Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

[Robert Tulip]

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

But that is the same 'conventional scholarship' that argues without evidence that Jesus Christ was a historical person, and that accepts unscientific miraculous claims. The evidence in terms of early citation and use of the Gospels point to later dates than convention assigns.

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.

It is not just the question of the provenance of the prophecy of the destruction of the temple in 70AD, but also the thinness of any corroboration.

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.

You don't seem to get my point. Yes there were Christian traditions, which probably circulated by spoken word among secret societies. For example the whole Q tradition suggests early collections of sayings. But these traditions were not attributed to the four gospel authors until quite late, and there is a systematic tendency for Christian readers to apply their rose coloured apologist goggles to see things in the text that are simply not there, such as a historical Jesus in Paul.

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!

So Doulos, you think it is acceptable to challenge an argument I did not make in order to question one I did? Before Irenaeus, ie until more than a century after they were supposedly written, there was no definitive Gospel text, and we find that the authors you cite have all sorts of ideas that clash with the later historicist orthodoxy, and often quote the text in ways that suggest they are using oral tradition rather than written works. The very late anthologising casts doubt on the date of writing and the authenticity of the Gospels.

If documents about the American Civil War were only made public as a collection today, with no clear evidence of their provenance other than hidden oral memory and sketchy mentions by early writers, we would hardly consider them reliable. But the Christian situation is even worse, since the ancient Christians had a clear agenda to distort and invent history.

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.

Claiming to be agnostic is just a trick that Ehrman uses to gain public credibility for his religious agenda. If Ehrman was not a secret believer he would not present the baseless sloppy arguments of Did Jesus Exist? He is driven more by emotion than reason in a classic religious manner.

[Interbane]

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'

Loose language coupled with contingency. "Probably not answerable if..." I agree completely. There are many other modifiers that would likely render the "how" question unanswerable as well. But we need not entertain speculation, because we're already well aware that the "how" question can and does apply to most of our universe. If you're making the claim that there is an exception, the burden is on you to support that claim.

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.'

There has to be a "whom" for the question to make sense. You're putting the cart before the horse and assuming the precedent. What makes you think there is necessarily an entity that acts as the "whom"?

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?

Would a Christian be able to say the same thing, or are you merely assuming this? I don't make the claim while suspended by my bootstraps. I've been on Booktalk.org for 10 years, and all the conversations are saved. You and anyone else is more than welcome to research these conversations. The bias is evident and blatant from the majority of theists, as you'd agree if you were to read through the dialogues.

When real life is a bit slower for you, take the time to read through the conversations and make a determination yourself. Don't simply take my word for it. Are you aware of the many types of bias, that you might recognize them? Some quick reading on critical thinking(google it) will inform you fairly well of the different types of biases.

I would suggest you are simply more accustomed and accepting of the Atheist argument, so you do not consider it 'biased.'

If that is the case, please point out where my bias is most evident. I ask this quite often, in hopes of a response. If I am "accepting" of the atheist argument(I'm not sure what that means), then it is only because of the supportive reasoning. But i'll remind you again that I'm not entirely accepting of the atheist argument.

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?

I didn't relegate. A human condition applies to humans. The response to the condition is where the difference lies. Look through the conversations as I suggest, and you'll see hundreds of examples where I point out a person's bias, but am ignored. It's as though the word simply doesn't register with many theists. Or they think of the word according to the dictionary definition, the "layman's" definition.

There are distinct and easily recognizable "cognitive biases" that anyone can become familiar with. If you're hoping to show where I display the same bias, you have a treasure trove of conversations I've participated in. Show me the money. I bet it will be far more difficult than you realize. I am sensitive to my own bias, and quash it like a worm. But like anyone, I'm at times inconsistent, for which I apologize.

[youkrst]

, and quash it like a worm.

couldn't let that go unquoted

[geo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the crux of Doulos' argument is that he gets to choose his own reality and no one can say for certain that this reality is false.

I once interviewed the author of the book: JOHN LENNON IN HEAVEN. The author says she imagined encounters with the dead John Lennon in which he described his life in heaven. And so she wrote a book about it. She told me that the mere fact that she could imagine such conversations with John Lennon meant it could be real. You just can't argue with that kind of logic.

http://www.amazon.com/John-Lennon-Heave ... 0963621858

[johnson1010]

The problem with the who and why, vs how question is that why questions only apply to intelligence. But the thing is, the motivations that satisfy a “why” question, even in intelligence are really only ultimately answerable by a “how” answer.

