Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

That uncomfortable subject, religion …

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Things have been a bit quiet here recently, but in case you wondered, that’s because most list authors are Christians and this is the Triduum (last three days) of Holy Week.

Some are busy with religious matters and others won’t post on principle. I am also indexing a book (always a rush job in principle because the index is the only thing that keeps a book from the press at that point – so no one cares that it’s Holy Week for me).

But as this is Holy Saturday, I am going to talk briefly for a moment about … Religion.

One of the dumbest things I hear “new atheists” say is that faith means “belief without evidence.”

I don’t know what kind of a sheltered life such people can have lived, but their views might have something to do with tenure at tax-supported universities.

Religious doctrines are believed for a variety of reasons. For convenience, I’ll refer only to my own, Catholic Christian, tradition, and this is by no means an exhaustive list, just five reasons for now:

1. Some doctrines are based strictly on evidence. The existence of God, for example, is attested by the nature of the universe. A revealing moment in the Expelled movie was when arch-atheist Richard Dawkins admitted to Ben Stein that space aliens creating life and multiple universes were alternative ideas he’d consider.

What? That’s the best they’ve got? Well, let’s see if I can fiddle the dial and find the Back to God Hour. Glad it’s still on the air …

2. Some doctrines are based on logic. For example, why are there not Two Gods? Well, what happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object? The point is, it can’t happen. So there are not Two Gods. Or Many.

3. Some doctrines are based on reason. One of the sillier new atheist arguments is “Who designed the designer?” Well, any series can have a beginning. If, as most now think, the Big Bang started the universe, there must have been a wider context. It is reasonable to think this context was the will of God, based on the fine-tuned universe we actually see.

The question of God’s origin, if even askable, lies outside this universe and outside anything the human mind can think. That is why God was traditionally called, in philosophical contexts, the First Cause. That’s like the number 1. Don’t ask which natural number comes before it. The answer is none.

4. Some doctrines are based on the testimony of reliable witnesses – sane, stable people with no record of deceit, who would rather lose their property, liberty, or life than deny what they saw or heard, and have nothing to gain from promoting a story that would cost them all that. The usual way they explain it is “We must fear God rather than men.”

5. Some doctrines are based on experience – a form of evidence. I have observed that a great many people who come to an active faith later in life had an experience that they could only account for by returning to the practice of their faith (or finding a new one). An unexpected healing, perhaps?: The doctors have pronounced the patient’s case hopeless but the patient has decided to try prayer and repentance, and suddenly the burden of illness lifts. After that, the patient takes little interest in the views of new atheists, or the views of any atheists at all, on a permanent basis.

By the way, since I am here anyway, this may be a convenient time to make a “hint” announcement: I will shortly be offering a contest in which interested contributors may win a free copy of the Expelled vid or other works, as arranged. I will ask a question, based on a news story, and all responses will be judged. I will try not to be too partisan; I am mainly interested in rewarding the best contribution in 400 words or less.

More details later, once I get this index out of my life.

Comments
JTaylor: "And the problem of course is how do we even define a miracle? If you showed somebody from 400 years ago an iPod or a TV or any other modern device, and asked him to explain how it worked, they may indeed reply that it works through miraculous means." I am of the opinion that the iPod IS a miracle. For, knowing how God halted a major project of human technological advancement at the tower of Babel with a single, artfully bloodless gesture, I hold to the theory that God in his wisdom and grace permits and gifts humans with leaps of creative and scientific achievement that He could just as easily hold back. Even our intelligence is a gift. I think I could strip and re-assemble an internal combustion engine if I had to, and my knowledge of that engine always puts me in awe of a DVD burner, compared to the ICE, the preciseness of mechanical tolerances of which are infinitesimal in order for it to do what it does, storing and playing back thousands of bytes of complex information as sophisticated as a widescreen movie in stereo surround sound, and all this for a production cost of less than five dollars per unit, and only cents for the blank disc. The (diskless) iPod has no moving parts and therefore no mechanical tolerances to hone, yet is no less marvellous for the complexity and miniaturization of its micro-processor which broadly performs the same job as the DVD burner. I believe that these inventions function because God gives their inventors and refiners a little extra help. Remember, we are labouring for our bread against a cursed planet, (Genesis 3:17-19) therefore it is an act of merciful grace from God whenever we successfully harvest a season of grain, let alone invent a machine solely for recreation. And conversely, sometimes an invention doesn’t work or isn’t refined for many years or even centuries, because God withholds that help. In short, the iPod works because God ALLOWS it to work. He has foreordained the chemical reactions between the elements involved in its components, and who’s to say that such reactions might not instead occur in wholly different ways, or not occur at all? Why should silicon yield such a rich array of useful properties? It is like putting a lump of chalk next to a lump of flint and expecting them both to light up. Yet that is what happens in this miraculous world God has created for us. God decides whether the rocks light up or not, whether x chemical reacts with y chemical or not, and in what way. Is it not miraculous that we have not been spawned and left to live a dull life of mere subsistence on a planet of useless inert rocks? Far from it. Atheists need to expand their thinking to more fully appreciate the wonders of the world we live in. It is only human pride, insisting on excluding God from a rational theory of human origins, which is not amazed by an iPod, whether four hundred years ago or now. The basic premise of cargo worship is a valid response in humans who are spiritually alert. It is morally better, to, as a first impression, attribute anything wonderfully unexplainable to a deity, than to human industry. For we brought nothing into this world and it is certain we can carry nothing out. (1 Tim:6-7) My teenage children take the iPod for granted as pre-existent technology and have not yet matured to the stage of considering the technological beauty of its design and the majesty of its existence. The atheist takes the iPod for granted as a product of solely human creativity. But I regard the iPod’s creation as a reflection of God’s creation of humans, (we are made in His image) a creation of ‘once-removed’ technology made under license from God. I praise God for the iPod more than I praise men, for it testifies of His grace and provision in a fallen universe which without God would be chaotic and without predictable scientific laws allowing us to develop second-generation miracles under license from God, such as the iPod. Psalm 10:4 The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts. John1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. Gen 11:5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city… …But a few thousand years later, they did manage to build an iPod. And it is a significant eschatological development that the world, interconnected through the medium of the internet and its attendant technologies, is fast becoming once again united in one language, one philosophy, and one purpose. The purpose is to build a civilisation independent of God, to remove the Christian God from world culture, and even to outlaw the Christian faith. It’s happening. The world does not like to retain God in its knowledge. (Romans 1.28). I thank Steve Jobs for the iPod, but I praise God for allowing it to exist. It is a miracle engineered by permission.flaminia
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
A footnote: Much of the above reflects the damaging effects of radical hypersketpicism in our age -- in effect, if it is possible to be in error on a point, we can dismiss it [taking that reading of Descartes etc] -- in our time, and the failure to address its inherent self-referential incoherence. Commenting: 1 --> For instance -- per undeniably massive evidence [!!!] --we are finite, fallible and often mistaken in our views and reasoning and memory; etc. So, why should we trust our minds in general, per such hyperskepticism? 2 --> That is, radical hypereskepticism is self referentially absurd. We can safely dismiss it and its cognates in radical relativism. 3 --> Beyond that, hyperskepticism is often selectivley applied to that which we are determined to object to, while not being applied to evidentially parallel cases that we are inclined to accept. 4 --> The inconsistency that results is its own refutation. (For instance, pace Sagan and Clifford, extraordinary claims require ADEQUATE evidence, not "extraordinary" evidence. For instance if you can tell [a] sequence of events and [b] a live man from a violently dead one, you are well equipped to see that on Friday someone was nailed to a certain tree and died, being speared thereafter in the vitals and seeping out separated blood as proof thereof, but by Sunday Evening was supping with you at fish; a week later having Thomas push his hand into the otherwise fearsomely fatal but now powerless wounds. So, he died and THEN rose again.] 5 --> On balance, we should realise that that error exists is undeniably true, but that this is a known, knowable and well-warranted truth. 6 --> So, knowledge and truth also exist. We may know true things, but we may be mistaken, so the real issue is warrant that leads to reasonable though in principle defeatable faith. (This is entirely consistent with holding a great many things to be so to moral certainty, i.e beyond REASONABLE doubt.) 7 --> Thus we come to the vexed issue of alternative and contrary worldviews, applicable degrees of warrant and comparative difficulties. 8 --> Compressing greatly, every worldview odf consequence has a core warranting claim, e.g. evolutionary materialism claims to be the scientifically justified account of the universe and its contents, conceived as in effect a physical system. (Such would say, never mind the question-begging embedded in Lewontinian materialism and the attempted redefinition of science as in effect the best materialistic account of the cosmos. Oops . . . ] 9 --> By contrast, the Christian faith sees itself as the account and tradition of the God who in love sought to rescue his fallen ands often rebellious creatures by sending his Son, who died as Saviour, reconciler, liberator and healer and rose, with 500+ witnesses: witnesses who could not be broken -- and the experiment was horrendously and bloodily tried; it spectacularly failed, but turned the word for "witness" into something else: martyr, a witness who dies rather than denying the truth s/he knew. On which we have the choice to respond to the tug of God's Spirit to the truth now, or to face an accounting for why we turned from light to darkness [cf Jn 3:19 - 21, Rom 2:6 - 8], later. 10 --> How to decide? ANS: on comparative difficulties, within a frame where we apply CONSISTENT standards of (in principle defeatable) warrant. Once we do that, by far and away most of the major or popular objections to the Christina faith melt away, but the evolutionary materialistic scheme at once is seen tot be fundamentally incoherent, unable to account for the credibility of mind, the minds we MUST use to reason. [Cf App 7 my always linked.] 11 --> In particular, it is true beyond reasonable doubt that the NT is a C1, eyewitness lifetime account of the origins of the Christin Faith, and that that faith rests at root on the resurrection and 500+ eyewitnesses to it. (C2 - 4 Gnostic myths and current recyclings by Jesus Seminar or Dan Brown history Channel et al, have no HISTORICAL relevance.] 12 --> The notion that miracles are impossible per unexception-able natural law is incoherent and question-begging as the laws are grounded on finite and fallible observations so cannot disestablish the concept that in a wider context, God the Creator-Sustainer can act beyond the usual course of nature for good reason. And, redemption of mankind would be such a good reason. [While you are at it, cf 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, with Acts 2:1 - 47, Ac 8:26 ff. and with Isaiah 53 of ~ 700 BC.] 13 --> The linked notion that we should prefer any arbitrary naturalistic account to the explanation that a miracle has happened, per the idea that observation firmly grounds natural laws, is again q-begging and incoherent; claiming that we know beyond revision what we cannot know beyond revision. (Or, have we forgotten the importance of testability and falsifiability in science?) 14 --> As to the rock paradox, I find it utterly incredible that such is seriously considered to be a major objection to the Judaeo-Christian concept of God as omnipotent. (If you want a case of a serious objection held in hand while a major province of thought moved ahead, look at Zeno's paradoxes on infinity and the rise of modern physics and mathematics, esp. calculus. Even if we had no solid and direct answer that is no proof that the objection is unanswerable and that the preponderance of evidence gives us good reason to reject what we cannot answer, maybe for centuries. In short, ALL worldviews bristle with difficulties, so we have to learn to live with such and operate by comparative difficulties.) 15 --> And, the rock paradox is multiply answerable. I have been dealing with it in an offline exchange in recent days):
