umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Historievetenskap utan dogmatiska skygglappar: En replik till Tobias Hägerland och Cecilia Wassén
Umeå University, Faculty of Arts, Department of historical, philosophical and religious studies.
2018 (Swedish)In: Svensk teologisk kvartalskrift, ISSN 0039-6761, Vol. 94, no 1-2, p. 97-107Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In this article, I clarify and deepen my criticism of methodological naturalism in biblical studies and other historical disciplines. Responding to Tobias Hägerland’s and Cecilia Wassén’s defense of this methodological paradigm, I make three main points. First, I argue that while methodological naturalism might be a reasonable posture in the natural sciences, the same is not the case in historical studies. The natural sciences study nature – natural mechanisms and laws – which means that supernatural and irreducibly personal causes (such as God) fall outside their purview. When it comes to the study of history, on the other hand, nothing that has impacted human culture in the past is by definition outside of the discipline’s sphere of interest. This goes for supernatural as well as natural causes. History is the study of the past, not the study of the natural. Second, I scrutinize Hägerland’s and Wassén’s claim that methodological naturalism cannot be abandoned because this would complicate the process of testing historical hypotheses, thereby expanding the role of subjective judgment. This line of argument is fundamentally misconceived. If supernatural explanations are possibly true, it would be patently irrational to exclude them from scholarly consideration on the ground that they would complicate the process of testing and adjudicating between hypotheses. Third, I defend N.T. Wright’s argument in favor of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus against two interrelated lines of criticism.  

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Lund, 2018. Vol. 94, no 1-2, p. 97-107
Keywords [sv]
Mirakel, metodologisk naturalism, metodologisk ateism, den historiske Jesus, Jesu uppståndelse, David Hume, N.T. Wright, Leon Festinger
National Category
Religious Studies
Research subject
Studies In Faiths and Ideologies
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-152334OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-152334DiVA, id: diva2:1252769
Available from: 2018-10-02 Created: 2018-10-02 Last updated: 2019-01-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

URL

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Wahlberg, Mats
By organisation
Department of historical, philosophical and religious studies
In the same journal
Svensk teologisk kvartalskrift
Religious Studies

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 136 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf