Hypothesis: the more educated you are the less likely you are to be religious - by SubJeff
scarykitties on 29/1/2012 at 18:54
I hate Postmodernism.
Renzatic on 29/1/2012 at 21:13
Quote Posted by scarykitties
I hate Postmodernism.
That's so meta.
Jenesis on 29/1/2012 at 21:49
Historical evidence does seem to get a bad rap these days. But if you want to look into whether Hannibal marched across the Alps, scientific evidence isn't generally what you look for. It's not an experiment you can repeat and check your observations. Yet no-one is going to use that as a grounds for arguing that we can't be sure it happened.
Consider the Christian position on the resurrection of Jesus: (The resurrection is a useful thing to look at. It's a claim of history, so either it happened or it didn't, and Christianity stands or falls on it - the Bible itself says that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead then Christianity is a bust and Christians are to be pitied above all men for believing a lie.)
God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. He dictates how (and if) it runs from moment to moment. There's no particular reason why it should work the same way from day to day, but God, in general, chooses to make it so. And it's great that he does, it means we can plant crops and expect them to grow, build transistors and expect them to work, and send men to the moon and expect the maths we did to get them to the right place. It's because God makes his universe run that way that we can do science at all. But the Biblical claim is that after Jesus' death, God decided to do something different to the norm, and raise Jesus from the dead. Faced with that, Science has no option but to hold up its hands and say 'Look, sorry, I'm not equipped to cope with this, I deal with repeatable observations. If you want to know whether this happened or not, you'll have to look elsewhere'.
What 'elsewhere' is there? History. A lot of history is backed up by science, of course. There's plenty of documentary evidence that the Romans occupied Britain. We can look at stuff dug up out of the ground and verify that yes, the Romans did occupy Britain for a good length of time. But for the specifics of who was where and when, that's not generally something you can dig up barring the odd rare inscription, so it's accounts by chroniclers of the time we turn to. This is just the way history works, and it's not controversial. Historical evidence is valid evidence, and if you're going to give Christianity a serious look, it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Jay - I'm not accusing you in particular of this, I'm thinking of the many people, here and elsewhere, who when discussing religion have talked as though scientific evidence is all there is, but when it comes to history in general I'm sure have no problem believing the accounts of the time.
I've seen plenty of people say 'the miracles in the Bible can't be true because they're scientifically impossible', but if you understand both what the Bible says is going on and how science works, it's immediately apparent that that's not a position that makes much sense.
jay pettitt on 29/1/2012 at 23:50
Historical evidence is fine by me.
Magic Carpets for the win!
scarykitties on 29/1/2012 at 23:50
Quote Posted by Jenesis
I've seen plenty of people say 'the miracles in the Bible can't be true because they're scientifically impossible', but if you understand both what the Bible says is going on and how science works, it's immediately apparent that that's not a position that makes much sense.
Forgive my stupidity, but why, exactly, is it immediately apparent that this is not a position that makes much sense?
Here's a big problem that a lot of people make when accepting the validity of the Bible:
Yes, the Bible has some historical accuracy. Does that automatically make everything in it also true?
NO!
If I'm not mistaken, the Illiad was based on a battle that history suggests really took place. Does that mean that everything in the Illiad really happened? No.
There is such a thing as historic fiction. That is, it's grounded in accurate history, but the details described are fictitious. Few can discount the historicity of the Bible. There is certainly evidence suggesting that some places and people described really existed. However, the supportive evidence stops there. There is no evidence supporting the miracles claimed in the Bible. You are taking the Bible at its word just because it has a few accurate historic points.
Do you take the Da Vinci Code as fact just because it has some historic accuracy?
It is utterly ridiculous to assume that everything that human experience and scientific evidence shows as real in the world (such as that dead people don't come back to life) was miraculously suspended based only on the testament of a single book written by people who had every reason to lie.
So, I'm sorry, but your conclusion is based on flimsy assumptions.
heywood on 30/1/2012 at 00:25
Quote Posted by Jenesis
Consider the Christian position on the resurrection of Jesus: (The resurrection is a useful thing to look at. It's a claim of history, so either it happened or it didn't, and Christianity stands or falls on it - the Bible itself says that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead then Christianity is a bust and Christians are to be pitied above all men for believing a lie.)
God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. He dictates how (and if) it runs from moment to moment. There's no particular reason why it should work the same way from day to day, but God, in general, chooses to make it so. And it's great that he does, it means we can plant crops and expect them to grow, build transistors and expect them to work, and send men to the moon and expect the maths we did to get them to the right place. It's because God makes his universe run that way that we can do science at all. But the Biblical claim is that after Jesus' death, God decided to do something different to the norm, and raise Jesus from the dead. Faced with that, Science has no option but to hold up its hands and say 'Look, sorry, I'm not equipped to cope with this, I deal with repeatable observations. If you want to know whether this happened or not, you'll have to look elsewhere'.
Resurrection could be interpreted in many different ways, just like the creation myth. I don't think there's any one story in the Bible that could bring down Christianity if it were disproved as a factual account. Christianity would eventually adapt to the new knowledge, as it has done before. Ultimately, the core beliefs are supernatural and thus can't be proved or disproved. Hence agnosticism.
Scots Taffer on 30/1/2012 at 00:36
No matter how dead CommChat is, you can always guarantee participation in a fucking religion thread.
Renzatic on 30/1/2012 at 01:45
And now matter how dead it gets, we can always rely on you to at least occasionally remind us of that fact.
PigLick on 30/1/2012 at 01:49
Hitler
Scots Taffer on 30/1/2012 at 02:14
Hypothesis: Renz hasn't been laid in a while
