Is the Resurrection "scientific"?

[lucaspa]

I mean really, how can one dismiss those beginning events that are told in a truthful factual way, and yet still believe that Jesus brought someone back alive who had been dead several days and that He was dead Himself and became alive again? Is it that they believe the Bible unless "science" supposedly "proves" different? There is no "proof" that anyone can come back alive after that long. Isn't THAT unscientific?

This gets to the difference between theory and data. And the confusion between them.

The "proof" that people can come back alive after that long is the events where people did come back alive after that long!

Scientifically, what you have with the dead bodies is a THEORY. The theory states "people dead for days do not come back to life." What most people miss about science is that you can never "prove" a theory, you can only test it trying to disprove it.

The data is the observations of people who have died. We use data to test theories. So, all the people who have died are tests of the theory that "dead people don't come back to life".

The really important thing is that data can always overthrow theory, but you can never use theory to overthrow data. Data trumps.

Jesus' resurrection is DATA. It's an observation. So is the resurrection of Lazarus. Since we can't use theory to overthrow data, we cannot scientifically say that the Resurrection never happened.

Instead, what must happen is that we modify the theory. We would say "people dead for several days do not come back to life unless God directly intervenes."

Let me take this out of religion to give you another example of theory and data. We have released several rocks and seen them fall. So we devise a theory of gravity that says that ALL unsupported objects will fall. This works well as we drop bricks, limbs, seashells, leaves, etc. But then we try a helium balloon. It goes up. Do we deny that it goes up? NO. Instead, we revise the theory to: all objects that mass more than the air they displace will fall when unsupported. The THEORY gets changed.

So why doesn't science change the theory about dead people? It's because the gospel accounts are not solid scientific data. They happened a long time ago, are referenced only in biased literature, and they left no physical consequences around that we can objectively, intersubjectively study today. So, science is allowed to view the event as an anomaly and does not have to revise the theory. But we simply CANNOT use the theory to say the data (the resurrection) never happened. Not and do valid science.

Is that clear to everyone?

 

[Dannager]

Well, also, "People dead for several days do not come back to life unless Goddidit," is not good science. Because then you have to start studying the effects of this "Goddidit" power, and when it becomes apparent that "Goddidit" can be used for anything, you have to alter every theory ever known to append "unless Goddidit," to the end. And when every theory in the world shares that same information, that information can be removed because that which defines everything defines nothing in any useful way. And then we're right back to square one.

 

[lucaspa]

Well, also, "People dead for several days do not come back to life unless Goddidit," is not good science. Because then you have to start studying the effects of this "Goddidit" power,

First, please quote me accurately. I did NOT say "Goddidit" and "Goddidit' is not the same thing I said.

Second, in every field, whenever you answer one question, you have 3 or 4 new questions pop up out of the answer. So even when it was found that hot air balloons did not fall, people still had to study the effects of heated air! Of course, in the case of the resurrections, we do know the "effects" of direct intervention by God: people came back to life!

and when it becomes apparent that "Goddidit" can be used for anything, you have to alter every theory ever known to append "unless Goddidit,"

Why do you have to alter every theory? I don't know of any reason to alter gravity, do you? The theory is altered in response to data. In this case the resurrections of Lazarus and Jesus are data. Therefore they would require alteration to the theory.

But we don't alter theories on a whim. Just when the data compels us to.

And when every theory in the world shares that same information, that information can be removed because that which defines everything defines nothing in any useful way. And then we're right back to square one.

Sorry, but no. The information can't be "removed" unless you show it to be false. That you can't test it doesn't mean it can be removed.

So, if you take the hypothesis that God is necessary to sustain the universe and that every physical process depends on the will of God (see below), that might be true. We don't know, as scientists, whether it is true or not true because we can't test it. We don't have a test tube where we know God is absent to see of the process works in that absence.

That doesn't change any of the material causes we do test. It simply means that every cause may have 2 components -- material and God.

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

 

[Mallon]

Put simply:

Christ's resurrection cannot be tested by science because there is no body left to test.

The Genesis creation account and Noah's Flood can be tested by science because these events should have left behind testable evidence (the very universe itself and flood strata). The simple, historical account of these events fail the test and are therefore rejected as scientific explanations.

 

[busterdog]

Well, also, "People dead for several days do not come back to life unless Goddidit," is not good science. Because then you have to start studying the effects of this "Goddidit" power, and when it becomes apparent that "Goddidit" can be used for anything, you have to alter every theory ever known to append "unless Goddidit," to the end. And when every theory in the world shares that same information, that information can be removed because that which defines everything defines nothing in any useful way. And then we're right back to square one.

And we are all indeed at square one.

