Science and Theology, the sequel

04/05/2008 12:52:16 AM · #76

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We've already seen wiki shows at least somebody disagrees that there is much evidence that Mithras worship was pre 1st century.

If all you want is evidence that Mithra was pre 1st century, that's easy. Mithra is a Zoroastrian figure, well cited as such here. Zoroastrianism is recorded in MANY relics, sculptures and Greek writings long before any hint of Christianity. A simple example, referenced here: "Zoroastrianism had a significant influence on Greek and Roman philosophy. Several ancient Greek writers such as Eudoxus of Cnidus and Latin writers such as Pliny the Elder praised Zoroastrian philosophy as "the most famous and most useful". Plato learned of Zoroastrian philosophy through Eudoxus and incorporated some of its teachings into his own Platonic realism. In the 3rd century BC, however, Colotes accused Plato's The Republic of plagiarizing parts of Zoroaster's On Nature..." For a specific reference to Mithra, note that this deity figures prominently in the Zoroastrian calendar, dating from at least several hundred years BCE. Now, you're welcome to follow the links and citations, but suffice it to say that we have tangible, dated evidence of Mithra's worship well before any mention of Christianity. This much we know.

Now let's consider that aforementioned inscription. Like I said, I never even heard of Mithra until the discussion came up here. As I'm sure you've discovered, there are dozens of references to "the Seleucid temple at Kangavar in western Iran (c. 200 BC), which is dedicated to "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras" on sites like Wiki, various encyclopedias, Iranian history pages, etc. What you're apparently asking for is the source of that claim- a perfectly sound request when considering its reliability. I couldn't find the source in a brief search, but therein lies the problem with any claims of ancient history or mythology... we don't have the benefit of a film crew from LX Minutes to confirm it.

You can find a detailed comparison of Mithra and Christianity here, complete with the names of researchers like Christian apologist Sir Arthur Weigall. The catch is, I don't really know if Sir Weigall actually made the claims attributed to him, I don't know what HIS sources were, and I don't even know if he was a Christian apologist. I only know that this particular website claims to quote Weigall, and if I found another researcher repeating those claims, it's still not proof. And so it is with the Gospels- whether it's 59AD or 70AD, we don't know anything of Mark's evidence other than what he says and others repeat. For that matter, we don't even know if Mark and Luke were really those authors' names. Why would such miraculous events only be relayed by a few people anyway? You can bet if 500 people in MY town witnessed a resurrected Jesus or 5,000 people were fed from a few loaves of bread you'd have lots of direct eyewitness accounts, not just a handful of 3rd party claims several decades later.

04/05/2008 01:55:35 AM · #77

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
I just don't see the evidence that chance mutations could, based on statistical probabilities, ever be able to result in the construction of complex organs such as eyes. The Rollex is a lot less complex and it didn't come into existence by chance so why should or would an eyeball? An eye wouldn't be much of an advantage if it took chance mutations to occur over a vast span of time to achieve its current usable form. It wouldn't have been the result of one or two chance mutations but millions it would seem. Why would natural selection favor an organ that performed no function until complete? What is the source or cause of the mutations to begin with?

Your watch example is absurd. Is there a survival advantage to be gained from wearing a Rolex? Is there a clear path one could follow in the fossil record in species that have worn Rolexes that show the progression of a less complex Rolex to a more complex Rolex? You have stated that you now understand evolution by natural selection better, but I don't think you're there yet.

In reference to the eye, Watch Richard Dawkins explain its evolution using models. As the world's best authority on the subject, he can explain it better than anyone here.

Oh no, I watched the video. That is honestly the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. The guy talks about evolution as if it were God. He gives it personage. He says it has no foresight to know where it is going as if it can remember what it's already done. He describes the formation of the eye as being a gradual process that evolution takes to eventually form an entire human style eye but I would think that all of these steps would have to be random mutations by what we have already agreed upon right? what do you suppose the statistical probability would be that all of the random mutations occurred in just the right order to create an eye. Then think what would the statistical probability be of forming the biology of hearing and smell and taste all cohesively to form a human head be. All of course through random mutation. Then consider that it would all have to be taking place at the same time to speak nothing of the other organs of the body. While I will grant you that mutations occur and sometimes they work in favor of an organism the human head and all of its senses not to even mention the brain could not have been produced through random mutations and natural selection. It takes way more faith to believe this than to believe in God. As far as the Rollex watch your right it wouldn't have evolved and it didn't. Neither would the eye have. Does evolution have consciousness and seek to achieve goals like building an eye. Do the organisms somehow have control over their own supposedly random mutations. That would make more sense than saying it just happened by chance and then was carried forward by natural selection. He is saying that each step in the evolution of the eye was in essence a better design over the previous providing better information to the brain of the organism. How does he explain that the same basic mutations took place in the exact same order among many many differing species. Doesn't sound like random mutations at all... Sounds like someone had a plan. If an organism did get light sensitive cells through random mutation how would it then know how to interpret the information it received. Did the mutation somehow give the organism instincts to go along with the light sensitiveness? How would it even have a concept of what light is to interpret it. How did the first sense much less complex than the eye and achieved through this random mutation and natural selection get interpreted and indeed how did they benefit the organism when no other organism had any senses. At one time wouldn't it be that there wasn't any life. How does the theory accomodate going from no life to some. In that case there was nothing to mutate. No reproduction. Evolution is a terrible theory. It just doesn't hold water to explain the complexities of the human body. It's very weak science. Too much has to be presupposed without evidence. Let's face it. Science does not know how we became as we are or any other life form got to be how it is. This is just a theory and a poor one at that.

