Jesus is Like (But Not Like) Others

[Faizal_Ali]

@jongarvey

Science since around 1880 has restricted itself methodologically to “natural” causes and effects (a different situation from, say, Bacon’s time when in theory providential divine acts might be studied by science, or Maxwell’s time when mentioning God’s works in scientific discourse was not problematic). Therefore, as you rightly indicate, science cannot say that a miracle is impossible, but only that it is impossible to deal with under the arbitrarily chosen methodology scientists use.

This betrays a misunderstanding of science and how it operates.

If a guy died and came back to life, there is no reason that this could not be demonstrated using the scientific method.

This remains the case regardless of whether this occurrence was a manifestation of “supernatural forces.”

if you disagree, please explain why.

You seem to be confusing philiosophical/metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism.

@jongarvey

So by the very fact of doing academic history , good modern scholars cannot come to supernatural conclusions about events, and they can only point to the events leading up to, and following, what original sources record as supernatural. They can investigate the possibility of non-supernatural causes (instead of or as well as supernatural - a “natural” storm that brings unexpected victory in a battle might also be providential - the historian cannot arbitrate on that).

Ah. So are not disagreeing with my assessment that, according the historians, the “resurrection” cannot be said to have happened.

Rather, your beef is with the entire discipline of history itself, and think they should change how they do things so that they will now agree with your religious beliefs.

I wish you luck with that.