Reddit reply in r/AcademicQuran: how do historians approach miracle claims a brief — November 15, 2024 · lx8oc81 | Ali Shukri Amin

I don't think there's any naturalist who excludes any kind of empirical evidence. The entire idea behind naturalism and empiricism is to follow evidence observable by the senses. Therefore, if a naturalist had some kind of overwhelming evidence of an event which was outside of the productive scope of nature - in theory - they would accept it.

This means that the approach and standard of evidence for an adherent of empiricism or naturalism would be identical as the second un-named approach.

It's not "polemical" for me to postulate that both of these "approaches" to miracles are essentially identical in theory and in practice. I'm calling out this methodological "distinction" as bad philosophy or making claims about probability/statistics that don't hold water. I don't understand why this is your go-to accusation instead of just asking, "what do you mean" or "can you elaborate?"

It just seems that you're reducing empiricism and naturalism into something less nuanced than it actually is, then making what amounts to an argument from increduility or an argument predicated on the availability bias. The lack of a ready example for something in our experience or even the historical record doesn't preclude its possibility.

Making an argument based on the availability bias or incredulity is not a probabalistic or statistical argument. It flies in the face of both.

You can find a more reasoned or well-thought-out criticism of miracles and historical accounts of miracles from David Hume's "On Miracles." There, Hume makes a relatively simple argument about the likelihood/probability of a miracle that isn't dependent on naturalism and can definitely be argued to be sound. Being a robust criticism, it's been debated by theologians and philosophers for the last 300 years.