Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

[Doulos]

So rather than, "God did it," you would suggest, "It just happened" is superior?

No, of course not. We need to dig into the details, and try to understand how it happened. I'm NOT claiming that "it just happened". There are reasons, but they are not free-floating. They are abstractions of the mechanical processes that were involved in abiogenesis. I want to know what happened, and claiming that "goddidit" is merely a placeholder for ignorance. That claim is true by the definitions of the concepts(a conceptual definition is quite a bit more involved than a dictionary definition). Even if I were to align with your beliefs, the question still remains of HOW god did it. It is a placeholder Doulos, by definition.

I'm afraid I view the question of 'how' God did it to be rather meaningless though. The Judeo-Christian concept of God is that by definition he can do what is deemed impossible by man. In that sense, HOW God did it may be a placeholder, but the very statement that 'God did it' is not meant to give us mechanical or scientific understanding of HOW... it is meant to clarify BY WHOM, which is an entirely different question.

That's one of the reasons I don't view science and Christianity as contrary. Science seeks to explain 'how'... Christianity is answering 'by whom' and 'why.'

[Doulos]

As for the evidence, I will listen.

I'll be happy to go through it, but I'm a little hampered by that 'real world' stuff at the moment

If you don't mind, I'll open that new discussion when I have a bit more free time on my hands, as I'm sure it'll bring a new, interesting and divergent strand into the concersation.

[Robert Tulip]

"we have nothing about Jesus written within a generation of his supposed lifetime"
FALSE

Jesus was crucified roughly 33 AD:
- Gospel of Matthew (Date 40-140 AD)
- Gospel of Mark (Date 55-70 AD)
- Gospel of Luke (Date 62-63 AD)
- Gospel of John (Date 80-95 AD)
... I could go through the rest of the NT, but you get the point. These were definitely written 'within' a generation' (rather obvious since several were written by people who walked with Jesus!).

That is just conventional garbage, as there is no evidence for any of these dates. There is clear evidence from the so-called prophecy of an 'abomination of desolation' of post 70AD dating for all the gospels. There is no mention of any historical detail about Jesus in the Pauline Epistles. There is evidence of Christian traditions, but not of the four Gospels as we have them, before Irenaeus in 180 AD. The absence of definitive early citation is startling for claims of a historical Jesus, and suggests the fictional account of the life of Jesus only emerged with the writing of the Gospel of Mark, circulated initially only to a small local audience, after 70 AD.

"No one clearly cites the four gospels by name as a collection until the late second century."
FALSE (Nice 'as a collection' equivocation though )

It is not an equivocation, it is a perfectly reasonable restriction. Even as late as 150 AD, the best that apologists can come up with is the use of so-called 'memoirs of the apostles' by Justin Martyr which give distorted versions of gospel texts but nothing like evidence of access to the complete gospel books as they were later canonised. The liar for the lord Bart Ehrman claims Justin Martyr as evidence of existence of the four gospels before Irenaeus but it is no such thing. The historical evidence suggests the literalist myth was in competition with a spiritual understanding of Jesus until late into the second century. There was no early debate about a historical Jesus because no one had the impudence to invent this fantasy until well after everyone with any memory of the period in question was dead.

[Interbane]

'God did it' is not meant to give us mechanical or scientific understanding of HOW... it is meant to clarify BY WHOM, which is an entirely different question.

You say "how" is an invalid question, but you think "by whom" is valid? You're assuming there is a whom to attribute various things. When all the evidence in the world sets the precedent that mechanical processes are responsible for most(if not all) phenomenon, your assumption is unjustified. "How" is an appropriate question, because it applies everywhere else, not only abiogenesis. No assumption is needed. No assumption is made in the opposite direction either, as a disclaimer. I'm not assuming there "isn't" a whom, I'm simply following the majority of data.

I would question why you feel that this rigorous self-awareness of bias only exists in Atheists however. Might I suggest that this is bias?

Bias isn't the same as an incorrect propositional belief. Bias affects propositional beliefs. The belief that atheists are more aware of bias than theists is from a lifetime of conversations with both. There is a strong pattern that religious belief is inversely proportional to the awareness of one's bias. I haven't yet met a religious person who hasn't displayed a large amount of bias in defense of their beliefs. They have always gone hand in hand in my experience.

Also, many atheists are very uncritical thinkers. I've many quite a few with every bit as much bias as a religious person or political extremist. It's a human condition.