04/05/2008 02:16:39 AM · #78

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
. . . In science the Christian God holds about as much water as the turtle holding the earth up on it's back I read about in the previous thread. You can't prove it by things you can have knowledge of by use of our 5 senses. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just means you can't prove it. It is most definitely not science at all and does not belong in a science class.

All excellent and good, but the minute you wish to make public policy or dictate how individuals should interact with each other -- not to mention determining what should be taught in science and other school classrooms -- you must provide some "proveable" reason for doing so. "Because my holy book says..." or "Because I believe..." is inadequate and awash in galling amounts of hubris. If we lived in a perfect world, anyone attempting to persuade based on such would be laughed and jeered off of the public stage -- perhaps some rotten apple throwing would also be appropriate.

Now here is where we have a genuine disagreement. As I said just because you can't prove it in science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You agree. To many, as has been pointed out, it is a certainty however. How they come to this certainty aside it is to them a certainty. They being people who are citizens of this United States who have every right indeed a duty if they are worth a plugged nickel to vote their conscience. This United States is supposed to be of the people by the people and for the people. If you don't agree with that then let me know and we can discuss but as such they have every right to vote for public policies that reflect their view of life and how it should be lived just like you do. Everyone gets a vote (with some exceptions, convicted felons for instance). I being a Christian would not vote for someone who wants our schools to teach intelligent design as if it were science. That is my right to support the person that most closely holds my views and personally I would find that to be a travesty. The other guy would have to be way off the mark in other even more important areas to me in order for my vote to go to the guy who would want to teach intelligent design as a science topic. Others who don't agree with me have the right to vote how they want as well. No proof has to be given and no arguments are necessary. Indeed our voting is done in secret to protect the right of the voter to vote his conscience without fear of reprisal. I'd hate to get a rotten apple in the back of my head for what I know to be true. Thank God I don't have to persuade you so that I can vote for who I want and the ideas and beliefs they represent.

04/05/2008 02:22:47 AM · #79

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by chalice:
That does not mean that I think that the universe necessarily always existed or that it began out of nothing on its own. I think it is more probable that a Creator set things in motion.

Your suspicion that the universe hasn't always existed and was instead created by something even more complicated that HAS always existed does not necessarily make the latter more probable. If a Creator can exist independently of a creator, then it should be even more likely that the same is possible of something considerably simpler.

On the assumption that you meant to say a "...Creator can exist independently of a creation..." [rather than creator], I wonder if the Creator can be simpler than the creation? One possibility would include the Creator having no mass or volume but being pure enhanced thought, for example. The argument here would be that this matter can be created out of thought, maybe as an extension of telekinesis of a high order not experience by humans. If conditions outside the finite universe are such that the physics, chemistry, etc. that we see don't exist but were created exclusively for the universe, is there an argument either way that the Creator would have to be more complex? I guess it seems logical to think so. But can the Creator just be different so the idea of complexity vs simplicity can work in either direction or isn't even part of the equation? I suppose this query is pretty far out there, but I don't remember reading any philosophical arguments about this. Just wondering out loud.

Regardless of how you might respond to the preceding paragraph, I don't see how something simpler is more likely to pre-exist infinitely than something that is more complex. It seems plausible that the extra "stuff" that the complex entity has may allow for eternal infinite pre-existence whereas the absense of that "stuff" inhibits infinite pre-existence in the simpler entity. I may be missing the thrust of your argument, but I don't see the logic in it. I'm just asking, can you elaborate?

04/05/2008 02:39:19 AM · #80

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
it is through science and the immense volumes of scholarly research, that we can deduce much of the historical context of scripture - as has been plainly illustrated by the most recent discussion (and example references) by Chalice.

We can deduce that some of the characters existed as real people, but not that any of the actions or conversations attributed to them ever took place - as has been plainly illustrated by the example of Davy Crockett.

If you can't deduce "historical context" or any of the "actions or conversations" attributed to characters who existed, as you suggest, then we had better notify the history departments of all colleges and universities to disband. We'll let the audio-visual department define the scope of "historical context" and "actions or conversations". We also better tell the court system that testimony of what an individual said or did can no longer be proven by circumstantial evidence.

Suffice it to say that I think you are painting with a brush that is far too broad. [And even Davy Crockett had an historical context that tells us he didn't wrestle a bear at age 3 or whatever your example was.]

04/05/2008 03:37:02 AM · #81

Originally posted by scalvert:

Much has also been made of Paul's conversion as evidence of his conviction, but even that story is suspect...

Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

I am currious to know what translation you are using. I have several translations and none of them match those words. A citation would be appreciated.

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) translates the text as follows:

Acts 9:7 "And the men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one."

Acts 22:9 "And those who were with me beheld the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me." Notes to the text indicate that some translations replace "understand" with "hear with comprehension".

[NOTE: "While preserving the literal accuracy of the 1901 ASV, the NASB has sought to render grammar and terminology in contemporary English. Special attention has been given to the rendering of verb tenses to give the English reader a rendering as close as possible to the sense of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. *** The original NASB has earned the reputation of being the most accurate English Bible translation. The NASB update carries on the NASB tradition of being a true Bible translation, revealing what the original manuscripts actually say--not merely what the translator believes they mean."]

The English Standard Version (ESV) translates the text:

Acts 9:7 "The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

Acts 22:9 "Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me." The word "understand" is also translated "hear with understanding"

[NOTE: The ESV is an "essentially literal" translation that "seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. It seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original."] It is what is known as a "word" for "word" translation, keeping to the literal meaning of the original languages as much as possible given differences in language.

These literal translations make it clear:

The men who traveled with Paul saw the light but not the person of Jesus. They heard the voice but did not understand what was being said. Apparently they were in on the experience, but did not receive the message which was directed to Paul. It was Paul who had been persecuting Christians and it was Paul who was instructed by Jesus to start supporting him and his church. The fact that the men who were with him heard something and saw a light meerly suggests that the message was not directed to them. As these "literal" translations make clear there is no inconsistency. The story is not "suspect" as you suggest. Moreover, if the story had been a fabrication, the author of the book of Acts would have had no trouble making sure he wrote it the same way in both chapters. It is illogical to think that someone who goes to all the trouble to write the book (and Luke was a physician fluent in formal Greek) could not even proof his own text to make it consistent.

Message edited by author 2008-04-05 03:48:01.

04/05/2008 03:57:40 AM · #82

Originally posted by dponlyme:

First off I am a Christian. I know that God exists without a doubt.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

No - you believe that God exists; you have faith that God exists. No matter how firm that belief is, it cannot accurately be described as "knowledge." If you think about it, even you should agree given what you say about God not wanting to be "proveable" by science. If God is not proveable, then we can only have belief not knowledge. If you have faith, that is fine, and by definition, your faith should be enough for you. I always find it curious, however, that believers want to elevate faith to certainty -- if you have true faith, why do you need certainty? For me, no other characteristic of religious belief more eloquently illustrates the state of doubt that must necessarily accompany it.

I know that God exists because I have a relationship with him. What you are saying is kind of like saying that I only have faith or believe that I love my mother. It's certainly not proveable by science but I assure you that it is very real.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

I have a personal relationship with him. He talks to me through his Holy Spirit who lives in me and through me and all other true Christians. I know without a doubt that he (being intelligent beyond all comprehension) did design this universe and in particular us intelligently.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

So Christians who don't believe in God as the literal creator are not "true Christians"?

I never said that. You have a logical error here. Just because I know without a doubt doesn't mean that other true Christians have come to that certainty. True Christians experience a gradual change much like is supposed in the evolution theory except it is a spiritual progresstion instead of a physical one. It is the case that a person could be a true Christian while holding that God was not the creator of the Universe but merely a caretaker or whatever but if they progressed by submitting to the Holy Spirit and learning from him they would eventually come to the correct understanding and knowledge of his acts in creation. It sometimes takes a long time to learn as we are stubborn.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Because surely, if all "true Christians" are receiving direct input from God through the Holy Spirit, all "true Christians" must be able to come to agreement on what God wants us to do and to be, which holy books are accurate and what they mean, and which organized church is "correct" and "true" - right?

See above answer. We are all not at the same level of understanding. Indeed some who are the most adamant in their interpretation of scripture do not even know and have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. They are not true Christians and therein lies the definition of true Christians. They have a relationship with their creator. Many supposed Christians never get it. They go to Church every Sunday to be seen of the people and pray amiss such that their prayers are worthless. They go about their supposed Christian lives with wrong motives and they get nothing for it because they refuse to submit to the will of the Holy Spirit. This is the only way to have relationship to God. You must serve him and not yourself.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

BTW - when you meet someone who says that they also receive talks from God through the Holy Spirit which lives in them, and their religious beliefs don't agree with your own, how do you judge who is really hearing the Holy Spirit accurately? Do you just assume it's you? What method do you use to decide? What method do you use to persuade the other of his or her inaccuracy, or yourself of your own? What "authority" (since most people of religious belief don't like the word "evidence") do you resort to if the conflict cannot be resolved?

Scripture.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

You have a greater statistical chance of a rollex watch (much less complex than a human or any animal) coming together in the primordial ooze than you ever would the formation of for instance an eyeball without intelligent design. Think about that.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

As others have already mentioned, this is not evolution - this is the straw man that religion has created in an attempt to mock evolution. And make no mistake, evolution must be mocked. Evolution and a traditional belief in God are not compatible. Try going back to Spain or Rome in the 1500s and making an argument to Christian authorities that evolution and Christian theology are compatible. Good luck with that. Heck, go back to the early Christians and make the argument. Bring a good pair of running shoes.