a --> Our contingent, fine-tuned- for- life and intelligible- moral universe cries out for a necessary being who is intelligent and capable of creating such an entity; that is for God; an awesomely powerful [I specifically do not yet claim "omnipotent"], caring and loving, knowing and communicating God. b --> "In" that God, as Paul cited Cleanthes approvingly, "we live and move and have our being." [That is, he is Creator and Sustainer. (And notice, once one has shown on independent grounds that a claim is reasonable, then to assert it later on is not question-begging.)] c --> No physical entity in the cosmos is beyond his power, so the notion of a rock that he can create that he cannot change [including the location thereof] is incoherent. It sounds good on first glance, but collapses into absurdity on a closer look at the kind of God we are speaking of. d --> And, as to spiritual creatures, they are just that: creatures, i.e. radically contingent. So, they have no capacity to overthrow God and his purposes; nor is such an inherent constraint of creaturehood a denial of God's capacity. e --> So, we are well-warranted to believe in God as a necessary being who is capable of doing anything that is within the ambit of reason and his holy-loving character. f --> Moreover, he is REASON himself [Logos theology . . . ], and he is LOVE himself, and he is HOLINES himself and he is BEING himself. So, these have no independent existence of him, and the alleged paradoxes on such also collapse. [E.g. God commands what is right becasuse it is integral to the character of the ground of all being and so moral being, thence right.]
Denyse is right, in short. Dead right. And VJT is really, really hot. [Could you email me through the link in my always linked? I want to talk about possibilities . . .] GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
Allan McNeil and Clive Hayden, Re: #60 and #72. I think you will notice that there doesn't appear to be much discussion on this thread regarding ID. Precisely due to the fact that ID supporters know how to separate their religious views from scientific arguments. What we've been stating all along. It's a consistency. Nonetheless, questions have been raised regarding the veracity of the gospel accounts, and they are being answered - not with scientific reasoning, but with historical arguments and so forth.CannuckianYankee
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT
JTaylor: "I think so…and from what I’ve read on his blog, John would be the first to admit that Craig is a superior debater. But winning debates, while important, is not necessarily the whole story." I would agree. I'm quite impressed by this. I'll have to visit his blog some more.CannuckianYankee
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT
JTaylor, You raise a valid question. I believe in a reasonable God, not one who appeals only to blind faith. The reason I wrestled so long with the claims of Christianity would be the same for anyone - I am a sinner, and I'd rather not commit to something that does not allow me to justify my own sin. But I can't now deny the reasonableness of those claims. And as such, even though there still seem to be some incongruities, I'm convinced that faith is the way I should go. I say this as a reasonable person, not as one yearning for a religious experience. I think the fact remains that all of us are not inclined to accept those claims by faith alone (well some are) apart from reason, and neither should we expect to. However, to say that God does not wrestle with our unbelief does not take into account the fact that just as you state that, there are others on here who are giving you reasons why they have faith. I have to wonder if such a phenomenon as people sharing their faith is not in some way God's way of getting through to us. And I can't help but wonder - as I look back on my own history of wrestling with these issues, that our resistance is less intellectual as it is a result of our own tendency to deny the obvious. Science invented parsimony, yet fails to apply it to issues of faith and reason. I still think that it's necessary from an atheist perspective (because I have a lot of experience with debting atheists over the claims of Christianity - and have strengthened my own faith because of it) - I still think it's necessary in our anti-god tendencies to stop begging the question. We can't escape the logical proposition that all events have a cause. As such, there must be a first cause to all that exists, that was not itself caused. I have thoroughly investigated the nature of infinity, and I find it(from a temporal perspective) to be quite impossible when dealing with the problems of space and time. All conrary arguments to the cosmological argument for God's existence appear to be mere speculation with their own inconguities and absurdities, while the cosmological argument appears logically sound. So I think God has at least given us a logical argument for his existence, which seems for me to trump all other possible arguments. So He hasn't left us void of ways to find out. I work with mentally retarded adults. They don't have the ability to rationalize all of the incongruities of any argument. For many of them faith is simple belief. It's interesting that God seems to care for the "simple-minded" by giving them faith where others struggle. When Jesus said "Blessed are the meek, for theirs is the kingdom of God," I think he meant just such people. But you and I do not have such blessings. We have to wrestle with ultimate questions, even though there is an obvious answer within our grasp if we would only stop wrestling. But I still wrestle with these questions because I have an inquisitive mind. My mind is made up regarding the gospel, but it is by no means made up regarding other questions of science and philosophy. I have yet to find a convincing argument that would pursuade me in a direction away from faith. Now I have known people who for one reason or another have left the Christian faith. I can't explain that, but I know that for me it is not an option. I have gone too far and have invested too much to go back now. The scriptures address unbelief quite thoroughly. For example, Jesus claimed that many would come in his name and claim to be him, and would lead many astray from the faith. I see evidence for that all around. In fact it seems phenomenal that Jesus should have such a perspective of his own influence in the world. Jesus pretty much stated that there would be believers in him right up until the end times. Pretty prophetic if you ask me. Those arguing against prophecy don't seem to take into account these facts. Now I can't give you exhaustive answers to the questions you raised, because it has taken me many years to be able to answer them for myself. Suffice it to say that the gospel message is simple, but the implications of the message are complicated due to our inquisitiveness, and perhaps due to our propensity to cast doubt on things that might not warrant doubt but rather faith. Finally, I leave you with a passage of scripture that has helped me: 1 Corinthians 1:18-25. It discusses God's wisdom as trumping all who think they are wise. God confounds the wise because he looks for a humble heart. He's not interested in our knowledge because quite frankly, his knowledge is greater. Therefore he looks for something much more profound - a humble heart. Happy Easter.CannuckianYankee
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
Allen MacNeill--"I find it quite fascinating that this thread should appear and grow to the length that it has on a website that, by its own description, is supposed to be about scientific investigation and empirical verification of the hypothesis that biological evolution has occurred by means of intelligent design. This thread (and the post that heads it) appears to me to be entirely concerned with theological and quasi-historical arguments about the existence and significance of a particular human being who may or may not have lived approximately two thousand years ago and may or may not have said and done certain things, none of them explicitly or implicitly related to scientific investigation. How, precisely, is this related to either evolutionary biology or intelligent design?" Isn't everything that deals with humans, and that humans deal with such as religious belief, a result of evolution? ;) Sarcasm Intended.Clive Hayden
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
theface "Unfortunately, the statement is not self-contradictory.." Unfortunately, the mad doc is correct, your impossibly heavy rock and omnipotent God are contradictory.Clive Hayden
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee said: "It appears that Craig, an Evangelical philosopher has more support on an anti-evangelical blog than the blog’s own author. Am I reading this incorrectly?" I think so...and from what I've read on his blog, John would be the first to admit that Craig is a superior debater. But winning debates, while important, is not necessarily the whole story.JTaylor
