Historical, philosophical, and religious arguments are the decisive factors in each scientist's conclusion. This is a fair-enough comment, given the premises. It is also one which is analogous to a bud which never opens into flower - because scientific knowledge of past events is always limited and imperfect. Empirical science is concerned with natural laws and the way nature operates, with explanations expressed primarily in terms of natural law. Empirical science works with data that is under the control of the investigator - who designs the experimental programme to ensure the data desired are obtained.
Empirical science invokes observable entities in explanations.
Empirical science tests explanations using direct methods, often utilising the repeatability of experiments. A clear philosophy of historical science avoids confusion. Advocates of naturalism and methodological naturalism generally minimise the differences and frequently jump from the inductive to the historical sciences in making points. Only when intelligent causation is recognised as having a legitimate role in the historical sciences can it develop. In this context, I find it helpful to consider the discipline of archaeology - which has regularly to address the issue of intelligent causation vs natural mechanism.