Evolution is a horrible theory. It should be mocked. Read my replies to others on this subject. However I can see how organs such as eyes and brains and such may possibly have developed over time as evolution holds but it is the cause of the 'mutations' that I would dispute. I submit it was an intelligent designer and the mutations are not based on random chance mutations and natural selection but a plan. This is just my opinion and is not something the Holy Spirit has taught me.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

As many have pointed out science and God are not mutually exclusive. Science is merely the study of God's creation and is by it's very nature rarely fully correct. It is always being revised when new information becomes available. For instance it was once thought that the smallest particles were protons, neutrons and electrons. It's what I was taught in school. Now they say there are even smaller particles I believe one of which is called a quark. Science agrees with itself that it was wrong.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Herein lies the true difference between belief and science. The very strength of science - its ability, no... its deliberate nature and intention to constantly question and test it's own hypotheses, and then adjust its tenants when new or better evidence becomes available, is seen as a weakness by those of strong religious belief. This makes sense. Questioning and testing are actively discouraged by all major religions. When followers actively question and test, they don't stay followers very long. Science never says "this is the way it is" - science says "given all the available evidence, this is the best model available of the way it is." New evidence becomes available, new tools make better measurements or methods available, science gleefully takes that new evidence into account and rigorously tests its previous models against the new evidence. Religious belief clings like a drowning man to any evidence that even appears to bolster its beliefs and summarily rejects any and all evidence which undermines those beliefs.

I love science in general. It's very interesting to learn about how God's creation works insofar as we are capable. I cannot speak for all organized religions or even the organized Christian religion of which I am not a part but I think that science and religion are not mutually exclusive entities that are diametrically opposed.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Also, who is it who is coming up the the new evidence and the new methods? Scientists. Science is never satisfied, science is never secure. The old guard may resist the new in science, but the old guard is always and inevitably overthrown. Science is constant revolution, refinement, and rejection of anything that cannot stand against scrutiny.

You are aware that there are Christian Scientists.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Since God is so much more intelligent than the created we don't really know squat about the universe. We are limited by our meager 5 senses. If we can't see it, touch it, taste it, smell it or hear it then we tend to assume it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Actually we're not nearly so limited - science has given us measuring tools and methods that go so far beyond the capabilities "hardwired" into our bodies. We cannot see distant stars, but radio telescopes provide us the view. We cannot touch the event horizon of a black hole, but our mathematics can express and illustrate them for us. And while we may assume that things we cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear do not exist, the scientist will look for ways to test if our assumptions are truly correct. In fact, the scientist will look for ways to test whether the things that we do see, touch, taste, smell or hear are actually true as well, or whether they are just the fancies of our primate brain.

In any of these instances you cite as going beyond our hardwiring the truth is that we use instruments that then translate whatever they can detect into a form that our hardwired senses can detect. In other words you can never truly go beyond those hardwired senses. We simply get a representation of the actual from which we can infer what is actually happening. All of these tools were designed in response to things that we could detect with our meager 5 senses. Science only deals with the physical universe and doesn't portend that their is anything else. It's also the reason that science shouldn't be taught in Sunday school anymore than intelligent design should be taught in science class.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

I thank God that he gave us only these senses as our tiny little brains couldn't handle the full truth. Not sure if this falls in line with the rest of what you all are discussing but these are my thoughts on Science and Religion.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

We couldn't handle the truth? Why not? If he created us, isn't that his/her/its fault? If the truth is so wonderful -- because God is truth and God is wonderful, right? -- then why wouldn't he/she/it want that truth for its creations as well? Doesn't the parent want the child to be more than the parent? What a petty and cruel God it must be to want such hobbled and feeble creations as its worshipers.

You are free to have this opinion of God but from my perspective it is not my place to judge God and his wisdom seeing as he created me. The pot does not say to the potter 'why have you made me this way?'

Message edited by author 2008-04-05 04:18:11.

04/05/2008 05:29:29 AM · #83

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Evolution and a traditional belief in God are not compatible. Try going back to Spain or Rome in the 1500s and making an argument to Christian authorities that evolution and Christian theology are compatible. Good luck with that. Heck, go back to the early Christians and make the argument. Bring a good pair of running shoes.

Hyperbole. This is a gratuitous statement devoid of meaning. If we go back to the 1500s or to the early days of Christianity there is no theory of Evolution to discuss and no reason to discuss compatibility or the lack thereof.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Actually, dponlyme is correct. Science and God are not mutually exclusive. If you believe that they are then you haven't read anything by Paul Davies, Professor of Mathematical Physics, Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, and Stephen Hawking, to name a few. You might also want to look up the following organizations: European Society for the Study of Science and Theology, the Science and Religion Forum, and the Berkeley Center for Theology and Natural Science. Now with names like those organizations have, what do you suppose they are exploring? In point of fact, they are exploring precisely the areas where religion and science overlap and where one discipline can inform and amplify the other (going in both directions). Ever since the steady state theory was run out of town by the big bang theory it became obvious to many mainstream and eminent scientists and theologians alike that maybe there was more to this connection than met the eye. How interesting is it that science, which stepped out from the world of religion in the Renaissance in the persons of Sir Isaac Newton and Galileo (both practicing Christian scientists) as well as others, is now willing to take a look at its commonalities with religion in the 21st Century?