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee said: "I don’t blame anyone for taking a skeptical approach to the gospels, for what they propose might on the surface seem preposterous. However, I have looked into these matters for some 30+ years with some initial skepticism and doubt, and after researching and comprehending much of the skepticism, I have to say that the gospels make more sense as truth than as myth. The necessary first cause of everything that exists had us in mind, and left us with an account of His wrestling with us, and of his incarnation into the world of human beings." I do find it odd that on the one hand that Christianity presents a God, who we are told, is urgently concerned with the welfare of our souls, and will do the utmost to ensure our salvation. Yet, the medium in which this message is delivered, the Bible, is colored and tainted by the ravages of time, controversies, political infighting, translation issues, authorship issues and more. I know, I know -people are going to tell me that in the end I expect it comes down to faith. But if one has to study for 30 years before obtaining some comfort level in the veracity and truth of the message, isn't that rather a sad state of affairs? Isn't it rather a waste of our time too if this message is so urgent that needs to reach all of humankind? If this God is so great and powerful, would it (should it?) have been in His power to ensure that His message reached us in a less untainted manner (or at least in a form that could not so very easily be mistaken for a human-made concoction?). I find it hard to reconcile this with a truly benevolent God. Rather than His "Word" being a clear and unambiguous presentation of salvation and hope, it appears to be muddled, human-made, inconsistent, contradictory, and sometimes even irrelevant to our modern lives. Is that really what God intended?JTaylor
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT
I looked at the Loftus Blog "Debunking Christianity" and found results of a survey regarding a potential Craig/Loftus debate. Part of the survey was on who would win the debate. Here are some of the results of the survey: Loftus by a wide margin 39 (8%) Craig by a wide margin 82 (17%) Loftus would get trounced ;-) 106 (22%) Craig would get trounced ;-) 44 (9%) It appears that Craig, an Evangelical philosopher has more support on an anti-evangelical blog than the blog's own author. Am I reading this incorrectly?CannuckianYankee
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
vjtorley said: "Of course, if you believe that the probability of a miracle occurring is precisely zero, then no amount of evidence could possibly convince you, and you’d be wasting your time even discussing it, let alone examining it. I would also be wasting my time if I were to engage in debate with you about this or that alleged miracle. But if you are willing to concede that the probability of a miracle is greater than zero, then my question is: how much greater do you think it is? I’d like a number, please, or at least a method for calculating one." Obviously if I reply zero I'm probably going to be accused of not being open-minded. On the other hand I would have absolutely no idea how I would go about calculating a number. Can I use an imaginary number? I suppose I would do some kind of historical analysis to look at previous miracles and try to ascertain the probability of whether they really happened or were better explained through natural means. I would also need to thoroughly verify how the miracle was reported, if there was any confirmation bias, or eyewitness testimony issues etc. If that number gave me a zero, then perhaps I would have confidence in saying the number for future miracles is also zero. And the problem of course is how do we even define a miracle? If you showed somebody from 400 years ago an iPod or a TV or any other modern device, and asked him to explain how it worked, they may indeed reply that it works through miraculous means. I would say that a miracle is an event that not only appears to work outside the realm of natural laws, but in fact contradicts or breaks those laws. Given the miracles that have been documented to date (which I think are nearly all healings), without trying to resort to hand-waving, it is not clear that these necessarily fit that definition of miracles. This is especially so since there is some growing evidence that there is such a thing as a placebo effect, which (I believe) has a natural explanation. I think the other interesting question to ask (of Christians at least), is that if miracles can happen, why so infrequently? Even a casual reader of the NT could come away with the sense that the things that happened in Jesus's time were meant to continue ("do these things in my name" etc). And many evangelists preach this and try to practice it (e.g., Benny Hinn), but the results (if true) are meagre. Benny Hinn is a good example - despite all of the dozens of healing crusades he holds every year, the actual medically attested miracles/healings are miniscule (worse still there are verified stories of people dying because they stopped taking their medicine thinking they were healed).JTaylor
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT
StephenB: "I didn’t find that website very helpful. The host of that website does not seem to be familiar with either the quantity or quality of the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus or the extent to which they did indeed manifest themselves in historical events. In fact, please don’t be offended, he doesn’t seem to have investigated this matter at all. If I was a skeptic and someone told me that there are 459 Old Testament prophecies about Christ, I would not rely too heavily on someone who lists three or four and ignores hundreds of others. I would get the impression that he was stacking the deck. Wouldn’t you? Anyway, here are about seventy five of them. I can list hundreds more." Sorry you didn't like the website, although I think John Loftus is an interesting person to read, because of his background (he was a student of William Lane Craig) and has an extensive background in apologetics. I think though the point of the post was to show that if 3-4 prophecies can be refuted, then that could cast doubt on others. There are of course many other resources that do refute the prophecies, and convincingly so. My own take on it is one of context. It's easy to find verses in the OT that appear to fit what then happened in the NT (i.e., cherry picking or quote mining). But I think there's a lot of post-hoc reasoning taking place (probably not that different from what we see happening with Nostradamus). I suppose the prophecy that Christians like to quote this most is possibly the one from Isaiah 53. Firstly the surrounding context around 53 is not about prophesying a Messiah but about Israel the Nation (the suffering servant). Furthermore the reference to a 'virgin' is better translated as 'young women'. And apologists have much more to say on this too. And I think we could apply this methodology to all of the others. I think we'd find the same thing we find in Isaiah 53 - that the first in question is not introduced in a prophetic context (e.g., "it shall come to pass), but the verse is in the midst of another context and is being interpreted (post-hoc) in a prophetic way. Here's a better link that sheds more light on this: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.htmlJTaylor
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT
Sorry, that would be 30 AD, not 4 BC.CannuckianYankee
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
StephenB: "His coming at a set time Ge 49:10 Da 9:24,25 Lu 2:1" I have always been fascinated with this particular prophecy, because it closes all possibilities of there being any messiah apart from Jesus. Daniels prophecy pinpoints the very time at approximately 4 BC (based on the decree to rebuild Jerusalem) when the Messiah would enter Jerusalem. Since the Romans conquered and destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD, and in so doing, destroyed all of the geneological records, which would be required in order to claim the necessary lineage, the prophecy cancels out any proof for a future messiah apart from Jesus. This is Biblical prophecy at its profound best. I'm certain that God had his hand in the history of that time. This is perhaps the reason why early 20th Century skeptical scholars attempted to show that Daniel was written after the fact, but we know that not to be the case based on the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls.CannuckianYankee
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT
JTaylor:
How do you also encounter for the success of Islam (which by all accounts will eventually outstrip Christianity in membership)?
This link might answer your question, at least regarding Islam's initial success: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests A similar explanation could not be put forward for Christianity, as it only became the religion of the Roman Empire three centuries after it had already won numerous adherents by peaceful means. Regarding the story of how Christianity succeeded during its first 300 years, I suggest you read Professor Rodney Stark's "The Rise of Christianity," (HarperOne, paperback, 1997). It's a fascinating read, and you don't have to be religious to enjoy it.vjtorley
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