Job 42:3
Who [is] he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

I have never quite understood what "goddidit" means to the TE. Does it mean that "goddidit" does not belong in science, but many of us accept it on other terms -- where there is evidence?

As I understand how TEs understand evolution, it is a process moderated by God. It is said to be observable, so all scientific concerns have been disposed of. But it is nonetheless, a goddidit in the philosophical sense. Do I have this right?

As for altering every theory, don't you ned up with two different bodies of thought? A scientific way of doing things by its rules and a seperate philosophical world view in which goddidit could affect just about anything?

 

[busterdog]

Put simply:

Christ's resurrection cannot be tested by science because there is no body left to test.

Meaning there is significant witness to its truth (you, me, the Bible, etc.), but no means for scientific testing? I am not trying to argue, I am trying to make sure I understand the distinction.

 

[Mallon]

Meaning there is significant witness to its truth (you, me, the Bible, etc.), but no means for scientific testing? I am not trying to argue, I am trying to make sure I understand the distinction.

Yes, I would go so far as to say that. I would count the independent witnesses to Christ's resurrection as some form of evidence (albeit weak). Same goes for Christ's manifestation in Christian lives.

And for those prematurely jumping to conclusions and thinking "isn't the fact that we have no body proof of Jesus' resurrection?" -- DON'T! In science, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[lucaspa]

Put simply:

Christ's resurrection cannot be tested by science because there is no body left to test.

The Genesis creation account and Noah's Flood can be tested by science because these events should have left behind testable evidence (the very universe itself and flood strata). The simple, historical account of these events fail the test and are therefore rejected as scientific explanations.

Very good. Yes. Creationism and flood geology (instead of "Genesis creation account" and "Noah's Flood") are refuted/falsified scientific theories.

True statements cannot have false consequences (evidence). Both creationism and Flood Geology have false consequences when tested against evidence we can see today.

 

[lucaspa]

Meaning there is significant witness to its truth (you, me, the Bible, etc.), but no means for scientific testing? I am not trying to argue, I am trying to make sure I understand the distinction.

Basically, yes.

What you call "witness to its truth" is called "evidence". All evidence is personal experience. However, science limits itself to a subset of personal experience called "intersubjective". That means that everyone must get the same experience under approximately the same circumstances.

If you drop a rock and I drop a rock, we have the same experience. It's "intersubjective". If you and I look at a fossil of Archeopteryx, we both see teeth and the feather impressions.

BUT, neither of us saw the Resurrection and many people have not experienced the risen Christ. Nor can we go to a cemetary, raise our hands, call on God, and have a person come back to life. Both the resurrection of Lazarus and Jesus were one-time events that left no evidence for us to study today.

One time events can be studied, but they have to leave behind evidence we can see today. For instance, Big Bang was a one time event, but we have lots of evidence that it left us, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation and the ratio of helium to hydrogen in the universe. Meteor Crator in Arizona was a one-time event, but it left the crator itself and pieces of meteorite you and I can look at.

What did the resurrections leave? Nothing! Lazarus died again, so finding a body doesn't show anything. Jesus didn't leave a body, but we don't have bodies for 99.999% of people who lived when he did. So not having a body doesn't show anything.

All we have are the personal experiences of people of the risen Jesus. And not everyone has those.

 

[lucaspa]

I have never quite understood what "goddidit" means to the TE. Does it mean that "goddidit" does not belong in science, but many of us accept it on other terms -- where there is evidence?

As I understand how TEs understand evolution, it is a process moderated by God. It is said to be observable, so all scientific concerns have been disposed of. But it is nonetheless, a goddidit in the philosophical sense. Do I have this right?

Close, but not quite. Nice try, tho.

What we have are two competing theories of HOW God created. Did God create by the method proposed by creationism: where God instantaneously makes things (stars, galaxies, earth, seas, moon, plants, animals, humans) in their present form? Or did God create by the processes discovered by science (including evolution)?

The evidence in God's Creation says He used the methods discovered by science.

Now, some theistic evolutionists think that God guided evolution to get particular animals and plants. There are at least a couple of ways He could do this and we wouldn't be able to detect it.

Other TEs (and Darwin and I are 2 of those) believe that God sustains the universe and that no process happens without God's will. Hydrogen doesn't combine with oxygen to form water without God's will. It's just that God wills it each and every time.

That particular belief can't be tested by science. Because I can never have a test tube with hydrogen and oxygen and know that God is absent. If I can't do that, I don't know that oxygen and hydrogen will combine on their own, without God, to form water.

As for altering every theory, don't you ned up with two different bodies of thought? A scientific way of doing things by its rules and a seperate philosophical world view in which goddidit could affect just about anything?

No. Scientific theories are modified in the light of data. Dannager never argued that my presentation of the relationship of theory and data was flawed. He simply didn't like me using the phrase "direct action by God" to modify the theory about dead people coming back to life.

