Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

[Doulos]

Doulos, the first part of your claim is a fairly simple one that comes down to whether we believe that such miracles and wonders can happen in the physical world. The second part is laden with Christian theology such that we can't even approach it if we don't accept its assumptions.

Please note what you wrote here. I agree with you fully in it, and therein lies part of the problem. The determining factor in assessing the first claim ("Are the event claims of Christianity true") comes down to our pre-conceived notions of what is possible. In other words, the logical fallacy of Begging the Question/Petitio Principii. Barring a paradigm shifting event, we essentially see what we expect to see.

Forgive my naivete, but why does this (truth) make such a big difference? I've never understood why such things, and not, say, the great commandment or golden rule, are the sine qua non of Christianity.

A good question DWill. As a person who has come to accept Christian belief, the key determinant was that I became convinced that these claims were true.

As a follower of Christ, I would certainly say that we SHOULD live out what is taught in our interactions with the world, and so do 'good deeds.' But this is not the point of Christ's teachings, these are merely the natural consequences of them. The key point is that God so loves each of us, that he has offered a way for us to reconcile ourselves and draw near to him.

In other words, the focus on deeds is a focus on the external trappings. The important thing is actually what God is doing inside our hearts. Part of this is love, but part is also truth, because both of these ae characteristics of God.

I'm not sure if that will make sense to you, so please allow me to tell you a story (a true one at that). An aging Communist leader met with a Christian worker. He commented that he had lived his life for the revolution; had fought, suffered and struggled to see it come to fruition. Yet 50 years after victory had been won, he saw no one following the precepts that they had fought for except when forced. No one that is except for two people. Both were Christians.

He had arranged for the meeting because he wanted to know this Christ.

The outward trappings are meaningless unless the inner heart has been changed. This isn't a matter of human action, but an act by a living and loving God.

[Doulos]

Can you cite one of these credible critiques? Thanks.

If the Bible is truly God's word, then matters of internal contradiction are major stumbling blocks.

Many supposed contradictions are merely secular misunderstandings of what the Bible teaches, but some are not. There are answers to most of these questions, but these answers are not universally accepted or always clear. A few of these include:

1) How can God be love (and that perfect love casts out fear), and yet also assert that the beginning of wisdom is fear of God?

2) How can God be omnipotent and predestine every event, yet we still say that we have free will?

3) If God is greater than Satan, why is Satan allowed to act? The book of Job is interesting here.

[Dexter]

In other words, formal logic cannot give a answer here due to the nature of available evidence. Any decision about the credibility (or lack thereof) of biblical claims would have to be made on other basis.

In other words, criticising people's 'logic' in this regard is rather meaningless. Any choice either pro or con would have to be based on other (admittedly less reliable on the most part) methods.

Forget about formal logic. I don't think anyone is claiming you can prove or disprove any of these claims with logic.

The question still stands, what evidence of any kind do you have for believing the claims of the Bible? You believe that the people writing these stories are credible witnesses, or are credible as a secondary source. Other than willingness to be persecuted, it's not clear why this should be convincing, particularly given the extraordinary nature of these claims compared to normal human experience. Aside from this, maybe you just have a subjective feeling that it's true and you just have faith, correct? There's little point in defending your position on this basis. How could there be?

[Interbane]

As you note: "Corroboration would not PROVE the reliability of biblical claims." (I'm not worried about the absurdity of a word. I understand your meaning.)

In other words, formal logic cannot give a answer here due to the nature of available evidence. Any decision about the credibility (or lack thereof) of biblical claims would have to be made on other basis.

How do you go from the first part to the second? Do you consider corroboration to be a part of formal logic? To me, it only makes sense. If you think I'm still relying on formal logic here, you'll have to show me where.

In other words, criticising people's 'logic' in this regard is rather meaningless. Any choice either pro or con would have to be based on other (admittedly less reliable on the most part) methods.

If you're able, please show me an example of the methods you're referring to. Explain how you can find support for believing the bible is true.

[Robert Tulip]

Jesus Christ to be the only hope for reconciliation with a living God.

I agree that Jesus Christ is the only hope for reconciliation with a living God, but only if we understand Jesus as pure cosmic myth and the 'living God' as allegory for nature.

If the claims of the Bible are false, then quite frankly the whole thing should be done away with as a fraud.

The falsity of Biblical literalism does not mean the Bible is meaningless or of no value. The allegory of fall and redemption provides a powerful explanation of history. The trouble is, supernatural delusion is part of the fall, and has to be abandoned to find redemption. No supernatural claims are true.

there are very real critiques against belief in what the Bible asserts, but I do not think that rationality/science is really one of them ... we cannot prove or disprove the claims of the Bible.

This attack on science makes me question Doulos' grasp of the topic. Of course science provides a real critique of Biblical assertions. It is only through science that we know the world was not made in seven days. Through science we know that all men have a Y chromosome from a human father, so if Jesus Christ did not have a human father he was not a man.

Many Biblical claims are readily disproved by their impossibility. Others, such as the Historical Jesus, are rendered near impossible by the existence of vastly superior explanatory hypotheses to understand how the texts were written. Doulos is telling us, 'abandon all reason ye who enter here', rather like the sign above the gates of hell in Dante's inferno.

