How does that relate to the term "falsifiable"? Nothing about the lifetime of Siddharta Gautama can be subjected to controlled experimentation and shown to be incorrect.
Sure, but we disregard the fantastical bits all the same. The question is why.
I wouldn't say that divine miracle claims are at all absent from the modern record. The Catholic Church certainly still makes such assertions, so whether you want to believe that these things are happening or not, they haven't actually disappeared from the record.
Go look through their records and compare it to what they were claiming back in the day.
The difference is in the documentation.
I also wouldn't immediately assume that people who claim to witness miracles are telling lies. Between confirmation bias, the way we can rewrite memories to fit expectations, and other psychological factors, there are better naturalistic approaches to miracles out there than the assumption that people are just making things up.
Sure but that's the essence of it. We subject people today to more skepticism of their claims because we can.
I am not really sure what you're trying to say. What metaphysical position has been demonstrated to be true? What is problematic about humanity approaching metaphysics via religion?
The problem is that we don't demonstrate metaphysical propositions as true, but we know people come up with religions all the time based upon metaphysical truths.
The problem should be obvious.
How so? The wager is really just a stand in for a benefit-risk assessment; it doesn't actually require any specific interpretation of Christianity. How precisely you would formulate the wager depends on your theology, not the reverse.
The wager is formulated on Christian theology, again, that's the problem.
Part of Christian theology is the manipulative psychological attempt to get you into this sort of benefit-risk assessment in order to convince you, the wager simply highlights this fact.
That also, problematically, says some poor stuff about Christianity.
Upvote
0