Why does it rain? The why answer is shallow and doesn’t really address what’s happening.

“It rains because plants need water.” – Bullshit. “Why” answer.

“It rains because Clouds can’t hold that much water.” –Closer, but not complete.

“Heat causes particles to move more rapidly. This accelerated movement lets the particles range further from each other and overcomes the bonds which hold them close together. It’s just the same as if you held a ten pound weight in your hand and kept it close to your body, then spun around. You feel the extra energy imparted to the weight pulling against your arm. The extra energy tries to accelerate the weight away from you. The heat energy input into the gas accelerates the motion of the particles so that they overcome the binding forces. Some volume of liquid expands when in gas state due to this higher energy level, as the particles move further apart with their kinetic energy. Particles spread far apart become a gas. When energy is removed from these particles they cool down, become less mobile and condense back into a liquid. Air’s ability to sustain water as a gas is dependent on the heat energy of the air. This energy level can be affected by passing over cooler surfaces, or being forced upward toward upper atmosphere which is cooler than close to the earth. The result being a loss of energy which is needed to keep water in a gas state and the water condenses back into liquid and falls to the earth due to the pull of gravity.” – Much better approximation. This is all a how answer. There are no motivations. It is simply the description of the process. And in so doing I have not only explained “why” it rains, but also the basis of some thermodynamics, which can be exploited to make steam engines.

Intelligent agents have motivations that can be summed up in “why” answers. But intelligence is directly traceable to the brain, and the brain is a physical thing which to be fully explained also requires an in-depth “how” answer. We are still working on that answer, but it is definitely on the way.

[Kevin]

Like everyone else I have been pondering the matter of Doulos's sanity. The background, brought out in spades by this thread, is my belief that science is ignorance and religion artistry. Doulos claims to communicate with God and we are sure this has never happened. Giving Doulos the benefit of the doubt, Doulos is insane just as charged. To see this (what should be) modest taunt, in a book forum no less(!), used to cast doubt on the mental stability of any particular individual I find to be disheartening - to say the least. If Doulos had claimed to be God I would share in the scoffing. An author tells you it is the year 1984, or 2525, and if it's a "good" book you believe it, at least for a moment in time. At this moment you are insane! Show me someone who is not insane and you'll be showing me an idiot. You'll be presenting someone who thinks he has to be the butterfly in order to comprehend the butterfly. It's these vicious reductionists, black & white all over, paging through books they don't believe one bit, who comprise the compendium of complaint against things they can't grasp. Don Quixote, insane, mentions to Sancho Panza how justice is good but mercy is better. Magic is relative to one's perspective. Science is relative to one's time. Magic becomes science and science becomes magic. Science is relative to one's perspective and magic is relative to one's time. There is a unity. Magic is afoot!

Thanks, Len.

[youkrst]

forgive me if i think like a child here but...

I still would affirm to you that I would place my experiences as reliable. They are of course subjective, but the point I'm trying to make is that I've pondered whether there could be alternative explanations for the experiences I've had.

that reminds me of when i had my "amazing experience".

i was so convinced it was Jesus, but looking back on it later i realised that that was just the prism or language or thoughtform that i used to interpret the experience.

i mean i was having a very intense and unusual experience and the only way my brain could parse it at all was to tell me "it's jesus"

and of course i believed it, cause it sure seemed that way, who else could it be. (i knew next to nothing about krishna or buddha and even less about brain science or psychology or mythology or allegory etc etc)

later after decades of dealing with literalist church stupidity and hypocrisy i finally began to decode the allegorical nature of the NT and after studying a lot of mythology, psychology and other related topics i found more powerful or better informed prisms, languages and thoughtforms, still pretty crude but much better, and i trust i shall find better yet, ironically such things were contained allegorically in some of the bible stories. (a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat)

if i had had that same experience in a hindu cultural setting i am nearly certain my brain would have said "that's krishna"

in a buddhist setting my brain would have said "that's buddha" who else could it be.

when you have an amazing experience the brain doesn't always have a lot to base it's interpretation of events on.

over the years the experience hasn't changed at all, it happened, i still remember it well, but my analysis and understanding of it have grown a great deal and continue to do so, and hopefully will continue to do so, further and further...

now when you tell people "i just had a supernatural encounter with Jesus" many of them have no way to relate to that at all. or perhaps their brain tells them "this guy has flipped, like uncle lenny did, he's gone to god."

later on they might develop a more refined analysis.

it reminds me of when someone once told me "i am god..."

i thought they meant they were yahweh and were claiming authorship of the entire physical universe, as if they were saying "yeah, i designed the dolphin, and magnetism was my idea, yep made the world in six days... etc etc"

so i thought "this dude has flipped"

but years later i realised that wasn't what they meant by "i am god..." at all. they meant that just as there are suns and planets and trees and barnacles etc etc there is also me and i am one with all these things, we all happen together, and so i am not separate from all this but a part of all this and so everything is god (mystery) and so am i.

and so now i think "that dude is really something, shame he didn't explain it better back in the day"

would i have comprehended? - don't know, but it would have been nice to have a chance to try, but alas i had no idea where he was coming from and he didn't give any clues.

lately i've been really enjoying various people like feynman, hitch, dawkins etc etc and realising that they are just as "blown away" by the magnificence of the mystery as i am, perhaps moreso, because someone like Feynman has a huge facility for looking at things.

so i dont think anyone is against "mystery" or "awesomeness" but they may well be against literalist deities whose followers want to make the world as small as their minds have become, and so they should be.

whatever interpretation of "reality" you are currently working with it seems most people dont mind too much until you say something like...

"you MUST accept my metaphor or you are WRONG and will suffer the pains of hell for YOUR ignorance"

"Jesus the historical jew is the ONLY way you can be saved from your EVIL Self."

or conversely others get annoyed with statements like

"there is nothing at all besides matter and energy"

"there is nothing worthwhile in any religion"

because of course they love their religion and it seems to them there is more than matter and energy at play.

BUT lately i have been happy in ALL camps (except the literalist camp of course), the wonderful thing about metaphors is you can mix and match and go with what works best at a certain time, it's no biggie it's just a question of how to better interpret, if a certain prism isn't doing it, grab another and see if it works any better.

the only prism i had to get rid of was literalism because it was cracked and i kept getting glass in my eyes.

[Kevin]

in a buddhist setting my brain would have said "that's buddha" who else could it be.

While not disagreeing with what I view as being your central point ~ that one's perspective changes everything ~ I do think you have it wrong with this specific example. From the buddhist book The Dhammapada: Your own self is your master; who else could be? The idea of a personal God is not a Buddhist one.

[DWill]

Claiming to be agnostic is just a trick that Ehrman uses to gain public credibility for his religious agenda. If Ehrman was not a secret believer he would not present the baseless sloppy arguments of Did Jesus Exist? He is driven more by emotion than reason in a classic religious manner.

But come on, Robert, really? This is a blatant instance of the argumentation abuse sometimes called "you're one,too."
And surely anyone can see that being emotion-driven isn't exclusive to the religious.

[youkrst]

thanks Kevin, my attention to detail is shockingly bad. sometimes so bad it results in complete error LOL.

yeah i was using an example so sloppily done it really should be redone.

i was of course thinking of someone who didn't actually understand buddhism. (like me)

one of my favourite lines from buddhism is "if you meet the buddha on the road - kill him" LOL

If You See The Buddha, Kill Him
For 300 years after Buddha's death there were no Buddha images. The
people's practice was the image of the Buddha, there was no need to
externalize it. But in time, as the practice was lost, people began to
place the Buddha outside of their own minds, back in time and space.
As the concept was externalized and images were made, great teachers
started to reemphasize the other meaning of Buddha. There is a saying:
"If you see the Buddha, kill him." Very shocking to people who offer
incense and worship before an image. If you have a concept in the mind
of a Buddha outside yourself, kill it, let it go. . . . Gotama Buddha
repeatedly reminded people that the experience of truth comes from
one's own mind.

so thanks for the catch Kevin though at times i doubt i'll ever get much more succinct, the problem is thoughts go off like an explosion or lightning strike in my brain and then in my hurry to type 'em i sacrifice accuracy for speed. hardly ever a good trade off.

i rely too much on the good will of the person reading and that is no excuse for sloppy writing.

one of the great things about booktalk really, people actually read what you type and some are kind enough to point out where it's going a bit "wobbly"

if i keep posting AND reading here i will get better.