Are the Gospels Reliable?

[Faizal_Ali]

@structureoftruth

Not believing that the resurrection occurred is not the same as concluding as a matter of historical fact that the resurrection did not happen - something that historians acting as historians can’t actually do if they are constrained by methodological naturalism.

This betrays flawed understanding of methodological naturalism. There is no reason historians could not conclude that someone died and returned to life if there was sufficient evidence for them to do so. Methodological naturalism entails neutrality on the existence of the supernatural. It does NOT entail dogmatic rejection of things because they have been determined to be “supernatural”.

@structureoftruth

In fact (as the resurrection is an inference from, and does not deny, established historical facts) your analogy is way off. A better analogy would be an article arguing that the evidence for the big bang supports the metaphysical thesis that the universe had a beginning.

Whether the universe had a beginning is a question that can be determined purely thru science. It just has not yet been determined.

An article that tries to establish thru metaphysical argument that the universe had a beginning is attempting to go beyond what metaphysics can accomplish. Philosophers should stay in their lane and let the cosmologists do their work in peace.