My Final Conclusion about Science and Religion

[Matthew777]

Natural selection working upon the raw material provided via mutation. Not too complicated.

The mathematical improbability of that is profound.

Do you doubt common descent, or the adequacy of proposed evolutionary mechanisms?

The concept of common descent is irrelevant without a mechanism to explain it.

 

[Matthew777]

Amazing. You further insult me. Where's the ignore button...

No, I insulted the religious background from which you've come, which is technically as bad. If that offended you, I am sorry for that also.

 

[mikeynov]

The mathematical improbability of that is profound.

If you're talking probability, you have to be able to quantify it. Do you know the relevent search space to make this claim?

Let's see your math, Matt.

The concept of common descent is irrelevant without a mechanism to explain it.

It's very relevent. The fact that evolution had been occurring for a very long time was strongly supported well before Darwin. Darwin both (re)affirmed this and gave an attempt at such a mechanism.

But even if that mechanism were flatly wrong, we could independently test the hypothesis of common descent.

 

[aeroz19]

*shrug* What was the rush? I wasn't seeking or anything, nor was I closely examining my beliefs (except on a couple of occasions). I just lived my life, and every so often I would discover that my world view had morphed sufficiently to deserve a new label.

Well that explains it.

As I said above, I didn't spend much time giving deep consideration to my beliefs. I just suppose that, as I experienced living on planet earth, many of the things that I had been taught as a child didn't necessarily ring true, or in fact weren't even necessary.

So you slowly eased your way out of Christianity. Must have been a smooth transition for you.

I should say that at no point was I YEC. Creationism was never an issue for my faith state, and in fact I had no idea such a thing existed until I stumbled onto the wonderful world of teh intarw3b in the mid/late nineties.

That's funny! I'll bet you thought they were some kind of cult or something.

As for stopping at every station, it ran kind of like this:

Devout Christian -> moderately devout Christian -> disinterested Christian -> vague theist -> vague Taoist -> deist ->weak atheist ->something like weak atheist, with hopes that there is something out there, but thinking that there probably isn't.

But those are merely points on the journey, which is why I say i stopped at every station. The stations would be the points at which I reevaluated the labels I gave to myself.

Ohhh, ok. I thought they were intense periods of self-examination, reflection and study. But ok. Did the "stations" cause you any problems, or did you just shrug off the labels and think nothing of it?

Of course. You're clearly and thoughtful and intelligent woman.

...

 

[mikeynov]

That is a false and unsupported assertion. When Biblical scholars engage in actual debates, the traditional Christians will almost always win.
For example, check out Bill Craig's debates:

Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830815694/qid=1119506058/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-0301800-0479300?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801021758/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-0301800-0479300?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

Biblical faith is faith in historical fact.

Typical Matthew-ism. Copy/paste and state your opinion as being self-evident.

Funny how it's not self-evident to most historians/archeologists, including the religious ones.

Making Christ's resurrection into a matter of historicity, instead of faith, is pretty dangerous stuff from a Christian perspective, methinks.

And by all means, explain to me (in your own words) how we can empirically test for Christ's resurrection, as opposed to confirming that multiple people said he was resurrected. I'd love to hear this.

 

[Matthew777]

Making Christ's resurrection into a matter of historicity, instead of faith, is pretty dangerous stuff from a Christian perspective, methinks.

This statement alone shows your willful ignorance of the topic. The New Testament itself demands verification of the historicity of the resurrection. What of the "certain infallible proofs" of His resurrection alluded to in Acts? Doesn't that just beg us to look into these supposed proofs?
What about Paul's challenge that if Christ did not rise from the dead, neither will be and therefore, we are still spiritually dead in our sins. Given that the entirety of the Christian faith is staked upon one single event, we'd better be damned sure that it is historically verifiable. And as I've said before, a truism that you have chosen to ignore, the Biblical scholars who know what they are talking about and are actually able to prove their assertions are traditional Christians.

 

[aeroz19]

That is a false and unsupported assertion. When Biblical scholars engage in actual debates, the traditional Christians will almost always win.
For example, check out Bill Craig's debates:

Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830815694/qid=1119506058/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-0301800-0479300?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801021758/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-0301800-0479300?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

Not if I have to buy them!

Biblical faith is faith in historical fact.

No, faith is belief in something that cannot be/is not supposed to be supported by objective facts or something that you can access with your senses. If something is historical fact then you don't need faith to believe it.

 

[mikeynov]

This statement alone shows your willful ignorance of the topic. The New Testament itself demands verification of the historicity of the resurrection. What of the "certain infallible proofs" of His resurrection alluded to in Acts? Doesn't that just beg us to look into these supposed proofs?
What about Paul's challenge that if Christ did not rise from the dead, neither will be and therefore, we are still spiritually dead in our sins. Given that the entirety of the Christian faith is staked upon one single, we'd better be damned sure that it is historically verifiable. And as I've said before, a truism that you have chosen to ignore, the Biblical scholars who know what they are talking about and are actually able to prove their assertions are traditional Christians.

The entirety of Christian faith is stacked on Christ's sacrifice on the cross for the atonement of our sins. Making that a matter of the weight of empirical evidence instead of faith seems theologically dangerous to me from a Christian perspective.

And please answer my challenge regarding the historicity of Christ's resurrection, and how we could ever empirically verify this. In your own words.

 

[aeroz19]

Typical Matthew-ism. Copy/paste and state your opinion as being self-evident.

Funny how it's not self-evident to most historians/archeologists, including the religious ones.

Making Christ's resurrection into a matter of historicity, instead of faith, is pretty dangerous stuff from a Christian perspective, methinks.

And by all means, explain to me (in your own words) how we can empirically test for Christ's resurrection, as opposed to confirming that multiple people said he was resurrected. I'd love to hear this.

Excellent points.

This statement alone shows your willful ignorance of the topic. The New Testament itself demands verification of the historicity of the resurrection. What of the "certain infallible proofs" of His resurrection alluded to in Acts? Doesn't that just beg us to look into these supposed proofs?

I remember that. But the infallible proofs were supposed to be individual testimonies though, right? I can't remember though.

What about Paul's challenge that if Christ did not rise from the dead, neither will be and therefore, we are still spiritually dead in our sins. Given that the entirety of the Christian faith is staked upon one single event, we'd better be damned sure that it is historically verifiable. And as I've said before, a truism that you have chosen to ignore, the Biblical scholars who know what they are talking about and are actually able to prove their assertions are traditional Christians.

Is there a way we can see how they prove their assertions without spending money?

 

[Matthew777]

No, faith is belief in something that cannot be/is not supposed to be supported by objective facts or something that you can access with your senses.

As the articles I've provided you show, the Christian faith is supported by objective facts.

If something is historical fact then you don't need faith to believe it.

What is the meaning of faith? Biblical faith is not faith despite the evidence but because of the evidence.

faith P Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

 

[Matthew777]

Is there a way we can see how they prove their assertions without spending money?

Public libraries are a good resource, as are the articles by William Lane Craig and other serious scholars that I've posted on this forum.

 

[mikeynov]

*Waits on Matthew's empirical test for Christ's resurrection*

 

[Praxiteles]

Well that explains it.



So you slowly eased your way out of Christianity. Must have been a smooth transition for you.

Yep. With the notable exception of one night. Everyone has to have at least one dark night of the soul, don't you think?

That's funny! I'll bet you thought they were some kind of cult or something.

Actually, yes. Not for long, though. It didn't take long to discover how widespread it is - in the US, anyway. Lately in Australia as well, which I find disturbing on various levels.

Ohhh, ok. I thought they were intense periods of self-examination, reflection and study. But ok. Did the "stations" cause you any problems, or did you just shrug off the labels and think nothing of it?

Mostly shrugged. I've had a fairly packed life, and so spirituality largely got compartmentalised. With the exception of one night, way back in 1989...

*screen goes wavy, zither music begins. Cut to motel room in Newcastle...*

 

[aeroz19]

*Waits on Matthew's empirical test for Christ's resurrection*

I think it's just arguments, not anything empirical...

 

[Matthew777]

The entirety of Christian faith is stacked on Christ's sacrifice on the cross for the atonement of our sins.

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

Making that a matter of the weight of empirical evidence instead of faith seems theologically dangerous to me from a Christian perspective.

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

And please answer my challenge regarding the historicity of Christ's resurrection, and how we could ever empirically verify this. In your own words.

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.

 

[aeroz19]

Yep. With the notable exception of one night. Everyone has to have at least one dark night of the soul, don't you think?

Well, yes...

Actually, yes. Not for long, though. It didn't take long to discover how widespread it is - in the US, anyway. Lately in Australia as well, which I find disturbing on various levels.

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

Mostly shrugged. I've had a fairly packed life, and so spirituality largely got compartmentalised. With the exception of one night, way back in 1989...

*screen goes wavy, zither music begins. Cut to motel room in Newcastle...*

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.

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.

 

[aeroz19]

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.

Too bad one has to spend money to read it...

 

[Jet Black]

William Lane Craig

the same william lane craig that can't even get his first cause argument right?

 

[Matthew777]

Too bad one has to spend money to read it...

Given that it is probably the most read Christian apologetics book, I'd be surprised if it were not at your local library.

 

[Jet Black]

The mathematical improbability of that is profound.

GIGO