It seems to me that when conversations spiral larger and larger with very few points being resolved, then something fundamental is being overlooked somewhere, something that which if addressed would anchor the discussion. If I’m right, then it would be valuable to try to identify that.
For example:
Let me clarify one thing before returning to my spiral point:
I noted much earlier in the forum that belief in other minds could be basic, at least for the purposes of this discussion. What I am talking about is the action of other minds (the existence of which we already take as basic) by which we recognize that another mind is at work. Belief in other minds might be basic, but the belief that my Labrador has a mind and my chez-lounge does not, do not seem to me to be basic beliefs. Rather they are rational conclusions based on observation.
Similarly, if even an infant appears to recognize agency in a remotely controlled 2-dimensional dot on a screen, and and adult undoubtedly does, that is an interesting example. Here the thing that exhibits the evidence of agency is something we also know doesn’t have a mind at all. Nevertheless agency was properly detected because there was in fact an agent acting remotely.
Regarding the spiral, it seems like an enormous amount of work is having to go into forming consensus on the simple and seeming obvious fact that first-hand observers of Lazarus’ raising were warranted (and in fact correct) in believing a miracle had occurred, and that we would be also had we been present.
If that is not established, then we can’t really answer, or even ask, the question of how science, which always posits a natural cause for any observed phenomenon, relates to our larger knowledge of the world in which we accurately observe divine action at work.
Part of the problem, I think, has to do with starting points:
I think the biblical text has to be taken as it is written. So, although I very much appreciate @swamidass’ point that personal experience with Christ becomes context by which we in the present day can believe the historical record regarding another miracle (Lazarus), I don’t believe that maps directly onto the question of first-hand experiences of divine action. The case in point would be all of the miracles, Lazarus included, that Jesus performed before his resurrection. They did, however, have warranted belief without the later resurrection for context. Jesus also warned his audience that they were accountable to God for failing to believe on the basis of those miracles, prior to the resurrection.
So, it is important to get back to scripture and the details it records in the order it was written.
As another example, at the end of the “Two Parables” forum,
I find this statement quite problematic because it significantly distorts the text of scripture and in doing so distorts the data pool we are working with to sort out these questions. Jesus never declared at Bethany that the raising of Lazarus was a miracle or even commented on his own actions there in that way. It just isn’t in the text or even implied by it. The idea that Jesus must be present to confirm the reality of a miracle is further undermined by the entire book of Acts. By comparison, the idea that apart from scripture we should expect to have trouble even recognizing a theological miracle is undermined by all of scripture itself. Every theological miracle in scripture was witnessed and believed apart from scripture, since the scripture that records it wasn’t written yet.
At the same time, the account of Lazarus is replete why details to inform this conversant that have yet to be discussed. Therefore, I think if we take the details and the order of event in scripture as our starting point, we will find them very illuminating and arrive much more quickly at an accurate understanding of the relationship of scientific inquiry to divine action.