[johnson1010]

This is a topic I’ve tried to tackle a few times in addressing, for instance, why I don’t buy the claims made by Doulos, or other people who claim to have experienced some communication with a supernatural force. I don’t doubt there was some experience, but I do highly doubt the source they attribute to that experience.

This also addresses what the difference is between saying you know something 100% certain, vs. having confidence.

Richard Feynman:
It is not unscientific to make a guess, although many people who are not in science think it is. Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said “I don’t think there are flying saucers”. So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?” But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, "Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence." It is just more likely. That’s all.

Doulos:
I'm afraid I view the question of 'how' God did it to be rather meaningless though. The Judeo-Christian concept of God is that by definition he can do what is deemed impossible by man. In that sense, HOW God did it may be a placeholder, but the very statement that 'God did it' is not meant to give us mechanical or scientific understanding of HOW... it is meant to clarify BY WHOM, which is an entirely different question.

That's one of the reasons I don't view science and Christianity as contrary. Science seeks to explain 'how'... Christianity is answering 'by whom' and 'why.'

But there must be good reasons to claim you know the “who” and the “why” or that there is any reason whatsoever to think there MIGHT be a “who” with a “why” that you have any access to. All the reasons you and others have listed for thinking there might be a “who” with an understandable, or aknowledgeable “why” are easily explained without resorting to any supernatural explanation.

First, there’s a book. Fine. People have written millions of books. Why is yours special? Because it says it’s special? That is not meaningful. Especially considering that it is flat out wrong in it’s depiction of the many things which we can check against reality.

Second is the convinced expression of believers like yourself who claim supernatural intervention. There are numerous explanations for the experiences you all espouse and I named several of those in an earlier post.

“I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence.”

Because we can verify that there are people. That they are capable of being wrong. That they are capable of lying. That they are capable of writing books. That they are capable of being wrong, or lying while writing a book.

There is no indication at all that there is anything supernatural, other than the above assertions found in books, or from believers. That’s all.

[Doulos]

"we have nothing about Jesus written within a generation of his supposed lifetime"
FALSE

Jesus was crucified roughly 33 AD:
- Gospel of Matthew (Date 40-140 AD)
- Gospel of Mark (Date 55-70 AD)
- Gospel of Luke (Date 62-63 AD)
- Gospel of John (Date 80-95 AD)
... I could go through the rest of the NT, but you get the point. These were definitely written 'within' a generation' (rather obvious since several were written by people who walked with Jesus!).

That is just conventional garbage, as there is no evidence for any of these dates. There is clear evidence from the so-called prophecy of an 'abomination of desolation' of post 70AD dating for all the gospels. There is no mention of any historical detail about Jesus in the Pauline Epistles. There is evidence of Christian traditions, but not of the four Gospels as we have them, before Irenaeus in 180 AD. The absence of definitive early citation is startling for claims of a historical Jesus, and suggests the fictional account of the life of Jesus only emerged with the writing of the Gospel of Mark, circulated initially only to a small local audience, after 70 AD.

The dates I posted are the range within respected scholarship, and yes they are considered very 'conventional'.

conventional- established by accepted usage or general agreement
(Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009)

Furthermore, you seem to have a distorted view of Mark. He's generally accepted as the earliest of the synoptic gospels, which you yourself accept.

"My view is that the Gospel of Mark, upon which the other Gospels were primarily based for their story of a historical Jesus"

Part of the problem probably lies with your assumption of a 70's date, which is mainly predicated upon a view that prophesy cannot be real, and so any mention of future events must indicate a lie and future authorship. The problem is that this view is begging the question, and assumes something which is then used as its own proof.

You still assert that there is "absence of definitive early citation," and seem to be ignoring the evidence to the contrary that I posted:
- Ignatius (30-110 AD) quotes Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Galatians, Colossians, James, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, and I Peter.
- 'Epistle of Barnabas' (dated 70-130 AD) cites Matthew, and Mark
- 'Shepherd of Hermas' (dated 80-90 AD) cites John, the synoptic Gospels, Ephesians, 1 Peter, Hebrews, James and the Book of Revelations.

As you will note, these are not citations of "Christian traditions," but rather citations of the "four Gospels as we have them" as well as other books of the NT. Furthermore, all of these are before Irenaeus.

If you are unable to reconcile your opinions with the facts, I would suggest your opinions need revising.

"No one clearly cites the four gospels by name as a collection until the late second century."