I don't know why Oleary titled this post "That Uncomfortable Subject, Religion...." since most here appear to be quite comfortable with engaging in the discussion. Flaminia and Lutepisc have done an excellent (while not exhaustive) job of answering some intriguing questions from JTaylor. I first want to point out that UD does not seem to be opposed to discussions about religion, as ID allows for a religious application due to its implications. I believe that UD does, however, discourage prosteletizing. I'm not certain if any of the discussion here can really fit into that category. After all, Oleary first raised the issue. Nonetheless, I think that JTaylor, theface and others raise questions that while intriguing, do have answers in scripture and in theological and scholarly discourses over the centuries. We can't exhaust all of the arguments here. I can suggest, however, some excellent sources on the subject at hand. All of the following sources are authored by credentialed scholars with advanced degrees with the exception of Frank Morrison. Concerning the Reliability of the scriptures: For an excellent introduction to the Greek New Testament - the early versions from Erasmus to Textus Receptus and beyond, and an excellent list of the codexes, uncials and miniscules - complicated, but exhaustive, I suggest - By Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland - "The Text of the New Testament." Bruce Metzger has written several volumes on the Canon of the New Testament, and the translations. I would suggest "The Bible in Translation," which discusses the versions of the Bible from ancient manuscripts up to and including modern translations. Also, "The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance." Metzger was chairman of the NRSV translation committee. By Walter C. Kaiser Jr. - "The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant?" By Paul Barnett - "Is The New Testament Reliable? : A Look at the Historical Evidence." By N.T Wright - "The New Testament And The People Of God." By Craig Bloomberg - "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels." And.. "The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues and Commentary." Bloomberg ascribes the Gospel to John the Apostle, as do many other scholars for important reasons overlooked by many skeptics. By F.F. Bruce - "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" And... "The Canon of Scripture." By Robert E. Van Voorst - "Jesus Outside the New Testament." - a discussion of the historical Jesus from sources outside of the New Testament, such as Thallos, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and others. By John Wenham - "Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke." He suggests that the synoptics were probably written much earlier than the traditionally accepted dates. And I would also suggest an excellent commentary on John's Gospel from a scholar who spent 10 years on research: By Andrreas J. Kostenberger "John" - Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament. Kostenberger is of the opinion that the Gospel was probably written by John the Apostle. And then concerning arguments for the resurrection and the Historical Jesus according to the Gospel accounts: By Gary R. Habermas - "The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence For the Life of Christ." By Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland - "Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus." By Ben Witherington III - "The Jesus Quest: The Third Search For the Jew of Nazareth." By Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona - "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus." By N.T. Wright - "The Resurrection of the Son of God." By Luke Timothy Johnson - "The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest For the Historcial Jesus and the truth of the Traditional Gospels." And By Frank Morrison - the classic - "Who Moved The Stone?: A Sceptic Looks at the Death and Resurrection of Christ." And finally, in response to JTaylor: "Given the propensity for human myth-making and twisting of stories (which still happens in modern myths), it’s hard to distinguish what could be real and what isn’t. Until better evidence comes along, I’m still going to take the course of applying reasonable doubt that what we have in the gospels is not entirely historical accurate. Certainly not enough at least to base a life-altering decision." Myths can go both ways. There are scholars who have produced myths concerning the historicity of Jesus (Witherington's book discusses this at length), and others who prefer to stick with the facts. I have found in my studies of the historical Jesus that it is the skeptics who have produced the most mythical and preposterous scenarios in order to deny the veracity of the gospels. I think you will find that if you research the subject more in-depth, that the true nature of Christianity as a life-changing belief (and not necessarily a religion based in myth) will surface. I should add that there is much myth in the history of Christianity, yet the original accounts are as far from myth as one can get if you take an honest approach. The first disciples were as mystified by the resurrection as anyone else, but they later came to faith. I don't blame anyone for taking a skeptical approach to the gospels, for what they propose might on the surface seem preposterous. However, I have looked into these matters for some 30+ years with some initial skepticism and doubt, and after researching and comprehending much of the skepticism, I have to say that the gospels make more sense as truth than as myth. The necessary first cause of everything that exists had us in mind, and left us with an account of His wrestling with us, and of his incarnation into the world of human beings. I'll end it here as this post has gotten rather long. I hope the sources I provided will lead you in directions you may not have thought of going. Let's keep the discussion going.CannuckianYankee
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT
----JTaylor: "No I’m not ignoring the prophecies. And space does not permit a refutation of all them. But certainly many have been convincingly refuted. Here’s a good place to start: http://debunkingchristianity.b.....lenge.html" I didn’t find that website very helpful. The host of that website does not seem to be familiar with either the quantity or quality of the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus or the extent to which they did indeed manifest themselves in historical events. In fact, please don’t be offended, he doesn’t seem to have investigated this matter at all. If I was a skeptic and someone told me that there are 459 Old Testament prophecies about Christ, I would not rely too heavily on someone who lists three or four and ignores hundreds of others. I would get the impression that he was stacking the deck. Wouldn’t you? Anyway, here are about seventy five of them. I can list hundreds more. As the Son of God Ps 2:7 Lu 1:32,35 As the seed of the woman Ge 3:15 Ga 4:4 As the seed of Abraham Ge 17:7 22:18 Ga 3:16 As the seed of Isaac Ge 21:12 Heb 11:17-19 As the seed of David Ps 132:11 Jer 23:5 Ac 13:23 Ro 1:3 His coming at a set time Ge 49:10 Da 9:24,25 Lu 2:1 His being born of a virgin Isa 7:14 Mt 1:22,23 Lu 2:7 His being called Immanuel Isa 7:14 Mt 1:22,23 His being born in Bethlehem of Judea Mic 5:2 Mt 2:1 Lu 2:4-6 Great persons coming to adore him Ps 72:10 Mt 2:1-11 The slaying of the children of Bethlehem Jer 31:15 Mt 2:16-18 His being called out of Egypt Ho 11:1 Mt 2:15 His being preceded by John the Baptist Isa 40:3 Mal 3:1 Mt 3:1,3 Lu 1:17 His being anointed with the Spirit Ps 45:7 Isa 11:2 61:1 Mt 3:16 Joh 3:34 Ac 10:38 His being a Prophet like to Moses De 18:15-18 Ac 3:20-22 His being a Priest after the order of Melchizedek Ps 110:4 Heb 5:5,6 His entering on his public ministry Isa 61:1,2 Lu 4:16-21,43 His ministry commencing in Galilee Isa 9:1,2 Mt 4:12-16,23 His entering publicly into Jerusalem Zec 9:9 Mt 21:1-5 His coming into the temple Hag 2:7,9 Mal 3:1 Mt 21:12 Lu 2:27-32 Joh 2:13-16 His poverty Isa 53:2 Mr 6:3 Lu 9:58 His meekness and want of ostentatious Isa 42:2 Mt 12:15,16,19 His tenderness and compassion Isa 40:11 42:3 Mt 12:15,20 Heb 4:15 His being without guile Isa 53:9 1Pe 2:22 His zeal Ps 69:9 Joh 2:17 His preaching by parables Ps 78:2 Mt 13:34,35 His working miracles Isa 35:5,6 Mt 11:4-6 Joh 11:47 His bearing reproach Ps 22:6 69:7,9,20 Ro 15:3 His being rejected by his brethren Ps 69:8 Isa 63:3 Joh 1:11 7:3 His being a stone of stumbling to the Jews Isa 8:14 Ro 9:32 1Pe 2:8 His being hated by the Jews Ps 69:4 Isa 49:7 Joh 15:24,25 His being rejected by the Jewish rulers Ps 118:22 Mt 21:42 Joh 7:48 That the Jews and Gentiles should combine against Him Ps 2:1,2 Lu 23:12 Ac 4:27 His being betrayed by a friend Ps 41:9 55:12-14 Joh 13:18,21 His disciples forsaking him Zec 13:7 Mt 26:31,56 His being sold for thirty pieces silver Zec 11:12 Mt 26:15 His price being given for the potter's field Zec 11:13 Mt 27:7 The intensity of his sufferings Ps 22:14,15 Lu 22:42,44 His sufferings being for others Isa 53:4-6,12 Da 9:26 Mt 20:28 His patience and silence under suffering Isa 53:7 Mt 26:63 27:12-14 His being smitten on the cheek Mic 5:1 Mt 27:30 His visage being marred Isa 52:14 53:3 Joh 19:5 His being spit on and scourged Isa 50:6 Mr 14:65 Joh 19:1 His hands and feet being nailed to the cross Ps 22:16 Joh 19:18 20:25 His being forsaken by God Ps 22:1 Mt 27:46 His being mocked Ps 22:7,8 Mt 27:39-44 Gall and vinegar being given him to drink Ps 69:21 Mt 27:34 His garments being parted, and lots cast for his vesture Ps 22:18 Mt 27:35 His being numbered with the transgressors Isa 53:12 Mr 15:28 His intercession for His murderers Isa 53:12 Lu 23:34 His Death Isa 53:12 Mt 27:50 That a bone of him should not be broken Ex 12:46 Ps 34:20 Joh 19:33,36 His being pierced Zec 12:10 Joh 19:34,37 His being buried with the rich Isa 53:9 Mt 27:57-60 His flesh not seeing corruption Ps 16:10 Ac 2:31 His resurrection Ps 16:10 Isa 26:19 Lu 24:6,31,34 His ascension Ps 68:18 Lu 24:51 Ac 1:9 His sitting on the right hand of God Ps 110:1 Heb 1:3 His exercising the priestly office in heaven Zec 6:13 Ro 8:34 His being the chief corner-stone of the Church Isa 28:16 1Pe 2:6,7 His being King in Zion Ps 2:6 Lu 1:32 Joh 18:33-37 The conversion of the Gentiles to him Isa 11:10 42:1 Mt 1:17,21 Joh 10:16 Ac 10:45,47 His righteous government Ps 45:6,7 Joh 5:30 Re 19:11 His universal dominion Ps 72:8 Da 7:14 Php 2:9,11 The perpetuity of his kingdom Isa 9:7 Da 7:14 Lu 1:32,33StephenB
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