As British physicist P. T. Landsberg has observed, "To talk about the implications of science for theology at a scientific meeting seems to break a taboo. But those who think so are out of date. During the last 15 years, this taboo has been removed, and in talking about the interaction of science and theology, I am actually moving with a tide." William Lane Craig, What is the Relation between Science and Religion?

I would postulate that those who think that religion and science are mutually exclusive (regardless of whether they are theologically oriented or scientifically oriented) are out of touch with current thinking and are in danger of being left behind in their respective disciplines. Too often, those who are of that ilk are simply nurturing insecurities, have an axe to grind, or need to take a good long look at themselves in the mirror. They also need to look at the opposite discipline than the one in which they are steeped, with fresh eyes and an open mind (they don't have to change their position, they just have to begin asking sincere questions of themselves).

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Bravo for science. *he says, standing and clapping* That is as it should be. Without that attitude, science withers away and dies. An open mind, a willingness to test new ideas, ...and a willingness to dialogue with theologians in matters of common concern. THAT is the stuff of true science.

And as for the theologians? The same thing is going on. What do you think all of the religious scholars are doing digging in the sands of the middle east, translating every scrap of new papyrus they can find and debating among themselves the meaning of every significant word in the ancient texts, with an open mind and willingness to test new ideas, ...and a willingness to dialogue with scientists in matters of common concern. THAT is the stuff of true religion.

No man or woman of stature, whether scientist or theologian needs to fear a search for the truth. ...and the great ones don't fear. That does not mean that either side or any individual within his or her respective community must or should abandon strongly felt, believed, and tested convictions pending further understanding. Nor does it mean that we all need to have some form of mushy politically correct way of avoiding intellectual conflict where real intellectual conflict exists. But it does mean that we should be intellectually honest enough to draw from both sides of the aisle where commonality exists and where maybe, just maybe, the other side has an idea worth exploring (even if we think in our heart of hearts and neuron of neurons that the idea will eventually prove wrong).

And in my humble opinion, holding that "Evolution and a traditional belief in God are not compatible" is at most a half-truth and builds intellectual walls where walls do not need to be built.

What's so wrong with a scientist exploring whether a Creator is behind the universe? What is so wrong with a theologian exploring the validity of Evolution as a process that explains the development and extent of species? I say nothing is wrong with either. And the individual who can not do it while still holding on firmly to what he or she has tested and learned and believes to be true (up to this point in time) is, in his or her own way, a form of radical fundamentalist, whether a scientist or a theologian.

edited to correct spelling

Message edited by author 2008-04-05 12:56:17.

04/05/2008 06:46:32 AM · #84

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Paul's conversion should give at least some pause for thought. Something must have happened to him to cause such an about face. Not only does Paul go from persecuting Christians to their champion, but he also goes from devout Pharisee, the utmost keepers of the law, to one who feels that freedom of the law is critical. These are BIG changes.

Sure, I agree, it doesn't prove anything. It is however, one piece of information to tie in with lots of others. All the disciples died violent deaths (except John). To me that indicates at the very least they believed Jesus had risen from the dead (or you'd figure at least one would have recanted at the prospect of being flayed or crucified or boiled, etc). This makes them unlikely candidates for having moved the body and I'm not really sure who else would have done it. That argument may not speak to you, but it does to me.

Originally posted by Louis:

This all presupposes that Paul actually had a conversion

Let's see on day A he is a Pharasee who is approving the stoning of Christians. One day later, day B, he is championing the cause of Christians and foresaking his own considerable orthodox roots. In between he says he had a rather startling experience bearing directly on that issue. And everything in his life turns upside down on that watershed experience. And you question whether he had a conversion?

I think the prima facie case has been established. Now how about some evidence from your side of the argument? Endless questioning is not evidence.

Originally posted by Louis:

...that the disciples were actual people and not allegories using the well-known motif of "twelve followers" lifted from older stories...

How do we know the disciples were actual people? Well, the existence of the Christian church is a pretty good indicator that someone started it. Nero was executing Christians in big numbers in A.D. 64. And all those apocryphal and extra-Biblical books that didn't make it into the Canon that atheists like to bring up, seem to suggest that the disciples were real people (so even the adversarial writings weigh in on this one). Somebody back then was pretty busy if it wasn't "actual people" who started the early church and had it sweep through Asia Minor so fast that Nero was ticked off. You know, I don't remember the last time I saw an allegory start an organization, and so successfully too. I'll bet it was that pesky "motif" that did it.

Speaking of "motifs", what number works? How about eleven? Nope. That rhymes with heaven and would be an obvious literary device that would totally discredit the disciples. Can't use seven for the same reason, and besides everyone knows seven is used repeatedly by the Jews in the Old Testament. That would be copying from an older known religion. Same with ten (Commandments) and fourteen and fifty (Jubilee year). These fishermen, carpenters, tentmakers, tax collectors, etc. in Galilee must have really been up on their ancient "motifs" to borrow a number like twelve. I got an idea, lets take a poll of twelve carpenters, fishermen, etc. today and see how many of them even know what the word "motif" means much less what modern-day "motifs" may be running around in society now. I suspect the "motif" knowledge of carpenters hasn't changed alot in 2000 years.