[DWill]

Please note what you wrote here. I agree with you fully in it, and therein lies part of the problem. The determining factor in assessing the first claim ("Are the event claims of Christianity true") comes down to our pre-conceived notions of what is possible. In other words, the logical fallacy of Begging the Question/Petitio Principii. Barring a paradigm shifting event, we essentially see what we expect to see.

As far as these pre-conceived notions are concerned, the greatest problem I see with you (or anyone) believing in these suspensions of ordinary physics, is the partiality of such belief. If your notions allow for such events, they should expand to encompass all such claims by any party. But I'm fairly sure you would not credit the extraordinary claims of other religions or individuals as possible events. The question is, why not?

I'm not sure if that will make sense to you, so please allow me to tell you a story (a true one at that). An aging Communist leader met with a Christian worker. He commented that he had lived his life for the revolution; had fought, suffered and struggled to see it come to fruition. Yet 50 years after victory had been won, he saw no one following the precepts that they had fought for except when forced. No one that is except for two people. Both were Christians.

He had arranged for the meeting because he wanted to know this Christ.

The outward trappings are meaningless unless the inner heart has been changed. This isn't a matter of human action, but an act by a living and loving God
This is not really in answer to your story, but it's from my own experience and addresses the point I raised about what should be (to my thinking) the keystone of a religion. I was for a number of years a member of a Christian Church. There were some good things about the experience. One part of the weekly meeting came to bother me more and more, however. When it came time to "stand and say what we believe," what happened? Everyone rose and recited robotically a creed wherein all sorts events and relationships were sworn to be true. I never could lose the conviction that right there, a tremendous opportunity was being missed. Is that all there was to this, that we believe that certain things happened? Even if they did happen, what is so important about things that merely happened? So this was one stumbling block.

[Doulos]

As far as these pre-conceived notions are concerned, the greatest problem I see with you (or anyone) believing in these suspensions of ordinary physics, is the partiality of such belief. If your notions allow for such events, they should expand to encompass all such claims by any party. But I'm fairly sure you would not credit the extraordinary claims of other religions or individuals as possible events. The question is, why not?

Good question DWill.

Some context for my comments may help. I did not come to a belief in the contents of the Bible by logic or the beliefs of my family/background.

My reality did not allow for any such claims. I was a healthy, happy Agnostic/Atheist who suddenly perceived someone communicating with me. Try as I might to evade or ignore the 'person,' they would not stop. That 'person' proved their reality to me, and all indicators I was given pointed to the God of the Bible as the source.

I absolutely understand that this sounds impossible. Yet, I cannot deny what I went through though.

[Doulos]

This is not really in answer to your story, but it's from my own experience and addresses the point I raised about what should be (to my thinking) the keystone of a religion. I was for a number of years a member of a Christian Church. There were some good things about the experience. One part of the weekly meeting came to bother me more and more, however. When it came time to "stand and say what we believe," what happened? Everyone rose and recited robotically a creed wherein all sorts events and relationships were sworn to be true. I never could lose the conviction that right there, a tremendous opportunity was being missed. Is that all there was to this, that we believe that certain things happened? Even if they did happen, what is so important about things that merely happened? So this was one stumbling block.

Absolutely DWill. Some churches have built structures and rituals that create a 'mood' or an emotional response. There is more to God than this though.

In my travels, I've often had to find new church fellowships to worship with. I've found the important elements for me were:

a) teaching and reliance upon scripture
b) an active support for missions/missionaries
c) people who try their best to love one another
d) a willingness to challenge and be challenged in our words and actions, where these stray from God

I found that other things were more cultural or optional, but if these things were there, then the key elements were sufficient. This is not to ignore culture completely though, since we each also have certain cultural aspects which we favour and are most comfortable being around.

[Doulos]

The falsity of Biblical literalism does not mean the Bible is meaningless or of no value. The allegory of fall and redemption provides a powerful explanation of history. The trouble is, supernatural delusion is part of the fall, and has to be abandoned to find redemption. No supernatural claims are true.

The only problem is that this seems to fly against what Jesus and his disciples taught. When Christ sent out his disciples, it was not allegorical. They went. People today sometimes complain that they don't see miracles. Part of the problem is that many people have not truly listened to Christ and followed.

If no supernatural claims are true, then why would we want reconciliation with God? He would be both non-existant and powerless.

[Doulos]

This attack on science makes me question Doulos' grasp of the topic. Of course science provides a real critique of Biblical assertions. It is only through science that we know the world was not made in seven days.

Where have I attacked science? I've merely said that science is not a real critique of the Bible.

re:seven days
Many conservative 'literal truth' Christians do not believe this either. The word translated as 'days' can mean 'age/period of time' as well. There are also several passages in the bible which talk about:

"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."
(Psalm 90:4)

"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."(2 Peter 3:8)

These are taken to indicate that God does not experience time as we do. A key Christian theological teachimg is that God is 'outside' of time, since time itself is a creation. Fans of Dr. Who will be glad to hear this!

So yes, science does critique some beliefs held by some Christians, but these beliefs are not necessarily biblical.