prediction by Maximus of Ephesus of the death of the Emperor Valens), agnosticism as to whether or not something paranormal happened is quite frequent. Similarly, historians of 19th century spiritualism are often overtly agnostic as to the genuineness or otherwise of the physical mediumship of DD Home. I'm assuming that this sort of agnosticism is incompatible with what you mean by methodological naturalism. If not, then we are largely at cross purposes.

Secondly the idea that telling a group of people that claims for which they believe they have strong evidence are ruled out on a-priori grounds, no matter how strong their evidence, seems unlikely to be a strategy for peacefully settling disputes. Even if strong methodological naturalism were valid it seems unlikely to be effective in promoting genuine dialogue between people of differing world-views.

Andrew Criddle

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

03-15-2012, 12:23 AM	#81
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Similarly, 'respected' Bible scholars like Craig Keener can write books quoting anecdotal evidence by Christians in the Congo of people being raised from the dead, and his work is taken seriously by (some ) other Bible scholars. 'Craig Keener's MIRACLES Wins The Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship's 2012 Award of Excellence' While Christian testimony of child witches in the Congo can be dismissed without hesitation by those same Bible scholars. After all, Christians killing children makes Christianity look bad, so there is nothing wrong with dismissing the supernatural here. While stories of Christians rising from the dead makes Christianity look good, so the full force of claims of 'anti-supernatural prejudice' can be used to defend them.

03-15-2012, 02:48 AM	#84
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	So what is the primary cause of somebody talking to Satan? And do historians declare that somebody talking to Satan can't be assumed to be fiction?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.