I have a question for JTaylor: do you concede that the probability of a miracle occurring at a given place and time is greater than zero? Of course, if you believe that the probability of a miracle occurring is precisely zero, then no amount of evidence could possibly convince you, and you'd be wasting your time even discussing it, let alone examining it. I would also be wasting my time if I were to engage in debate with you about this or that alleged miracle. But if you are willing to concede that the probability of a miracle is greater than zero, then my question is: how much greater do you think it is? I'd like a number, please, or at least a method for calculating one. Why do I ask for a number? Typically, I find that skeptics say that the probability of a miracle is very low, but they never say how low. Then, when you show them a well-attested miracle - and there are many, as anyone can easily find by Googling "Catholic miracles" - they turn around and propose a highly improbable naturalistic explanation for the alleged event, but strenuously insist that however far-fetched their explanation may be, a miracle is still more far-fetched. However, that kind of argument cannot be put forward by someone who thinks the probability of a miracle occurring at a given place and time is one in a million, say. For such a person, if a bizarre event which is alleged to be miraculous takes place, then a one-in-a-billion rival naturalistic explanation of the event in question will cut no ice, as it will lack plausibility. So what's your cutoff point, JTaylor? That's what I want to know. By the way, I think you may like to read Alfred Russel Wallace's "An Answer to the Arguments of Hume, Lecky, and Others, Against Miracles" (1870) at http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S174.htm . Wallace was an avowed evolutionist, yet he was not afraid to follow the evidence, wherever it led. Wallace makes a very suasive case against Hume's prejudiced refusal to countenance miracles, and his arguments should give skeptics pause. Regarding the evidence for Christianity in general and Christian prophecies in particular (which were never meant to persuade 21st-century skeptics like yourself), I think you would do well to look at the writings of an expert Christian apologist. I refer you to Glenn Miller, who I might add is an unfailingly courteous correspondent. Glenn Miller's Web site can be found at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ . Enjoy!vjtorley
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
Lutespisc: "Lapide considers these to be possibilities. However, he notes that believing that they were transformed by their own delusions requires more credulity than believing that they were telling the truth…that they actually had encountered the Risen Christ…and that, indeed is what gave rise to their transformation and to the inception of the Church which would in a couple of hundred years overwhelm the very government which had put their leader to death." I'm sorry you are frustrated with my reply - I thought I was reasonably clear in my response. I guess what I'm saying is that I disagree with Lapide, because of the simple reason that we can look at the formation and rise of any number of religions or cults and see a very similar phenomena. Religious history has show us over and over that despite the most serious and what outsiders would perceive as a death blow to a person's faith, people carry on believing. Look at the Jehovah's Witnesses and their multiple predictions of the End of the World. They still carried on and still do today. So yes, auto-suggestion, self-deception, mass delusion and probably any number of other psychological processes could have been at play. The fact that Christianity has been successful as a religion is not necessarily evidence of its veracity. It's no wonder that some people hypothesize that religion is perhaps like a 'virus' of the mind which once it has a hold is extraordinarily difficult to throw off. As I said above, Christianity has been extraordinarily successful, but again I say we don't need a Risen Christ to explain that. How do you also encounter for the success of Islam (which by all accounts will eventually outstrip Christianity in membership)?). I'm sure that you wouldn't attribute that to the glory of Allah.JTaylor
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
A brief metacomment: I find it quite fascinating that this thread should appear and grow to the length that it has on a website that, by its own description, is supposed to be about scientific investigation and empirical verification of the hypothesis that biological evolution has occurred by means of intelligent design. This thread (and the post that heads it) appears to me to be entirely concerned with theological and quasi-historical arguments about the existence and significance of a particular human being who may or may not have lived approximately two thousand years ago and may or may not have said and done certain things, none of them explicitly or implicitly related to scientific investigation. How, precisely, is this related to either evolutionary biology or intelligent design?Allen_MacNeill
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
I think the point you’re making is that Christianity has been enormously successful, despite the fact that its founder was killed and allegedly brought back to life. You argue that “something must have happened” beyond autosuggestion that explains this success. But that argument doesn’t hold much water when you look at other religions.
Oy. This can be a frustrating medium! I will try one more time, and then give up. The point I’m making elaborates on Lapide’s point. (I want to give credit where it’s due.) Like the majority of historians of that period, Lapide accepts the historicity of Jesus. In researching the historical record, Lapide notes that whatever movement Jesus initiated within first century Judaism ended with his humiliating crucifixion. His followers--peasants, shepherds, and fishermen--abandoned him. The disillusionment they must have experienced in the wake of such a decisive, crushing blow to the movement is captured nicely in Luke’s gospel, when two of Jesus’ disciples explain to a stranger, “We had hoped he would be the one to redeem Israel.” Nevertheless, very soon thereafter, this ragtag band of formerly disillusioned followers are changed into “a confident mission society, convinced of salvation and able to work with much more success after Easter than before Easter.” The rapid growth of the Church in the Roman Empire is a measure of this. What happened? What would explain this revolutionary transformation in Jesus’ followers? They themselves uniformly attribute the transformation to their encounters with the Risen Christ. But were these encounters merely a function of their grief? Auto-suggestion? Group hallucinations? Self-deception? Lapide considers these to be possibilities. However, he notes that believing that they were transformed by their own delusions requires more credulity than believing that they were telling the truth...that they actually had encountered the Risen Christ...and that, indeed is what gave rise to their transformation and to the inception of the Church which would in a couple of hundred years overwhelm the very government which had put their leader to death. That’s about as clear as I can make it. (Lutepisc over and out…) P.S. Of course Mohammed was “a real person.” Is anyone arguing otherwise??Lutepisc
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
JTaylor, "I guess then God should not have given me a mind that thinks in logical, scientific ways." Romans 9: "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory." Sorry, we could go on sparring all night, but it's 3am and I'm tired now. Thanks for your stimulating arguments - You generate good sermon fodder for me.flaminia
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
" I would personally be sceptical of one which proffered scientific proof of its integrity. For God does not stoop to such cheap devices as scientific proof to communicate with man, nor to save him." I guess then God should not have given me a mind that thinks in logical, scientific ways. Don't you think though that if God had provided some scientific evidence, it could have saved all of us immeasurable hours in debating and arguing that could have been used more profitably (perhaps caring for the needy?). Your last sentence is a keeper!JTaylor
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
Forgive me for writing further on religion, rather than on science. I was not going to, and indeed pledged not to in my earlier post, but other posts from Christians with a religious flavour (indeed a fervour) followed mine and were evidently not excised by the moderator (a lapse perhaps in a seasonal concession to Easter?), so I have decided after all to enlarge on my earlier comment regarding miracles. For au contraire, JTaylor, the line between ‘miracle’, and ‘sign’ is most specific. Though I confess that in my earlier post I was not bothering to define my terms unless someone took the bait. You have, so here are the definitions; By ‘miracle’ I was meaning any phenomenon regarded as beneficial (sidebar food for thought, can a miracle be ‘not beneficial’?) occurring without immediate natural and/or scientific explanation and thus ascribed as a supernatural event, especially optimistically by adherents of the religion whose supernatural author (ie ‘God’) the otherwise immediately unexplainable event is ascribed to. Acts 8:13 mentions both words (‘miracles’ and ‘signs’), thus indicating a doctrinal distinction. By ‘sign’ I was meaning that category of ‘super miracles’ which God and Jesus are recorded as accomplishing in the Old and New Testaments of the Christian bible which, in the manner of a regenerated limb, indisputably evidence that something deeply spooky has just occurred. They are thus doctrinally categorized as ‘signs’, in other words, confirmations of God’s existence, and/or confirmations of the authenticity and God-given authority of a prophet, scriptural author, teacher or Messiah. Mark 16:20 “…they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.” A miracle is usually something which assists or encourages people who are already of the household of faith, though it can also function as evidence of God to unbelievers. But a sign is much more specific and weighty. It is something chiefly directed at unbelievers which says ‘I am the true God and you can ignore the bleedin’ obvious at your peril’. And many such signs are recorded in the Bible for our (your) edification and spiritual salvation. ‘Signs’ are specifically what the unbelieving non-Christian world (and theface) want or indeed expect God to serve up for their benefit as proof of His existence. But Jesus said in Matthew 16:4 “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.” Noteworthy is that the calibre of signs which atheists demand as proof of God’s existence is exactly that which distinguishes the passages in the Bible which they deny and ridicule the most, ie, six day (or any) universe creation, young earth, sun standing still, Moses’ staff into snake, instant leprosy healings, virgin birth, resurrections, etc etc, plus, to answer another of JTaylor’s objections, the divine preservation of scripture. In other words, the critical driving factor to Dembski’s gainsayers in this general debate is not disbelief in God as designer and creator, but rejection of Christ as a personal saviour, mentor and governor. For if our mind is already made up not to submit to Jesus as governor of our life, then we will not be persuaded of the existence of God and Christ’s veracity even if we see an amputated limb regenerated. For as Abraham said to ‘Dives’ in Luke 16:29 “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them”. And (Dives) said, “Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent”. And (Abraham) replied to him, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead”. Some examples of miracles contrasted with signs: God’s creation in Genesis 1 was a miracle, but God’s creation in Genesis 2 of specific animals from the ground in Eden as possible ‘helpmates’ for Adam was a sign. This is not as some would have it, a contradictive cocked up rewriting of the events in Chapter 1. It is God evidencing his creative power and thus lordship in front of Adam’s eyes. For had Adam not witnessed God’s special creation of extra animals and plants in Gen 2, then he too might have concluded that he came about through evolution. The confusion of tongues at Babel was a sign. The flood was a miracle, but the prior instruction given to Noah for an ark was a sign. Sarah’s birth of Isaac was a miracle. Lot’s wife turning to a pillar of salt was a sign. Moses’ staff turning to a snake and back was a sign. The parting of the Red Sea was a miracle. The Manna from heaven was a sign. The destruction of Jericho was a sign. Samson’s slaying of a thousand enemies with the jawbone of an ass was a miracle. The sun standing still while Joshua fought was a sign. The dew only on Gideon’s fleece but not the ground around it was a miracle. But this was not enough for Gideon – He wanted more assurance that there was a God and that God was on his side, so the dew next morning on the ground around, but not on the fleece, was a sign. The preparation of a large fish to rescue Jonah from drowning in a storm, preserve him underwater for three days and then deliver him on land again was a sign. Elijah being fed by ravens was a miracle. Elijah calling down fire from heaven to ignite soaking wet wood was a sign. (and I might incidentally add here that Elijah specifically set this scenario up as a scientific experiment to provide reliable data for current best estimate based on evidence available for which God, if any existed at all, was worth following. Daniel’s survival in the lion’s den was a miracle. The survival of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace was a sign. The writing on the wall at Belshazzar’s feast was a sign. Christ turning water into wine was a miracle. Christ giving sight to a man notoriously blind from birth was a sign. Christ healing a woman who touched the hem of his garment was a miracle. Christ raising Lazarus from the grave was a sign. The death, resurrection and ascension of Christ was a sign. Occasionally in scripture an entire string of connected miraculous events constitutes, in whole, a sign. Thus, Job’s sufferings and restoration were a sign (to Satan, no less). The whole life of Joseph (Old Testament), a series of ‘lucky’ escapes and coincidences, is a sign, and as such, Joseph is a typification of Christ: Gen 50: 20 “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.” Compare this to the parallel passage in Acts 2: 22 “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death… …Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” The apostles and scripture writers continued to display signs of their God-given authority up until such time as the canon of scripture was complete, at which point, signs, being thus redundant, ceased, for their purpose as demonstrated by the apostles and scripture writers was to prove the veracity of their preaching and writing. Miracles however, arguably continue, as testimony, not of God’s existence, or of the veracity of the Bible (for we already have those assurances because of the earlier signs given) but of his continuing goodness and mercy. We are saved by grace through faith, faith being the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? (Romans 8 and Hebrews 11), and it is for this reason that I repeat, in choosing a religion, I would personally be sceptical of one which proffered scientific proof of its integrity. For God does not stoop to such cheap devices as scientific proof to communicate with man, nor to save him. For it is actions based on belief, not on knowledge, which shape and signify our true moral condition. God does not give us proofs of his existence. Instead, He gives us signs, and the signs, like all good signs, point us in the correct way. We have free will to choose a less advisable direction, and we are welcome to fritter away a lifetime scientifically testing numerous hypotheses, whose results, however convincing, we will reject or embrace according to a deeper prejudice entirely disconnected from science.flaminia
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Lutepisc said: "Oh, dear. You completely missed my point there, JTaylor. I was not intending to say that the Church is a supernatural entity. My statement about the existence of the Church being the strongest evidence (IMO) for the resurrection was intended to elaborate on the Pinchas Lapide quote I had just given you. Here it is again:..." I think the point you're making is that Christianity has been enormously successful, despite the fact that its founder was killed and allegedly brought back to life. You argue that "something must have happened" beyond autosuggestion that explains this success. But that argument doesn't hold much water when you look at other religions. There are about 1.5 muslims in the world. By all accounts that makes it a very, very successful religion. And Muslims can be as revolutionary, fervent, enthusiastic and committed as any Christian. What are we to attribute this to? Are they suffering from autosuggestion or self-deception but Christians are not? So since Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive there are several possibilities: 1) Muslims are self-deceived and Christianity is true 2) Christians are self-deceived and Muslims are self-deceived, or 3) Both religions are self-deceived and there is a psychological process going on whereby large numbers of people build a belief system based on mythical stories. I think 3) is a distinct possibility and a much better fit of the evidence, particularly with what we now know about how the mind works. After all some might argue that there is more historical evidence that Mohammed was real person that then is for Jesus!JTaylor
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
To Hazel - many thanks for the compliment. I've also been very much enjoying your posts too and wish I had your knowledge and expertise in the philosophical arguments. Keep them coming!JTaylor
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
StephenB said: "As I pointed out earlier, your point loses its force based on the fact that the Gospel’s offer multiple witnesses, observing at multiple times, and in multiple contexts. Besides, you are alluding to only one study, which may not even be valid. Has your source convinced the U.S. Court systems to stop prosecuting criminals on the basis of eyewitness testimony? I would like to examine this study." I'm not sure how many perspectives the Gospels provide considering that it seems well-established that the Gospel writers borrowed from each other and from "Q". As to the source I mentioned, Elizabeth Loftus, I believe she and others have attempted to influence the legal system (for example, look up the Center of Psychology and Law at the University of Irvine). StephenB said: "We have thousands of people witnessing these things. Your only real objection is that you disbelieve all the reports because they are contained in the Bible." Who are these thousands of people? We have a written report that thousands of people witnessed these things. We don't have thousands of people who have reported witnessed these things. It would be similar to going to a large even where thousands of people were present and me writing that hundreds of people saw a UFO. That's very different from individual corroborated accounts. What we have in the Bible is a few witnesses (none of them contemporary) reporting that other witnesses saw these things. StephenB: "Most respectable scholars are on board with the attributed authorship of the four gospels and most of the other New Testament books." I would research this more. I don't think it's just the Jesus seminar who are disputing this. Just take the Gospel of Mark - it is very unclear who wrote this (the gospel itself is after all anonymous). A lot of authorship attribution is based on tradition, not any real solid evidence. StephenB: "Once again, you are conflating religions that were simply conceived out of thin air with the Christian religion which was based on historical facts. It’s not the same thing at all. With regard to claims about miracles, those things can be tested by scientists and have been. Indeed, it is the scientists and medical professionals who confirm miracles attributed to saints as a