FALSE (Nice 'as a collection' equivocation though )

It is not an equivocation, it is a perfectly reasonable restriction. Even as late as 150 AD, the best that apologists can come up with is the use of so-called 'memoirs of the apostles' by Justin Martyr which give distorted versions of gospel texts but nothing like evidence of access to the complete gospel books as they were later canonised. The liar for the lord Bart Ehrman claims Justin Martyr as evidence of existence of the four gospels before Irenaeus but it is no such thing. The historical evidence suggests the literalist myth was in competition with a spiritual understanding of Jesus until late into the second century. There was no early debate about a historical Jesus because no one had the impudence to invent this fantasy until well after everyone with any memory of the period in question was dead.

You seem to be confusing the collection of a canon with the existing of evidence. Merely because a person does not cite all "four gospels by name as a collection" does not mean they have not been cited separately, or without name (which was not a normal classical practice as you should well know). It is not a 'perfectly reasonable restriction,' but rather an attempt to ignore evidence. For shame Robert!

I would also suggest you not imply that Ehrman is a 'liar for the lord,' as he's made no secret of his own agnosticism.

[Doulos]

'God did it' is not meant to give us mechanical or scientific understanding of HOW... it is meant to clarify BY WHOM, which is an entirely different question.

You say "how" is an invalid question, but you think "by whom" is valid? You're assuming there is a whom to attribute various things. When all the evidence in the world sets the precedent that mechanical processes are responsible for most(if not all) phenomenon, your assumption is unjustified. "How" is an appropriate question, because it applies everywhere else, not only abiogenesis. No assumption is needed. No assumption is made in the opposite direction either, as a disclaimer. I'm not assuming there "isn't" a whom, I'm simply following the majority of data.

I haven't said 'how' is an invalid question, merely that it is:
a) probably not answerable IF God does exist, because by definition 'supernatural' events are departures from what nature normally does
b) not really germane to questions of the existance of God, because even if we identify 'how' this does not address if there was a 'by whom'

I would question why you feel that this rigorous self-awareness of bias only exists in Atheists however. Might I suggest that this is bias?

Bias isn't the same as an incorrect propositional belief. Bias affects propositional beliefs. The belief that atheists are more aware of bias than theists is from a lifetime of conversations with both. There is a strong pattern that religious belief is inversely proportional to the awareness of one's bias. I haven't yet met a religious person who hasn't displayed a large amount of bias in defense of their beliefs. They have always gone hand in hand in my experience.

Also, many atheists are very uncritical thinkers. I've many quite a few with every bit as much bias as a religious person or political extremist. It's a human condition.

"The belief that atheists are more aware of bias than theists is from a lifetime of conversations with both"
Note that a Christian could say the same thing, but inverting the position of Atheists and Theists. You would disagree strongly, but would that be because you are correct... or because you are biased?

People on both sides of the question have difficulty seeing their own bias. You note this yourself with the statement that, "It's a human condition." I would suggest you are simply more accustomed and accepting of the Atheist argument, so you do not consider it 'biased.' By relegating a 'human condition' more heavily towards those who disagree with you, aren't you demonstrating the very bias you claim not to have?

[Doulos]

Mod Edit.
Quote shortened to relevant point by johnson1010

“I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence.”

Because we can verify that there are people. That they are capable of being wrong. That they are capable of lying. That they are capable of writing books. That they are capable of being wrong, or lying while writing a book.

There is no indication at all that there is anything supernatural, other than the above assertions found in books, or from believers. That’s all.

A valid assertion. I would simply say the the source of the experience can often be determined by the nature of the experience.

As to the 'capability' argument, what are your own views based upon?

Books?
Evidence?
Logic?
Experience?

"Because we can verify that there are people. That they are capable of being wrong. That they are capable of lying. That they are capable of writing books. That they are capable of being wrong, or lying while writing a book."
The argument cuts both ways.

re:"flat out wrong in it’s depiction of the many things which we can check against reality"
Are these things that the Bible asserts to be true?

[johnson1010]

Doulos:
A valid assertion. I would simply say the the source of the experience can often be determined by the nature of the experience.

I’m not sure I follow you here. The nature of the experience being what? That you had a “communication”? You mentioned earlier that you didn’t hear anything. That’s fine. So some other sensation? Maybe a realization? You haven’t been very specific about this, so it’s hard for me to address specifically. But if you experienced some realization, or came to some conclusion, then the “nature” of your experience is that some status changed in your mind. That does not point to something external by necessity, and it certainly does not point to something supernatural. It is merely a state in your mind, governed by bio-chemistry. That was the nature of the experience.

As to the 'capability' argument, what are your own views based upon?

As in people are capable of being wrong? What are you saying? That we are unable to establish the difference between a lie, or a mistaken account, vs an accurate account of reality? I hope not.

There have been plenty of times where I have been wrong about what I thought I heard or saw. And when I have doubts about whether I’ve correctly interpreted something I witnessed, the first thing I will usually do is consult someone else who was present and ask them what they remember of the event.

Have a look at this video, Doulos. It speaks directly to your interpretation that convinced believers somehow = a belief of something true.

flat out wrong in it’s depiction of the many things which we can check against reality"
Are these things that the Bible asserts to be true?

You are getting into word games, Doulos. They are tacitly implied to be true, otherwise what is the use in saying them? If I tell you that the moon orbits the earth as part of my description of the night sky, then have I asserted that to be true?

And I’m not talking about analogy, I’m talking about how the cosmos was said to be arranged by the authors of the bible.



Here's a discussion that's been had on this forum about taking the creation story of the bible literally. Sure, you may not take it literally (and that's a good thing) but it obviously is taken very seriously by a large number of people.

http://www.booktalk.org/young-earth-the ... t8061.html?

[Doulos]

Doulos:
A valid assertion. I would simply say the the source of the experience can often be determined by the nature of the experience.

I’m not sure I follow you here. The nature of the experience being what? That you had a “communication”? You mentioned earlier that you didn’t hear anything. That’s fine. So some other sensation? Maybe a realization? You haven’t been very specific about this, so it’s hard for me to address specifically. But if you experienced some realization, or came to some conclusion, then the “nature” of your experience is that some status changed in your mind. That does not point to something external by necessity, and it certainly does not point to something supernatural. It is merely a state in your mind, governed by bio-chemistry. That was the nature of the experience.

I'll start this as a fresh thread at a future time.

[quote="="johnson1010""]

As to the 'capability' argument, what are your own views based upon?

As in people are capable of being wrong? What are you saying? That we are unable to establish the difference between a lie, or a mistaken account, vs an accurate account of reality? I hope not.

There have been plenty of times where I have been wrong about what I thought I heard or saw. And when I have doubts about whether I’ve correctly interpreted something I witnessed, the first thing I will usually do is consult someone else who was present and ask them what they remember of the event. [/quote]

I'm saying that your argument against Biblical belief here could be used against any viewpoint. As such, it really is meaningless in terms of trying to differentiate what is 'truthful.'

Have a look at this video, Doulos. It speaks directly to your interpretation that convinced believers somehow = a belief of something true.

I've never said that Johnson. I've merely been talking about my own experiences giving me a personal certainty. This does not mean that a person who is 'convinced' is necessarily right (though it doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong either).

flat out wrong in it’s depiction of the many things which we can check against reality"
Are these things that the Bible asserts to be true?

You are getting into word games, Doulos. They are tacitly implied to be true, otherwise what is the use in saying them? If I tell you that the moon orbits the earth as part of my description of the night sky, then have I asserted that to be true?

And I’m not talking about analogy, I’m talking about how the cosmos was said to be arranged by the authors of the bible.

Here's a discussion that's been had on this forum about taking the creation story of the bible literally. Sure, you may not take it literally (and that's a good thing) but it obviously is taken very seriously by a large number of people.

Not word games Johnson... specifics. Its easy to make general assertions, but often these fall apart when we look at the specific details and analyze them.

I do take the creation story literally, and thus would say that the central points to Genesis 1 are that:
a) God is the creator
b) that his creation was orderly
c) that He viewed his creation as good
d) that man is not an accident, and that both man and women are created in God's image
e) a bit more, but you get the drift

Factors such as period writing conventions, literary style, etc also play a role, but my main point is that much of what is often understood by 'literal' (by both Christians and non-believers) is more an anachronistic modern understanding of 'extreme literalism' that has never been asserted by the Bible itself.

You mention, "tacitly implied to be true" and I'd say you were a million miles off on that. Do I mean you are literally a 'million miles/1 609 344 km' off in physical distance? Certainly not, but I would use the appropriate term for my culture and time.

So where specifically do you see the Bible, "flat out wrong in it’s depiction of the many things which we can check against reality?"