Originally posted by Louis:

...and that the entire text is completely reliable in all that it says without needing any collaborative data from other sources whatsoever.

I think you'll have to wait until the end times to have proof quite that meticulous.

While we are waiting for the end times why don't we use the same standard of proof for, say, evolution. Let's make sure the "entire [fossil record] is completely reliable in all that it says without needing any collaborative date from other sources whatsoever" before we bother to rely on the theory or teach it to young, impressionable minds. Let's not limit it to evolution (I don't have a particular bone to pick with evolution - bad pun) when we can use that unimpeachable standard to all of science. If that's your argument you've already lost in the court of public opinion. I dare say even Mr. Dawkins doesn't take that position (but maybe he does. I'm just starting his book.)

Canon FD 70-210mm �4.0 MF

04/05/2008 06:49:53 AM · #85

It's late. I'm outta here. So many arguments...so little time.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

04/05/2008 10:59:17 AM · #86

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
. . . In science the Christian God holds about as much water as the turtle holding the earth up on it's back I read about in the previous thread. You can't prove it by things you can have knowledge of by use of our 5 senses. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just means you can't prove it. It is most definitely not science at all and does not belong in a science class.

All excellent and good, but the minute you wish to make public policy or dictate how individuals should interact with each other -- not to mention determining what should be taught in science and other school classrooms -- you must provide some "proveable" reason for doing so. "Because my holy book says..." or "Because I believe..." is inadequate and awash in galling amounts of hubris. If we lived in a perfect world, anyone attempting to persuade based on such would be laughed and jeered off of the public stage -- perhaps some rotten apple throwing would also be appropriate.

Now here is where we have a genuine disagreement. As I said just because you can't prove it in science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You agree.

Actually, I don't agree. When I said "all excellent and good" I meant that I didn't have a problem with you believing in things that you have absolutely no evidence for. Your individual belief is none of my business. The minute you want to base legislation or dictate others actions on that unfounded belief, you need to provide some other source of persuasion.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/05/2008 11:01:30 AM · #87

Originally posted by chalice:

Sure. Why should I take him at his word? What compels me to do so, especially when he asks of me, in the context in which the letters were written for example, to give up my life of acquiring knowledge through observation, and simply accept that he had some kind of supernatural experience that should change everything for everyone from this point forward? Sorry, more than a few scribblings are going to have to do that for me.

Originally posted by chalice:

I think the prima facie case has been established. Now how about some evidence from your side of the argument? Endless questioning is not evidence.

Evidence for what, exactly? For the fact that he has written something that is unsubstantiated and may not be truthful? Sorry, but you've reversed the burden of proof. Wild claims are the responsibility of the claimant to prove, not one who disputes them to disprove. Paul could have two believers, or two billion; a mass of adherents doesn't in itself indicate any level of veracity. I for one refuse to take occult claims that sound more like a psychotic episode at face value. And I think you'll find that "endless questioning" that results in no answers is in itself rather the point.

Originally posted by chalice:

Speaking of "motifs", what number works? How about eleven? Nope. That rhymes with heaven and would be an obvious literary device that would totally discredit the disciples.

Ridicule aside, as I mentioned in reference to Peter, there is nothing preventing a few well-known names being attached to the figures of a mystery cult early on in any movement to give it a genuine aroma. The fact that Christians were hunted down in the sixties, about the same time as the competing and suspiciously similar Mithraic cult was a force majeure in the Empire, is hardly surprising. Is it proof that there were twelve real, live apostles? I fail to see the connection.

Originally posted by chalice:

Originally posted by Louis:
...and that the entire text is completely reliable in all that it says without needing any collaborative data from other sources whatsoever.

I think you'll have to wait until the end times to have proof quite that meticulous.

Indeed. Thank you for so elegantly making the point.

I'll choose to let your weak analogy to evolutionary theory stand. It's just a tad too ridiculous.

Message edited by author 2008-04-05 11:06:25.

04/05/2008 12:49:32 PM · #88

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
. . . In science the Christian God holds about as much water as the turtle holding the earth up on it's back I read about in the previous thread. You can't prove it by things you can have knowledge of by use of our 5 senses. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just means you can't prove it. It is most definitely not science at all and does not belong in a science class.

All excellent and good, but the minute you wish to make public policy or dictate how individuals should interact with each other -- not to mention determining what should be taught in science and other school classrooms -- you must provide some "proveable" reason for doing so. "Because my holy book says..." or "Because I believe..." is inadequate and awash in galling amounts of hubris. If we lived in a perfect world, anyone attempting to persuade based on such would be laughed and jeered off of the public stage -- perhaps some rotten apple throwing would also be appropriate.

Now here is where we have a genuine disagreement. As I said just because you can't prove it in science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You agree.

Actually, I don't agree. When I said "all excellent and good" I meant that I didn't have a problem with you believing in things that you have absolutely no evidence for. Your individual belief is none of my business. The minute you want to base legislation or dictate others actions on that unfounded belief, you need to provide some other source of persuasion.

Why do you sidestep the substance of my reply to focus on quibbling about wether there is evidence of that which there can be no scientific evidence of. It's beyond the realm of science. Reply to the substance. Do I or should I have the right to vote in accordance with what I know to be true regardless of your own lost state? Indeed I feel that you have the right to vote your conscience. Why do you think that you should be able constrain my reason for voting for something or someone to what can be proved to you?

I also want to let you know that I do have evidence of God's existence. It's not the kind of evidence that falls into a scientific category however. It can only be expressed anecdotally. As I wrote previously to someone else there is no scientific evidence that I love my mother. I assure you that I do and it is very real. I sincerely hope that you love your mother but I think it would be impossible for you to prove it to me scientifically. First you would have to define Love in a scientific context. It would have to be measurable and it is not so you can't. According to your 'beliefs' if it can't be proven to you then it shouldn't be able to be considered in legislation or dictating public policy. Why should the limitations of science be my guiding light. No, just because your mind is so small that it cannot conceive that science even has limitations is no reason for me to follow in lock step. I won't and I suspect that very few will.

Message edited by author 2008-04-05 13:12:37.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

04/05/2008 01:52:38 PM · #89

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Sorta like EITHER argument for or against abortion? Or interpretation of the fourth amendment? Or doctor assisted suicide?

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/05/2008 01:55:38 PM · #90

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by chalice:
Let's see on day A he is a Pharasee who is approving the stoning of Christians. One day later, day B, he is championing the cause of Christians and foresaking his own considerable orthodox roots. In between he says he had a rather startling experience bearing directly on that issue. And everything in his life turns upside down on that watershed experience. And you question whether he had a conversion?

Sure. Why should I take him at his word? What compels me to do so, especially when he asks of me, in the context in which the letters were written for example, to give up my life of acquiring knowledge through observation, and simply accept that he had some kind of supernatural experience that should change everything for everyone from this point forward? Sorry, more than a few scribblings are going to have to do that for me.

I don't think either of us are trying to make you believe Paul's conversion was "supernatural" but rather that he had a conversion at all and that gives us (at least) pause for thought. If Paul himself admits he used to persecute Christians and now does not, doesn't that imply the conversion of a man? (none of this two people or a group of people garbage).

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/05/2008 02:00:22 PM · #91

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Evolution is a terrible theory. It just doesn't hold water to explain the complexities of the human body. It's very weak science. Too much has to be presupposed without evidence. Let's face it. Science does not know how we became as we are or any other life form got to be how it is. This is just a theory and a poor one at that.

Oh my yes... much better to believe that some almighty power created everything out of the blue... and that his man/god son gave rise to Christianity and that it is the only true religion.

Sorry, but what you offer is not all that plausible.

Ray

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

04/05/2008 02:11:53 PM · #92

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
BTW - when you meet someone who says that they also receive talks from God through the Holy Spirit which lives in them, and their religious beliefs don't agree with your own, how do you judge who is really hearing the Holy Spirit accurately? Do you just assume it's you? What method do you use to decide? What method do you use to persuade the other of his or her inaccuracy, or yourself of your own? What "authority" (since most people of religious belief don't like the word "evidence") do you resort to if the conflict cannot be resolved?

Scripture.

Hardly a reliable and definitive source, considering that the meaning of scripture is totally subject to interpretation and has been used to justify all manner of atrocities and injustices. You might as well reference "Ulysses".

Message edited by author 2008-04-05 14:12:53.

04/05/2008 03:00:14 PM · #93

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
Evolution is a terrible theory. It just doesn't hold water to explain the complexities of the human body. It's very weak science. Too much has to be presupposed without evidence. Let's face it. Science does not know how we became as we are or any other life form got to be how it is. This is just a theory and a poor one at that.

Oh my yes... much better to believe that some almighty power created everything out of the blue... and that his man/god son gave rise to Christianity and that it is the only true religion.

Sorry, but what you offer is not all that plausible.

Ray

What you fail to realize is that I am not promoting God as the creator in the form of a scientific theory. I think you hit the nail on the head when you imply that you "believe" evolution. The problem is that in the scientific realm there is no room for "beliefs" there is only objective evidence. Evolution theory does not hold scientific water. You cannot objectively state that God does or does not exist. I can objectively state that evolution theory does not explain based on the evidence how we came to be as we are.

Message edited by author 2008-04-05 15:18:22.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

04/05/2008 03:13:30 PM · #94

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
Evolution is a terrible theory. It just doesn't hold water to explain the complexities of the human body. It's very weak science. Too much has to be presupposed without evidence. Let's face it. Science does not know how we became as we are or any other life form got to be how it is. This is just a theory and a poor one at that.

Oh my yes... much better to believe that some almighty power created everything out of the blue... and that his man/god son gave rise to Christianity and that it is the only true religion.

Sorry, but what you offer is not all that plausible.

Ray

What you fail to realize is that I am not promoting God as the creator in the form of a scientific theory. I think you hit the nail on the head when you imply that you "believe" evolution. The problem is that in the scientific realm there is no room for "beliefs" there only objective evidence. Evolution theory does not hold scientific water. You cannot objectively state that God does or does not exist. I can objectively state that evolution theory does not explain based on the evidence how we came to be as we are.

Hitting the nail on the head does not mean "implying" anything, if anything, "hitting the nail on the head" requires a direct statement.

Evolution holds a lot more water than the fantasy of divine creation.

04/05/2008 03:20:00 PM · #95

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
Evolution is a terrible theory. It just doesn't hold water to explain the complexities of the human body. It's very weak science. Too much has to be presupposed without evidence. Let's face it. Science does not know how we became as we are or any other life form got to be how it is. This is just a theory and a poor one at that.

Oh my yes... much better to believe that some almighty power created everything out of the blue... and that his man/god son gave rise to Christianity and that it is the only true religion.

Sorry, but what you offer is not all that plausible.

Ray

What you fail to realize is that I am not promoting God as the creator in the form of a scientific theory. I think you hit the nail on the head when you imply that you "believe" evolution. The problem is that in the scientific realm there is no room for "beliefs" there only objective evidence. Evolution theory does not hold scientific water. You cannot objectively state that God does or does not exist. I can objectively state that evolution theory does not explain based on the evidence how we came to be as we are.

Hitting the nail on the head does not mean "implying" anything, if anything, "hitting the nail on the head" requires a direct statement.

Evolution holds a lot more water than the fantasy of divine creation.

Again I am not trying to say that God as creator holds water scientifically. It is not a scientific theory. Doesn't science deal in certainty? Shouldn't it have to hold all of the water and not just a lot more anyway. Science is always changing. Maybe they will find more evidence and it will disprove evolution theory altogether. Would you 'believe' in evolution theory at that point or are you so closed minded that you would still hold to evolution or would you prefer they declare a moratorium on further scientific study of the matter to make sure your own closely held views stand up?

I also note with great interest that you do not deny having a 'belief' in evolution theory.

Message edited by author 2008-04-05 15:52:43.

04/05/2008 03:47:31 PM · #96

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
BTW - when you meet someone who says that they also receive talks from God through the Holy Spirit which lives in them, and their religious beliefs don't agree with your own, how do you judge who is really hearing the Holy Spirit accurately? Do you just assume it's you? What method do you use to decide? What method do you use to persuade the other of his or her inaccuracy, or yourself of your own? What "authority" (since most people of religious belief don't like the word "evidence") do you resort to if the conflict cannot be resolved?

Scripture.

Hardly a reliable and definitive source, considering that the meaning of scripture is totally subject to interpretation and has been used to justify all manner of atrocities and injustices. You might as well reference "Ulysses".

I'll agree with you that to a person who does not have a personal relationship with God that the Bible is and should be considered foolishness. We were talking about two people who have a relationship with God and are in submission to His will and how they would attempt to reconcile their differing views. As such this presupposes that the Bible is not foolishness but the very Word of God. Under that presupposition then the two would be wise indeed to consult the scriptures in any matter of disagreement. When doing this they may still not come to agreement because of our human failure and insufficiency to fully comprehend the mind of God. The Bible actually discusses this and how we then should deal with one another when agreement can not be reached. It is a living document to a believer and not static as is presupposed by someone without a knowledge of God's existence. I don't expect you to understand this as your heart and mind are obviously closed to the whole idea that there could be a god to begin with.

Message edited by author 2008-04-05 15:52:28.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

04/05/2008 03:58:51 PM · #97

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
Evolution is a terrible theory. It just doesn't hold water to explain the complexities of the human body. It's very weak science. Too much has to be presupposed without evidence. Let's face it. Science does not know how we became as we are or any other life form got to be how it is. This is just a theory and a poor one at that.

Oh my yes... much better to believe that some almighty power created everything out of the blue... and that his man/god son gave rise to Christianity and that it is the only true religion.

Sorry, but what you offer is not all that plausible.

Ray

What you fail to realize is that I am not promoting God as the creator in the form of a scientific theory. I think you hit the nail on the head when you imply that you "believe" evolution. The problem is that in the scientific realm there is no room for "beliefs" there only objective evidence. Evolution theory does not hold scientific water. You cannot objectively state that God does or does not exist. I can objectively state that evolution theory does not explain based on the evidence how we came to be as we are.

Hitting the nail on the head does not mean "implying" anything, if anything, "hitting the nail on the head" requires a direct statement.

Evolution holds a lot more water than the fantasy of divine creation.

Again I am not trying to say that God as creator holds water scientifically. It is not a scientific theory. Doesn't science deal in certainty? Shouldn't it have to hold all of the water and not just a lot more anyway. Science is always changing. Maybe they will find more evidence and it will disprove evolution theory altogether. Would you 'believe' in evolution theory at that point or are you so closed minded that you would still hold to evolution or would you prefer they declare a moratorium on further scientific study of the matter to make sure your own closely held views stand up?

I also note with great interest that you do not deny having a 'belief' in evolution theory.

Your post just shows your ignorance of science.

I don't believe in evolution, since, as you define it, belief requires faith.

Evolution is the logical conclusion based on the physical evidence.

Creationism requires blind faith in something that has no physical evidence aside from some pseudo-historical writings that are no more likely to be true than any fairy tale.

Message edited by author 2008-04-05 16:03:02.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5