What he is doing is arbitrarily saying "you can't invoke God". But that stifles science. Science MUST be able to go where the data leads us. IF the data on the resurrections was solid, wouldn't we be justified in adding "by the direct action of deity" to the scientific theory? I suppose we could simply say "unless acted upon by another force" and not specify the force. But the accounts are pretty clear that God is the force. That would justify including God in the theory.

Mentioning God is not "unscientific". And saying "Goddidit" doesn't really tell you anything. You have to specify how "Goddidit". Which is why I used the phrase "direct action". So, as long as you specify how "Goddidit", and that method is testable, you are fine. After all, the creationists in the 17th and 18th centuries were doing real science. In fact, they tested their method of "Goddidit" so well they showed it to be wrong.

 

[lucaspa]

Since Dannanger doesn't object to my portrayal of the relationship of data and theories, but only objects to my used of saying "direct action by God", I think it time to tell people that invoking God in scientific theories is not necessarily outside the rules.

I'll let a philosopher of science describe this:

"There is another way to be a Creationist. One might offer Creationism as a scientific theory: Life did not evolve over millions of years; rather all forms were created at one time by a particular Creator. Although pure versions of Creationism were no longer in vogue among scientists by the end of the eighteenth century, they had flourished earlier (in the writings of Thomas Bumet, William Whiston, and others). Moreover, variants of Creationism were supported by a number of eminent nineteenth-century scientists-William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick, and Louis Agassiz, for example. These Creationists trusted that their theories would accord with the Bible, interpreted in what they saw as a correct way. However, that fact does not affect the scientific status of those theories. Even postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientific than postulating unobservable particles. What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended. The great scientific Creationists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offered problem-solving strategies for many of the questions addressed by evolutionary theory. They struggled hard to explain the observed distribution of fossils. Sedgwick, Buckland, and others practiced genuine science. They stuck their necks out and volunteered information about the catastrophes that they invoked to explain biological and geological findings. Because their theories offered definite proposals, those theories were refutable. Indeed, the theories actually achieved refutation. In 1831, in his presidential address to the Geological Society, Adam Sedgwick publicly announced that his own variant of Creationism had been refuted:"
Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism pp125-126

 

[Dannager]

First, please quote me accurately. I did NOT say "Goddidit" and "Goddidit' is not the same thing I said.

God's divine intervention is shortened here to "Goddidit". It's the same thing. What you're saying is: "either x happens or a miracle happens."

Second, in every field, whenever you answer one question, you have 3 or 4 new questions pop up out of the answer. So even when it was found that hot air balloons did not fall, people still had to study the effects of heated air! Of course, in the case of the resurrections, we do know the "effects" of direct intervention by God: people came back to life!

Exactly, but now we have a new phenomenon you've suddenly introduced into the equation! God's divine intervention! As a new phenomenon this must be studied by science. What will they uncover? That, according to scripture, God was responsible for hundreds of miracles and instances of divine intervention.

Why do you have to alter every theory? I don't know of any reason to alter gravity, do you? The theory is altered in response to data. In this case the resurrections of Lazarus and Jesus are data. Therefore they would require alteration to the theory.

Because of the inevitable conclusion to by response just above. When it is discovered by scientists exploring the phenomenon of divine intervention that God has done just about anything conceivable with it (including creating a universe!), the only theory one can come up with for the phenomenon of "God's Divine Intervention" is that "God's Divine Intervention" is capable of doing anything, at any time! There is no stricter way to define such a power! And when scientists realize that "God's Divine Intervention" is capable of everything, every theory must be altered to note that its previous rules do not hold if "God's Divine Intervention" is responsible for the event. Suddenly, you've given every theory the same clause: X happens or else Goddidit. Are you starting to see now why this does not hold as science?

But we don't alter theories on a whim. Just when the data compels us to.

You're right, we don't! But when it's discovered that the data shows God being capable of just about anything imaginable, the data will compel us to alter every theory in existence.

Sorry, but no. The information can't be "removed" unless you show it to be false. That you can't test it doesn't mean it can be removed.

I'm not removing it because it can't be tested. I'm removing it because of the law of definitions. If you come up with a term so broad ("God's Divine Intervention") in scope that it describes everything, it suddenly becomes useful in describing nothing. When scientists realize that Goddidit could potentially be responsible for everything, they will realize that it no longer is useful as a tool to study the world around us. Science, for this very reason, cannot ever dip into the supernatural.

 

[gluadys]

I have never quite understood what "goddidit" means to the TE. Does it mean that "goddidit" does not belong in science, but many of us accept it on other terms -- where there is evidence?

To me it is basically a way of objecting to the invalid argument along the lines of "We don't know how this happened so that shows God did it."

Of course, from a theist's perspective, God did it no matter how it happened. So "Goddidit" doesn't give us any information on how it happened. Theists don't stop believing God did it when we do understand how it happened, and "Goddidit" does not give us any insight when we don't understand how it happened. It is just the wrong answer to the question. A category error if you will. It does not provide the missing information.

IOW human ignorance is not evidence of God.

 

[billwald]

It is a question for history, not science. History is not science. Theology is not science.

From the get go religion has been about getting stuff from God. Until the last 100 or so years there has been no "scientific" means to test if stuff comes from God or from other sources. Now we have statistical analysis.

Statistical analysis seems to indicate that at least in the last several years God has not had a better track record than other people's systems for getting stuff.

That being said, I KNOW there is an angel in charge of bad drivers because I work him/her overtime.

 

[jeffweeder]

?

 

[theFijian]

Statistical analysis seems to indicate that at least in the last several years God has not had a better track record than other people's systems for getting stuff.

How is statistical analysis supposed to show God at work?

 

[mark kennedy]

This gets to the difference between theory and data. And the confusion between them.

I am not confused myself but press on.

The "proof" that people can come back alive after that long is the events where people did come back alive after that long!

Not people but a person was raised from the dead, something impossible apart from God's eternal power. Not just any person but the Son of God and God the Son and as evidence Jesus appealed to the Scriptures more then any physical proof. Tread lightly, you are standing on sacred ground.

Scientifically, what you have with the dead bodies is a THEORY. The theory states "people dead for days do not come back to life." What most people miss about science is that you can never "prove" a theory, you can only test it trying to disprove it.

The data is the observations of people who have died. We use data to test theories. So, all the people who have died are tests of the theory that "dead people don't come back to life".

The really important thing is that data can always overthrow theory, but you can never use theory to overthrow data. Data trumps.

Jesus' resurrection is DATA. It's an observation. So is the resurrection of Lazarus. Since we can't use theory to overthrow data, we cannot scientifically say that the Resurrection never happened....

That will be quite enough of that, let me ask you something was Jesus raised from the dead through the glory of God?

You have two choices ambiguity and clarity. Ambiguity is the mark of secular humanism since the words used in Christian theology mean something very different to them then it does to a literalist like myself or the Apostle Paul or Jesus particularly with regards to our lineage and the Flood as an event in redemptive history.

Then there is clarity and the tremendous burden of proof for faith in the incarnation. Tell me something clearly, is Jesus the Son of the Living God, Creator of the heavens and the earth and judge of the living and the dead?

Then you tell me if that is a theory or data.

 

[HypnoToad]

Jesus' resurrection is DATA. It's an observation. So is the resurrection of Lazarus. Since we can't use theory to overthrow data, we cannot scientifically say that the Resurrection never happened....

No, you're just misreading the "data", they aren't observations, they are "parables" or "allegories", or they are simply mistaken. They must be, since it's well-established science that people do not "resurrect" after being dead for several days.

To just say "it was by God's power" is the same old "God of the gaps" argument poorly used by those creationist types.

Just as science has proven the creation account can only be allegorical, so too must be the resurrection. I'm not saying the resurrection isn't "true", just that it has a different kind of truth than you pesky literalists think.

 

[billwald]

>How is statistical analysis supposed to show God at work?

30,000 people have a heart transplant. 10,000 are prayed over by Christian friends. 10,000 are prayed over by Buddhist monks. 10,000 are not prayed for. Does any group heal faster than the rest? Have a lower mortality rate?

Alchemists like Isaac Newton thought that chemical experiments could be effected by prayer. The Rationalists demonstrated that prayer did not effect the outcome.

There seems to be a paranormal effect when dealing with humans instead of chemicals but "Christian" prayer does not seem to have an advantage over other sorts of prayer and medication. Tibetan monks have demonstrated some amazing stuff about the abilities of the human body.

 

[theFijian]

>How is statistical analysis supposed to show God at work?

30,000 people have a heart transplant. 10,000 are prayed over by Christian friends. 10,000 are prayed over by Buddhist monks. 10,000 are not prayed for. Does any group heal faster than the rest? Have a lower mortality rate?

Alchemists like Isaac Newton thought that chemical experiments could be effected by prayer. The Rationalists demonstrated that prayer did not effect the outcome.

There seems to be a paranormal effect when dealing with humans instead of chemicals but "Christian" prayer does not seem to have an advantage over other sorts of prayer and medication. Tibetan monks have demonstrated some amazing stuff about the abilities of the human body.

The very idea that if enough people start praying then we can gang-up on God and get him to do what we want is a quite erroneous view of the purpose of prayer. In any case corelation does not mean causality.