This blogger has previously posted on the scientific method and how it operates from the principle of "methodological naturalism." Under this principle, the methods of science assume that the natural world is regular and does not include miracles, where a deity actively intervenes against the regularity of nature. The success of science validates the use of this principle.
In the current podcast from the Christian apologist website Unbelievable?, Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona debated whether there is good Biblical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Licona, as do many fellow apologists, stated that there was sufficient historical evidence in the Bible to support the truth of Jesus' resurrection. Erhman asked Licona if any of the USA's university researchers of history would accept an answer "it was a miracle" for any finding. Licona agreed that none would accept a miracle as an answer for any finding. Erhman then concluded that Licona is accepting the resurrection of Jesus on faith and not historical findings. Licona would not concede the point.
Why do apologists fail to accept this simple principle of historical methods? Why can't they just admit that they are accepting the miracle of Jesus' resurrection on faith only? Perhaps for the same reason that many Christians do not fully accept science. Namely, that historical and scientific methods lead to an understanding of reality that conflicts with religious dogma.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.