Umeå University's logo

umu.sePublikasjoner
Endre søk
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Historievetenskap utan dogmatiska skygglappar: En replik till Tobias Hägerland och Cecilia Wassén
Umeå universitet, Humanistiska fakulteten, Institutionen för idé- och samhällsstudier.ORCID-id: 0000-0002-7685-0285
2018 (svensk)Inngår i: Svensk teologisk kvartalskrift, ISSN 0039-6761, Vol. 94, nr 1-2, s. 97-107Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) 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.  

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Lund, 2018. Vol. 94, nr 1-2, s. 97-107
Emneord [sv]
Mirakel, metodologisk naturalism, metodologisk ateism, den historiske Jesus, Jesu uppståndelse, David Hume, N.T. Wright, Leon Festinger
HSV kategori
Forskningsprogram
tros- och livsåskådningsvetenskap
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-152334OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-152334DiVA, id: diva2:1252769
Tilgjengelig fra: 2018-10-02 Laget: 2018-10-02 Sist oppdatert: 2024-07-02bibliografisk kontrollert

Open Access i DiVA

Fulltekst mangler i DiVA

Andre lenker

URL

Søk i DiVA

Av forfatter/redaktør
Wahlberg, Mats
Av organisasjonen
I samme tidsskrift
Svensk teologisk kvartalskrift

Søk utenfor DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric

urn-nbn
Totalt: 901 treff
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf