Science and Religion: Non-Overlapping Magisteria

[SpyridonOCA]

Prophecies mentioned only in the same book that recorded their eventual fulfillment aren't that convincing.

You have to realize that the Gospels were written more or less independently of each other. Each Gospel writer is either a witness to the events themselves or reporting the testimony of witnesses. Therefore, one must treat the Gospels with the same standards as any other ancient historical documents.

 

[FishFace]

Prove it. Also, why aren't you responding to the on-topic replies?

Haha, we had a discussion about this very topic last night.

The point I was arguing was that the "magisterium" of science is objective reality.
Basically, science addresses claims about facts relating to the observable world, at the very least. So early on in the discussion (before we got to this particular point) was the question of what exactly constitutes science - e.g. whether history was science, whether aesthetics, mathematics and morality could be sciences.

The prevailing opinion was that mathematics wasn't science because it wasn't empirical, that aesthetics could be performed scientifically, and that normative morality couldn't be performed scientifically because normativity seems to be almost a metaphysical property.

The key ingredients we found for science were the structure of hypothesis - experiment and Ockham's razor. This methodology applies to anything that we can ever possibly construct an experiment for - so the magisterium of science already includes any single fact you want to claim about the observable world, because there will always be a possible experiment, even if we couldn't perform it in practice. For example, we could develop hypotheses relating to the life of Jesus them and test them against records and archaeological evidence. Intercessory prayer is also an obvious one

This was the point of someone else - that even if you want to say that the claim "God exists" is in some other domain of claims, all of these things that you will want to claim fall well within the remit of scientific method.

My point was that formulations of Ockham's razor - a principle which seems (my mind was changed on this by the discussion) to be a necessary axiom for doing just about anything, and is impossible to justify on any other grounds - don't admit of any distinction between science and religion. They simply say that multiplying entities beyond necessity is generally bad. This is a claim that applies to all of objective reality - not just observable reality.

In other words, the same fundamental principle of science applies equally to what Gould wants to separate into two completely non-overlapping domains. The problem is that you can't just go and change that principle because it would be self-contradictory; a razor which made an exception for certain claims of religion violates itself by being more complicated than necessary and besides, the whole point of Ockham's razor is that it is intuitive - I don't see it as intuitive that certain claims shouldn't be subjected to it for no apparent reason.

This is entirely separate from the very obvious overlap in Creationist sects, and is much more problematic, I feel.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

The point I was arguing was that the "magisterium" of science is objective reality.

As is the magisterium of history.

The Evidence For Jesus
Dr. William Lane Craig
http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/doctrine/evidenceforjesus.html

To understand the history surrounding the Gospels is to see where the preponderance of evidence lies.

The resurrection of Jesus. It seems to me that there are four established facts which constitute inductive evidence for the resurrection of Jesus:

Fact #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in the tomb. This fact is highly significant because it means that the location of Jesus's tomb was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case it becomes inexplicable how belief in his resurrection could arise and flourish in the face of a tomb containing his corpse. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the honorable burial of Jesus is one of "the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus."{15}

Fact #2: On the Sunday morning following the crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers. According to Jakob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."{16} As D. H. van Daalen points out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions."{17}

Fact #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact that is almost universally acknowledged among New Testament scholars today. Even Gert Lüdemann, perhaps the most prominent current critic of the resurrection, admits, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus's death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."{18}

Finally, fact #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every reason not to. Despite having every predisposition to the contrary, it is an undeniable fact of history that the original disciples believed in, proclaimed, and were willing to go to their deaths for the fact of Jesus's resurrection. C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge University concludes that we have here a belief which nothing in terms of prior historical influences can account for--apart from the resurrection itself.{19}

Any responsible historian, then, who seeks to give an account of the matter, must deal with these four independently established facts: the honorable burial of Jesus, the discovery of his empty tomb, his appearances alive after his death, and the very origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection and, hence, of Christianity itself. I want to emphasize that these four facts represent, not the conclusions of conservative scholars, nor have I quoted conservative scholars, but represent rather the majority view of New Testament scholarship today. The question is: how do you best explain these facts?

Now this puts the sceptical critic in a somewhat desperate situation. For example, some time ago I had a debate with a professor at the University of California, Irvine, on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. He had written his doctoral dissertation on the subject and was thoroughly familiar with the evidence. He could not deny the facts of Jesus's honorable burial, his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection. Therefore, his only recourse was to come up with some alternative explanation of these facts. And so he argued that Jesus had an unknown identical twin brother who was separated from him at birth, came back to Jerusalem just at the time of the crucifixion, stole Jesus's body out of the grave, and presented himself to the disciples, who mistakenly inferred that Jesus was risen from the dead! Now I won't go into how I went about refuting his theory, but I think that this theory is instructive because it shows to what desperate lengths skepticism must go in order to deny the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. In fact, the evidence is so powerful that one of today's leading Jewish theologians Pinchas Lapide has declared himself convinced on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus from the dead!{20}
http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/doctrine/evidenceforjesus.html

 

[FishFace]

As is the magisterium of history.

The Evidence For Jesus
Dr. William Lane Craig
http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/doctrine/evidenceforjesus.html

To understand the history surrounding the Gospels is to see where the preponderance of evidence lies.

So you're no longer arguing that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria, as you seemed to be claiming with your link to S.J. Gould's article in the O.P.?

The historicity of Jesus is outside the remit of this forum.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

So you're no longer arguing that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria, as you seemed to be claiming with your link to S.J. Gould's article in the O.P.?

In the Orthodox Church, we make no attempt to "prove" the existence of God apart from His incarnation in Jesus Christ. Since the Gospels make historical claims, they are subject to the standards of evaluating history. When the Church makes claims that are beyond perceptible reality, science and religion are very much two separate domains.

 

[FishFace]

In the Orthodox Church, we make no attempt to "prove" the existence of God apart from His incarnation in Jesus Christ. Since the Gospels make historical claims, they are subject to the standards of evaluating history. When the Church makes claims that are beyond perceptible reality, science and religion are very much two separate domains.

So I would appreciate a reply to the rest of my post about the majisterium of science - I dealt with this very claim. If there are areas of overlap, then they can be sorted out in an obvious manner. I claim there are no areas of non-overlap, and provided an argument for that - would you please address that?

 

[SpyridonOCA]

So I would appreciate a reply to the rest of my post about the majisterium of science - I dealt with this very claim. If there are areas of overlap, then they can be sorted out in an obvious manner. I claim there are no areas of non-overlap, and provided an argument for that - would you please address that?

Would you please address the important question which Dr. Craig has asked in relation to the resurrection of Christ? If it occurred, it is the most important event in the history of mankind. If it didn't, it is the most vile hoax ever perpetrated, a lie which the Apostles knowingly gave their lives for.

 

[Tomk80]

Would you please address the important question which Dr. Craig has asked in relation to the resurrection of Christ? If it occurred, it is the most important event in the history of mankind. If it didn't, it is the most vile hoax ever perpetrated, a lie which the Apostles knowingly gave their lives for.

Why knowlingly? What's up with the false dichotomy? What if it didn't happen, but for some reason they had convinced themselves it did? Humans are good in deluding themselves, the apostles were humans just as the rest of us, QED. That they believed it, doesn't make it necessarily correct.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

Why knowlingly? What's up with the false dichotomy? What if it didn't happen, but for some reason they had convinced themselves it did? Humans are good in deluding themselves, the apostles were humans just as the rest of us, QED. That they believed it, doesn't make it necessarily correct.

Please stop ignoring the historical context in which the Gospels were written.

If Christ had not raised, the Apostles would have known. The tomb, after all, was owned by Joseph of Arimathea, a disciple of Christ and member of the Sanhedrin. If Christ had not raised, the Sanhedrin would have produced the body to discredit the Apostles. They didn't. In fact, no one who had anything at stake in discrediting the Apostles attempted to discredit the Apostles.

Why would the Apostles willingly die for a dead corpse? What good is a dead Messiah? It's sad when the evangelists for scientific objectivity suspend their own standards when evaluating the Gospels. May God have mercy upon us.

I was an agnostic once, until I began looking at the claims of the Gospels fairly and objectively.

 

[FishFace]

Would you please address the important question which Dr. Craig has asked in relation to the resurrection of Christ? If it occurred, it is the most important event in the history of mankind. If it didn't, it is the most vile hoax ever perpetrated, a lie which the Apostles knowingly gave their lives for.

I'm sorry, is this topic about whether or not science and religion overlap, or is it about the historicity of Christ and the Resurrection?
If it's the former, then please, a response to my post. If it's the latter, then GA is down the hall on the right - I have no real interest in debating that (again) at this time.

The topic of whether religion and science overlap, however, does interest me. You've made a claim - that there are areas of non-overlap - you should back it up, especially in the face of an argument against that claim.

 

[Tomk80]

Please stop ignoring the historical context in which the Gospels were written.

If Christ had not raised, the Apostles would have known. The tomb, after all, was owned by Joseph of Arimathea, a disciple of Christ and member of the Sanhedrin. If Christ had not raised, the Sanhedrin would have produced the body to discredit the Apostles. They didn't. In fact, no one who had anything at stake in discrediting the Apostles attempted to discredit the Apostles.

Why would the Apostles willingly die for a dead corpse? What good is a dead Messiah? It's sad when the evangelists for scientific objectivity suspend their own standards when evaluating the Gospels. May God have mercy upon us.

I was an agnostic once, until I began looking at the claims of the Gospels fairly and objectively.

You really want to go down that road? Because if we are going to look at historical context, there won't be much left remaining from the story. If we look at the historical context, we are inevitably drawn towards the conclusion that most of the gospels are made up.