part of the Canonization process for the Catholic Church. Do your other religions submit to that kind of scrutiny?" I think its the historical facts that are in dispute here. I have no reason to believe Christianity has any more historical veracity than Islam or other religions. I'm not going as far as saying Jesus was mythical but there are very good reasons to think that what we know about the historical Jesus is probably inaccurate. As to non-Christian miracles - yes there are some reports from Christian Science, reiki, spiritualism etc that claim they have seen healings that have been medically attested. As to whether they have been as rigorously researched as the Catholic church I don't know. Another interesting source is to also look a Protestant healing ministry such as Benny Hinn which has a very dubious track record. We must remember too that spontaneous recoveries and remissions occur that have no religious or spiritual context. And let's not forget that Christian prayer for healing is probably most of the time ineffective and goes unanswered. If healings do occur they are certainly rare and not common. StephenB: "What about my earlier point about the prophecies being fulfilled as historical manifestations [all 459 of them]? What about the fact that Jesus claimed to be God? What about the fact that the Christian religion produced all the cultural institutions that I alluded to in an earlier post. You seem to be consciously skipping over all the arguments that promise to answer your objections." No I'm not ignoring the prophecies. And space does not permit a refutation of all them. But certainly many have been convincingly refuted. Here's a good place to start: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/09/100-challenge.html And this article poses an interesting question: if one prophecy can be categorically refuted does that not shed doubt on all of them?JTaylor
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee: "If you think 20 years is a long time, consider the ancient sources for Alexander the Great; Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, Diodorus, and Justin. All of these were written more than 300 years after Alexander. Now there may be historical disputes about the details and reliability of some of these sources, yet no reasonable historian doubts that an accurate depiction of Alexander’s exploits can be gleaned from these accounts." I have no doubt that this is true and that a lot of our history could be wrong. But on the other hand I'm not being asked to make a serious life-altering decision on the life of Alexander or accept him as my savior. CannuakianYankee: "On the other hand, we have the gospels, written some 20 to 60 years after the actual events, not to mention the accounts from the Church fathers, writing from 100 to 250 years after the events, and we have “scholars” from such questionable organizations as the Jesus Seminar (who use colored beads and a popular vote) to cast doubt on the very sayings of Jesus as mentioned in the gospels. It’s laughable." It's not laughable when there is very serious doubt about who actually wrote the gospels. The whole tradition and edifice of Christianity is built then on documents whose authorship is not even properly known. CannuckianYankee: "I was involved in a discussion one time when I was exclusively debating atheists online. At that time I didn’t know as much as I know now about the sources of ancient histories. This person explained that one would expect some contemporary writings about Jesus, since he was so influential according to the gospels. This might be true in context with current events, but we are talking about the ancient world, when the printing press had not been invented, and average people did not have access to writing materials as readily as we have today. Papyrus was expensive. Those writing the gospels would have had to make sacrifices in order to obtain those materials. Also writing on Papyrus took time. It could take years to write a gospel on papyrus." No doubt that may all be accurate - but it still does not resolve the issue of whether we have a reliable historical account or not. The gospels depict some very improbable and unusual events (miracles, resurrections etc). Given the propensity for human myth-making and twisting of stories (which still happens in modern myths), it's hard to distinguish what could be real and what isn't. Until better evidence comes along, I'm still going to take the course of applying reasonable doubt that what we have in the gospels is not entirely historical accurate. Certainly not enough at least to base a life-altering decision. Yes, I could apply "faith" and maybe I'll even have some spiritual experiences as a result but as we all know from other religions that in itself is not proof either.JTaylor
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
So Lapide also concluded “something happened.”
I'm afraid I still didn't make my point very clearly, JTaylor. As Lapide might put it (and I probably got this from him), there is a resurrection-shaped hole at ground zero. Correct...no one witnessed the actual blast, but you can see the aftereffects spreading from ground zero clear out to the present, with Christianity the largest religion in the world.Lutepisc
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
JTaylor, thank you for your considered and thoughtful replies.
Even in modern times, with modern communications, myths and legends are easily propagated (look what happened on 9/11). My issue is that there is always some considerable amount of doubt remaining as to whether these events really took place, or whether the events took place but the stories have become so completely elaborated that we cannot really know what happened.
Yes, let’s take 9/11 as an example. Millions of people were eyewitnesses to that event, yet if you took the time to interview each of them that very evening, it is highly unlikely that any two narratives of the event would be the same. Every one of those millions of people witnessed the event from a different perspective, and brought a different set of investments and emotions to those perspectives. Nevertheless, surely you would agree that something happened. Something huge, in fact. And in many ways it is not possible to get beneath those millions of perspectives in order to give a purely objective account of exactly what happened. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, New Testament scholars attempted to peel away the unique perspectives which each of the gospel writers brought to the narrative, in order to uncover what Jesus was really like. This agenda has been called “the quest for the historical Jesus,” as you probably know. However, it soon became apparent that those pursuing the quest had their own perspectives and investments, which influenced their determinations about what was “authentically Jesus” and what was not. In the latter half of the 20th century, most mainline biblical scholars gave up this quest as futile, and decided instead to mine those differences in perspective and see if we could listen anew to what the gospel writers were trying to say, understanding that they were not acting as journalists as we might think of narrative writers today, but theologians as well. We have learned quite a bit about the unique perspectives of the gospels this way. I would agree that an element of faith is involved in affirming that “something happened” about which the New Testament authors are writing (just as a certain amount of faith is required for you to believe that there's actually a human typing at a keyboard somewhere, producing what you're now reading). At the same time, I believe there is also a significant amount of evidence that “something happened” which prompted the New Testament writers to write. In fact, this ties in nicely with what I would like to address next. You wrote
Well, yes the Church still persists. But looking at the modern Church today, I’m not sure (IMHO) I see much evidence of the involvement of a supernatural entity.
Oh, dear. You completely missed my point there, JTaylor. I was not intending to say that the Church is a supernatural entity. My statement about the existence of the Church being the strongest evidence (IMO) for the resurrection was intended to elaborate on the Pinchas Lapide quote I had just given you. Here it is again:
[A]fter studying the relevant historical documents, [Lapide, a historian who is an orthodox Jew] noted: “When these peasants, shepherds, and fishermen, who betrayed and denied their master, and then failed him miserably, suddenly could be changed overnight into a confidant mission society, convinced of salvation and able to work with much more success after Easter than before Easter, then no vision or hallucination is sufficient to explain such a revolutionary transformation …. If the defeated and depressed group of disciples overnight could change into a victorious movement of faith, based only on autosuggestion or self-deception - without a fundamental faith experience - then this would be a much greater miracle than the resurrection itself. In a purely logical analysis, the resurrection of Jesus is ‘the lesser of two evils’ for all those who seek a rational explanation of the worldwide consequences of that Easter faith.”
So Lapide also concluded "something happened." And finally, you wrote
As to the people who draw on their experiences (presumably people living now), again that is also questionable. It’s questionable because we know that many people in different religious traditions, spiritual practices also can claim positive ratification of their beliefs. Buddhists do. Sufis do. New Age practitioners do. Muslims do. They will all speak (at length) to the “experiences” of their faith and how real and tangible these experiences are.
Sure. I don’t negate those experiences at all...nor do I believe theirs negate mine. Nor do any of those you mentioned negate any of the others you mentioned. (Sufis, in fact, are Muslims.)Lutepisc
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply