My Final Conclusion about Science and Religion

Praxiteles · Jun 23, 2005

aeroz19 said:
Lately in Australia too? Wow. That's not good. Why is fundamentalism and literalism increasing and spreading? I don't get it.

Nor do I. This is supposed to be the Age of Reason. At least, that's what it says on the box.

I suspect and hope that it's a phase rather than a trend. A moderate backlash to the predominance of naturalism.

It was that dramatic for you? My "dark moment" wasn't that dramatic. I shed a few tears, was depressed for only a day or two, then moved on. Didn't even sense a "separation" or "severing" going on. That was when I deconverted from fundamentlism and first seriously questioned the existance of God.

Interesting that you don't feel that it was that dramatic, especially since you were walking away from quite an extreme form of Christianity. Mine occurred at the point when I lost the last shreds of what was already quite a weak form of Christianity. I would have thought that your experience was much more shattering.

However, the next time I genuinely attempted to pray, it felt very different...scared me like crazy. Felt like I was talking to a piece of furniture. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I realized I didn't believe in any of it anymore, that it was useless.

You are in very good company there. I expect most of us have experienced that. ("Us" being the ex-Christians, that is).

Jet Black · Jun 23, 2005

just out of interest aeroz, what was it that led you to abandon the Theistic Evolution position? I'm of the opinion that this is quite a strong position for a Christian to hold.

mikeynov · Jun 23, 2005

Matthew777 said:
Without the resurrection, Jesus is just another crucified Jewish zealot. The resurrection is our assurance of His identity and our hope for eternity.

Dangerous only because you do not understand the meaning of Biblical faith.

This really would take a long time to explain. First, we would have to establish that we live in a theistic universe. To do so, Big Bang cosmology and the Kalaam cosmological argument, etc. must be considered.
From there, we would have to compare and contrast the truth claims of the major world religions and then question as to which ones are actually verifiable. By process of elimination, we would eventually be led to the Christian faith. Then, we would scrutinize the reliability of the Gospels as primary source documents, treating them with the same standards that we would use for any ancient document. This would lead us to the resurrection, the most crucial event in understanding the identity of Christ, and whether or not the testimony of His resurrection is reliable.
And hopefully, you would get past your false intellectualism silliness and realize what those who have undertaken a serious impartial investigation of the facts have realized; the resurrection is a historical fact.
On the other hand, if you cannot be convinced, then I hope that you can write a chapter by chapter refutation of Josh McDowell's More than a Carpenter. I know that he isn't the best of scholars but he is a good introduction and rather easy to read.

The reasoning portrayed above is mind-bogglingly atrocious on nearly every level. And given that you couldn't possibly empirically verify we live in a theistic universe at step 1, what follows is necessarily garbage.

Let me summarize your argument.

* Using apologetic reasoning, assume we live in a theistic universe
* Eliminate all contradictory theistic explanations we don't like (everything but Christianity)
* Establish that a guy named Jesus probably lived and was crucified, and that people said he was raised from the dead
* Conclude that Jesus rose from the dead, and is totally the Son of God

False intellectual silliness for not acknowledging that a guy magically rose from the dead 2000 years ago as being empirically testable? Sure thing, Matt.

lol

Matthew777 · Jun 23, 2005

mikeynov said:
The reasoning portrayed above is mind-bogglingly atrocious on nearly every level.

A serious and honest Biblical scholar would say that same of your reasoning.

mikeynov said:
False intellectual silliness for not acknowledging that a guy magically rose from the dead 2000 years ago as being empirically testable?

Please, at least pretend that you are willing to go wherever truth leads you.
It is emperically verifiable with the same standards that we would use for any other purported event of ancient history. The evidence is astounding. If you let go of the willful ignorance, perhaps you will be surprised. The least you could do is read More than a Carpenter and provide a chapter by chapter refuation if it leaves you unconvinced.

aeroz19 · Jun 23, 2005

Ok lets tone it down a bit...

aeroz19 · Jun 23, 2005

Ok, I will get the book at my library soon and read it. Then I'll get back to you on it.

Douglaangu v2.0 · Jun 23, 2005

It is emperically verifiable with the same standards that we would use for any other purported event of ancient history. The evidence is astounding.

Such as?
What are the standards used and how does it meet then?

mikeynov · Jun 23, 2005

A serious and honest Biblical scholar would say that same of your reasoning.

So now you're in a position to speak for biblical scholars?

Please, at least pretend that you are willing to go wherever truth leads you.

I am being serious. Jesus raising from the dead is tantamount to magic in the way that any supernatural explanation is.

It is emperically verifiable with the same standards that we would use for any other purported event of ancient history.

No, it isn't. You haven't shown these standards - I'm still waiting on the actual test for resurrection, and how you differentiate it from those who simply claimed it happened.

You can't possibly test it, and you know it.

The evidence is astounding. If you let go of the willful ignorance, perhaps you will be surprised. The least you could do is read More than a Carpenter and provide a chapter by chapter refuation if it leaves you unconvinced.[

In other words, you'll cop out and hinge your statements on somebody else's work, and expect me to refute them instead of you.

I'm sure you think the evidence is "astounding," but it speaks volumes that you can't begin to articulate what this evidence is in your own words, nor propose a single test for any of the supernatural elements of the bible.

It seems highly likely to me that you find certain apologetic authors convincing, and take their word for history in the exact same way you take your science from IDists.

If it's so obvious, Matt, why does your opinion of Christ's factual resurrection on the cross represent a fraction of a fraction of actual historians? It must have passed right over their heads.

Notice a similar MO in your reasoning on a variety of issues? It must all be a giant conspiracy, meant to minimize the obvious facthood of Christianity.

mikeynov · Jun 23, 2005

Douglaangu v2.0 said:
Such as?
What are the standards used and how does it meet then?

He's parotting his favorite apologists at this point, just like he parrots IDists and used to parrot creationists.

Matthew777 · Jun 23, 2005

aeroz19 said:
Ok, I will get the book at my library soon and read it. Then I'll get back to you on it.

Thank you. I hope that it will help you find yourself. And if you'd like to move on to something more advanced, almost anything by William Lane Craig or N.T.Wright.
As a matter of fact, in terms of solid scholarship, Wright blows any skeptic away.

aeroz19 · Jun 23, 2005

mikeynov said:
So now you're in a position to speak for biblical scholars?

He is well-versed in writings of scholars and ancient Christian writers; he reads a lot. He is also a very good writer.

You can't possibly test it, and you know it.

You're right; it's a faith issue.

I'm sure you think the evidence is "astounding," but it speaks volumes that you can't begin to articulate what this evidence is in your own words, nor propose a single test for any of the supernatural elements of the bible.

Let's just read his book, then start a new thread on it.

If it's so obvious, Matt, why does your opinion of Christ's factual resurrection on the cross represent a fraction of a fraction of actual historians? It must have passed right over their heads.

That's my reasoning as well.

Notice a similar MO in your reasoning on a variety of issues? It must all be a giant conspiracy, meant to minimize the obvious facthood of Christianity.

...

Matthew777 · Jun 23, 2005

mikeynov said:
He's parotting his favorite apologists at this point, just like he parrots IDists and used to parrot creationists.

I do not parrot Intelligent Design theorists. Hell, I don't even like nor believe in Intelligent Design theory. So far, I have not been presented with any positive evidence for design. There are personal concerns that I have with evolutionary theory that are related to unanswered questions and holes in the evidence. I am not parrotting any apologist but I am suggesting that you check out the work of someone who does happen to know ten times more than you do and investiage the facts with an open heart and mind. At least it wouldn't hurt.

aeroz19 · Jun 23, 2005

Matthew777 said:
I do not parrot Intelligent Design theorists. Hell, I don't even like nor believe in Intelligent Design theory. So far, I have not been presented with any positive evidence for design.

That's a change in your position from a few months ago...

There are personal concerns that I have with evolutionary theory that are related to unanswered questions and holes in the evidence.

Yeah, but there are a lot more reasons to believe in it than not...

I am not parrotting any apologist but I am suggesting that you check out the work of someone who does happen to know ten times more than you do and investiage the facts with an open heart and mind. At least it wouldn't hurt.

I wish he would too.

Jet Black · Jun 23, 2005

Matthew777 said:
....almost anything by William Lane Craig .....

just not his first cause argument. that was some of the sloppiest thinking I have ever seen.

Matthew777 · Jun 23, 2005

aeroz19 said:
That's a change in your position from a few months ago...

No, it is not a change of positions. I am willing to promote Intelligent Design as a potential science but am not willing to accept is as a science for what it is so far.

In my opinion, this is Intelligent Design theory:

"Wow, DNA is ****ing amazing! Evolution cannot explain it therefore it MUST be designed!"

But then again, how is that fun? How is that final? Unless positive evidence for design can be provided, we must keep looking for a natural answer.

dcrowther3 · Jun 23, 2005

Science and Christianity are mutually exclusive. You cannot believe in both without Double-think. A strong religious faith can give consolation from uncertainties, and science helps you understand the world better but is naught for your comfort.
Maybe you are a Unitarian or a Quaker at heart?

Jet Black · Jun 23, 2005

Matthew777 said:
"Wow, DNA is ****ing amazing! Evolution cannot explain it therefore it MUST be designed!"

I think the "Evolution cannot explain it" is rather off base. a more accurate portrayal of the ID position is "I am incredulous to think that Evolution could explain this"

Matthew777 · Jun 23, 2005

I highly recomend that you please do not stop with Josh McDowell. He does happen to be the Diet Coke of apologetics. Not that he isn't reliable but others go much more in depth.

N.T. is probably the ultimate Biblical scholar, if I am not mistaken.

"The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is
by N. T. Wright
We cannot assume that by saying the word Jesus," writes N.T. Wright--Canon Theologian of Westminster Abbey and formerly Dean of Lichtifeld Cathedral--"still less the word Christ, we are automatically in touch with the real Jesus who talked in first-century Palestine." Even less are we automatically in touch with "the Jesus who ... is the same yesterday, today and forever." Wright's goal in this volume is to present in a simplified form the findings that are occupying him in his monumental six-volume series entitled Christian Origins and the Question of God, and in particular in the second volume, already published, Jesus and the Victory of God. Distinguishing himself from the "Jesus Seminar" theologians, who question the literalness of the resurrection (among other things), Wright affirms the absolute centrality of both the Last Supper and the Easter experience as historical events. Through these experiences with Jesus, Wright suggests, the early Christians came to see that "Jesus--and then, very quickly, Jesus' people--were now the true Temple, and the actual building in Jerusalem was thereby redundant."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/102-0301800-0479300?v=glance&s=books

Douglaangu v2.0 · Jun 23, 2005

So, are you going to post what 'emperical standards' are and how they verify the story of Jesus?

mikeynov · Jun 23, 2005

Douglaangu v2.0 said:
So, are you going to post what 'emperical standards' are and how they verify the story of Jesus?

I give up at this point.

Basically, Matthew finds certain apologetic arguments very convincing. But I'm curious how he rationalizes the profound lack of consensus amongst historians/archeologists given his very strong claims.

Either way, I'm thinking we derailed aeroz' thread way too much as it is, so I'll stop.

My Final Conclusion about Science and Religion

PraxAce

Jet Black

Guest

Senior Veteran

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

aeroz19

Guest

aeroz19

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

aeroz19

Guest

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

aeroz19

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Active Member

Jet Black

Guest

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency