science and faith : Can't we all just get along?

[achilles12604]

I am reading a book by Dr. Darrel R Falk entitled, Coming to Peace with Science. In this book, Dr. Falk reiterates exactly what I was saying in a couple of other places on this forum, namely, that science and faith actually complement each other rather than destroy each other. They can be harmonized if the person can put aside there own preconceptions for a moment and look with unbiased eyes.

As he writes in his book, "Too many have come to believe one has to make a choice: either science is fundamentally flawed because it can not see the design rules, or the world of faith is imaginary because it sees that rules do not exist. . . Many are unable to find their way to a bridge not because of limitations constructed by a metaphor but because for them, there is no metaphor. Scripture states that God did his work in six days; days are 24 hours in length; thus it was all over within one week."

He believes the same way I do, that science and faith are not only compatible, but on a deeper level are paintings of the exact same thing. Science and faith are in essence two trails to one destination, not two totally different roads going in opposite directions.

Incidentally while reading through the second section I quoted, I realized something. Dr. Falk was using this section to describe some Christians fall into the trap of "The bible says it so it must have happened exactly this way." But when I was reading it it reminded me of a particular thought group on this forum. These non-theists do exactly the same thing, only against religion instead of for it. They say that because the Bible does not literally and exactly spell out every detail, it must be false and full of mistakes. Therefore it can not be inspired by God. It is the same process of thinking that leads fundamental young-earth creationists to illogically ignore all the evidence of science.

In any case, my question is this . . .

Are faith and science truly two different things? Must they be at odds as society portrays them, or are they easily reconciled into pointing the same direction but in different ways?

[achilles12604]

Quote:

GA- Supposedly had many witnesses but none of them are alive to be questioned.

SM- Supposedly had many witnesses but none of them are alive to be questioned.



We have direct writings from them, and even a sound recording from another. We cannot say the same about the Sermon on the Mount. Who the writers of the Gospels are and whether they were eyewitnesses to the event are in question. All the secondary sources (Josephus, for example), were definately not eyewitnesses.

Lets look in context. 2000 years from now, will people be sure about who the eyewitnesses were or what they actually saw or heard? And our technology then was 2000 years more advanced than it was in Jesus time. So the fact that eyewitness accounts lasted this long is amazing. The point is we can be pretty sure about both GA and SM based on writings of the time. Until you are able to show that the writings of SM can not be trusted, they stand just as strong as other markers in history.

PS - Lotan accidentally offered another reason that we can trust the early dating of the gospels. Check it out in the conspiracy theory thread.

Quote:

GA- was a very short presentation given off the cuff.



Actually that's a myth. There exist several copies of drafts that dispute that notion.

Interesting that this myth was taught to me in school. Any evidence to support this claim or is it just another theory?

Quote:
SM- Had a few people writing about what happened and these people purport to be eyewitnesses



Who claims to be an eyewitness and can we confirm that we have their words?

In 2000 years weill we be able to comfirm the identity of those eye witnesses for the GA? Mind you this will be a lot easier than 2000 years ago simply because of technology. The identity of the writers has really sound support. Even your wonderful Mr. Carrier can not disprove the attached identities. He can only say "It can be doubted" (interesting that a true scholar comes from the other angle) and this is only after ignoring all the supporting and corrborative evidence that supports the claims.

Quote:
GA- People in the north had reason to forge this event because it would further anger and war hawking agaisnt the south.


Really, people could gain from warhawking against the south when they told their story decades later?? Perhaps you've been reading a bit too much of that "symbolic" history...

Even without the time discrepancy, not all cited eyewitnesses would gain from War-hawking, for instance:

Quote:
Eyewitness reports vary as to their view of Lincoln's performance. In 1931, the printed recollections of 87-year-old Mrs. Sarah A. Cooke Myers, who at the age of 19 was present, suggest a dignified silence followed Lincoln's speech: "I was close to the President and heard all of the Address, but it seemed short. Then there was an impressive silence like our Menallen Friends Meeting. There was no applause when he stopped speaking."[32]


Translation: She's a Quaker.
Upshot: She ain't going to be much of a warhawk because pacifism is a central tenet of Quaker belief. I was a liberal Quaker once, I should know.

First, this was not evidence. My point was to show how easily conspiracy theories can be made. Non-theists do exactly what I just did on a regular basis.

Second, when a non-theist says something along the lines of "Decades later . . . " we are told our evidence doesn't count because it isn't close enough to the event. It doesn't count because traditions had developed. It doesn't count because history is written by the victors.

Yet you can now use "decades later it wouldn't have mattered?" Well it would have been an efective war hawing tool during the time it was presented and later generations were told about this mythological event because by then history had been muttled and confused with myth and traditions of the victorious North.

See how non-theists and theists alike can come up with all sorts of rediculous theories?

As for Mrs. Sarah A. Cooke Myers, since Peter's, James', and several of Paul's letters along with the writings of Jospehus were supposedly all forged (according to non-theists), I'll simply say that it entirely possible that this women, even if she ever did exist, never said anything of the sort.

See again how easy it is to present total junk and call it refuting evidence? Non-theists should recognize what I am doing here. People on that side of the ball do it alot.

Quote:
SM- People had a lot to lose by andvanceing this documentation.



Really? You have evidence that merely listening and writing down a few bits (even if expressing vehement disagreement with the whole thing) of the Sermon on the Mount was a punishable offense?

I don't think I really have to spell this out for you.

Quote:
GA- Was supposedly given by a single great leader


Who has been documented to have existed as a great leader, who has been evidenced to command the chief executive power of a significant political body, and who has been shown to have a childhood, a life independent of his political leadership, and a death.

Quote:
SM- Was supposedly given by a single great leader


Who has not.

Interesting that Jesus was given a much higher place on Time's most influencial top 100 people of all time list huh? What was he? Number 1 I think?

Lets go 2000 years into the future and remove the technology we have today. Would you like to compare their influences then?

Quote:
I am curious where people in the NT "by their own admission" hallucinated? You made the claim. go ahead and support it. Try to remember the definitions and requirements of Hallucination when you do so.


Quote:
hal·lu·ci·na·tion (h-ls-nshn)
n.

1. False or distorted perception of objects or events with a compelling sense of their reality, usually resulting from a mental disorder or drug.
2. The objects or events so perceived.


Paul claimed to be blinded and see Jesus in a vision on the road to Damascus. Was Jesus walking down the road from Damascus when he ran into Paul? Did Jesus have his blinders on? Paul does not claim so, but instead claims it as a vision. Since Paul's vision admittedly did not correspond with the physical reality around him, this qualifies as a hallucination. That Paul, who had by his own admission never met the flesh and blood Jesus, was the main support for Christianity for a good portion of the first-century, speaks volumes about the historicity of a flesh-and-blood Jesus.

Oh good job. Now explain how this hallucination was fake, yet powerful enough to alter the life course for a very leading Pharasee? Then lets examine the several apearances to the disciples, the 500 followers, mary and her group and several other times where groups of people all saw the same thing. this by definition can not be a hallucination.

As for historicity of Jesus, we have a large thread already dedicated to this but since the majority of scholars had no issue with a historical Jesus, (even one who did and said so amazing stuff), I don't feel the need to defend this point any more than I have.

Quote:
I guess I can come up with conspiracy about the GA as well as any non-theist. Lets see. . .

I say they were all making it up in a grand conspiracy to further anger at the south and launch a war hawk movement. Can you PROVE me wrong?


Really? People wanted to attack the South after reconstruction? That's a laugh. Any more bits of humor you wish to add?

If you think that I suggested this as a serious possibility, then I am starting to be concerned. This was simply an example of how a theory can be presented without any supporting evidence, much like non-theists do on a regular basis.

Furthermore, you didn't even attempt to disprove my grandious theory. Please do so. Prove to me that it wasn't made up in an attempt to further the cause of the war and later times were simply taught what the victors wished them to learn.

[ENIGMA]

Quote:
SM- Had a few people writing about what happened and these people purport to be eyewitnesses

Who claims to be an eyewitness and can we confirm that we have their words?

In 2000 years weill we be able to comfirm the identity of those eye witnesses for the GA? Mind you this will be a lot easier than 2000 years ago simply because of technology. The identity of the writers has really sound support. Even your wonderful Mr. Carrier can not disprove the attached identities.

I also suspect that neither he nor you cannot disprove that the Gospels were written by Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Old Man Trouble. This is quite clearly a poor standard of justification, no?

You claim that it was likely written by these people, despite there being no signature (authorship is only known by "Church tradition"), you can feel free to attempt to establish who wrote what Gospel. Until that occurs and/or you retract your low requirements in this regard, I may consider retaining my Gospel nomenclature above.

He can only say "It can be doubted" (interesting that a true scholar comes from the other angle) and this is only after ignoring all the supporting and corrborative evidence that supports the claims.

Such as?

Quote:
GA- People in the north had reason to forge this event because it would further anger and war hawking agaisnt the south.


Really, people could gain from warhawking against the south when they told their story decades later?? Perhaps you've been reading a bit too much of that "symbolic" history...

Even without the time discrepancy, not all cited eyewitnesses would gain from War-hawking, for instance:

Quote:
Eyewitness reports vary as to their view of Lincoln's performance. In 1931, the printed recollections of 87-year-old Mrs. Sarah A. Cooke Myers, who at the age of 19 was present, suggest a dignified silence followed Lincoln's speech: "I was close to the President and heard all of the Address, but it seemed short. Then there was an impressive silence like our Menallen Friends Meeting. There was no applause when he stopped speaking."[32]


Translation: She's a Quaker.
Upshot: She ain't going to be much of a warhawk because pacifism is a central tenet of Quaker belief. I was a liberal Quaker once, I should know.

First, this was not evidence. My point was to show how easily conspiracy theories can be made. Non-theists do exactly what I just did on a regular basis.

Really? Why don't our "conspiracy theories" have such gaping holes in them?

Second, when a non-theist says something along the lines of "Decades later . . . " we are told our evidence doesn't count because it isn't close enough to the event. It doesn't count because traditions had developed. It doesn't count because history is written by the victors.

It doesn't count because the people who are providing the evidence are not eyewitnesses. Josephus is not an eyewitness, Tacitus is not an eyewitness, etc, etc. The only place that one can get within any possible range of an eyewitness is in the Gospels, but even then there are issues. The Gospels contain details that almost by definition the writers could not have eyewitnessed, including what little pieces of Jesus's birth exist in the different Gospels, and also some miraculous feats of eyewitnessing while asleep in the Garden of Gethsemane(sp?).

Further a good portion of the Gospels is written in 3rd person omniscient form (i.e. Not from a given vantage point, and with no reference to the narrarator), which is the form one would use to write a narrarative, not an eyewitness account. Do any of the Gospels other than Luke even have a reference to "I" (as in the writer)? All the accounts of the Gettysberg Address seem to have that... funny how it works out that way, eh?

Yet you can now use "decades later it wouldn't have mattered?" Well it would have been an efective war hawing tool during the time it was presented

During the time it was "allegedly presented" you mean? If it was just a hoax, then there would be no point in maintaining the ruse after the South was good and beaten. Yet people did, curious....

Quote:
SM- People had a lot to lose by andvanceing this documentation.

Really? You have evidence that merely listening and writing down a few bits (even if expressing vehement disagreement with the whole thing) of the Sermon on the Mount was a punishable offense?

I don't think I really have to spell this out for you.

No, really, I could use some spelling out... How interesting that the Romans were lax enough to readily allow some revolutionary to speak to a massive crowd of possibly thousands yet so super strict that it was impossible to write a letter to a friend telling them what a load of bollocks the speech was.

Quote:
GA- Was supposedly given by a single great leader

Who has been documented to have existed as a great leader, who has been evidenced to command the chief executive power of a significant political body, and who has been shown to have a childhood, a life independent of his political leadership, and a death.

Quote:
SM- Was supposedly given by a single great leader


Who has not.

Interesting that Jesus was given a much higher place on Time's most influencial top 100 people of all time list huh? What was he? Number 1 I think?

Is Time's understanding of the demographics of people who buy Time relevant to our discussion?

Quote:
I am curious where people in the NT "by their own admission" hallucinated? You made the claim. go ahead and support it. Try to remember the definitions and requirements of Hallucination when you do so.


Quote:
hal·lu·ci·na·tion (h-ls-nshn)
n.

1. False or distorted perception of objects or events with a compelling sense of their reality, usually resulting from a mental disorder or drug.
2. The objects or events so perceived.


Paul claimed to be blinded and see Jesus in a vision on the road to Damascus. Was Jesus walking down the road from Damascus when he ran into Paul? Did Jesus have his blinders on? Paul does not claim so, but instead claims it as a vision. Since Paul's vision admittedly did not correspond with the physical reality around him, this qualifies as a hallucination. That Paul, who had by his own admission never met the flesh and blood Jesus, was the main support for Christianity for a good portion of the first-century, speaks volumes about the historicity of a flesh-and-blood Jesus.

Oh good job. Now explain how this hallucination was fake, yet powerful enough to alter the life course for a very leading Pharasee?

Certainly, after you explain how Andrea Yates' vision of God telling here to drown her kids was fake, yet powerful enough to convince her to do it. I suspect my answer will lay along the same line.

Then lets examine the several apearances to the disciples, the 500 followers, mary and her group and several other times where groups of people all saw the same thing. this by definition can not be a hallucination.

Really, where did they write about their visions in that regard? I must have missed the 500 extra Gospels in my Bible. Catholic version only, you think?

Furthermore, you didn't even attempt to disprove my grandious theory. Please do so. Prove to me that it wasn't made up in an attempt to further the cause of the war and later times were simply taught what the victors wished them to learn.

I established that such a conspiracy was a far less plausible hypothesis than Lincoln actually giving the speech. You have yet to do likewise for the Gospels.

[achilles12604]

Quote:
SM- Had a few people writing about what happened and these people purport to be eyewitnesses

Who claims to be an eyewitness and can we confirm that we have their words?

In 2000 years weill we be able to comfirm the identity of those eye witnesses for the GA? Mind you this will be a lot easier than 2000 years ago simply because of technology. The identity of the writers has really sound support. Even your wonderful Mr. Carrier can not disprove the attached identities.

I also suspect that neither he nor you cannot disprove that the Gospels were written by Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Old Man Trouble. This is quite clearly a poor standard of justification, no?

You claim that it was likely written by these people, despite there being no signature (authorship is only known by "Church tradition"), you can feel free to attempt to establish who wrote what Gospel. Until that occurs and/or you retract your low requirements in this regard, I may consider retaining my Gospel nomenclature above.

Oh there is more than church tradition and the authorship is agreed upon by most scholars including secular scholars. Papias for example concerning the Gospel of Mark. Matthew referenced by Ireanous (sp). You are very sure of your position yet you claim that only "church tradition" is our source for the authorship of these books. And this is ignoring all the internal evidence in each book. Shows your bias clear through although so far I have yet to see an untained opinion from several non-theists on this site. No matter. Keep ignoring what you need to to maintain you opinions.

PS. Feel free to comment on my conspiracy theory thread. So far several athiests (who interestingly enough ascribe to this line of thinking) called it full of holes. Yet they use this very line of thinking. Strange.

He can only say "It can be doubted" (interesting that a true scholar comes from the other angle) and this is only after ignoring all the supporting and corrborative evidence that supports the claims.

Such as?

Papias, Irenaeus for external evidence.

Internal evidence is listed on even atheist sites.

Even if Mark did not rely on Peter as a source for his material, there are reasons to argue that Mark wrote while in Rome. For example Clement, who died in 212, and Irenaeus, who died in 202, are two early church leaders who both supported a Roman origin for Mark. Mark calculates time by a Roman method (for example, dividing the night into four watches rather than three), and finally, he has a faulty knowledge of Palestinian geography (5:1, 7:31, 8:10).

Mark's language contains a number of "Latinisms" — loan words from Latin to Greek — which would suggest an audience more comfortable with Latin than in Greek. Some of these Latinisms include (Greek/Latin) 4:27 modios/modius (a measure), 5:9,15: legiôn/legio (legion), 6:37: dênariôn/denarius (a Roman coin), 15:39, 44-45: kenturiôn/centurio (centurion; both Matthew and Luke use ekatontrachês, the equivalent term in Greek).

There is also evidence that the author of Mark may have been Jewish or had a Jewish background. Many scholars argue that the gospel has a Semitic flavor to it, by which they mean that there are Semitic syntactical features occurring in the context of Greek words and sentences. Example of this Semitic "flavor" include verbs located at the beginning of sentences, the widespread use of asyndeta (placing clauses together without conjunctions), and parataxis (joining clauses with the conjunction kai, which means "and").

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospel ... author.htm

I'm not sure what is causing you to hav issues with this book. Bias or lack of info. I think the former but now I have spelled out what needs to be ignored. Also it is worthy to note that even the scholars who claim non-markan authorship have no other possible authors to attrbute this to. Seems like they are simply playing Devil's advocate for its own sake.

Quote:
GA- People in the north had reason to forge this event because it would further anger and war hawking agaisnt the south.


Really, people could gain from warhawking against the south when they told their story decades later?? Perhaps you've been reading a bit too much of that "symbolic" history...

Even without the time discrepancy, not all cited eyewitnesses would gain from War-hawking, for instance:

Quote:
Eyewitness reports vary as to their view of Lincoln's performance. In 1931, the printed recollections of 87-year-old Mrs. Sarah A. Cooke Myers, who at the age of 19 was present, suggest a dignified silence followed Lincoln's speech: "I was close to the President and heard all of the Address, but it seemed short. Then there was an impressive silence like our Menallen Friends Meeting. There was no applause when he stopped speaking."[32]


Translation: She's a Quaker.
Upshot: She ain't going to be much of a warhawk because pacifism is a central tenet of Quaker belief. I was a liberal Quaker once, I should know.

First, this was not evidence. My point was to show how easily conspiracy theories can be made. Non-theists do exactly what I just did on a regular basis.

Really? Why don't our "conspiracy theories" have such gaping holes in them?

Ah but they do by the admission of non-theists on this very site. Check out the thread on this subject. Once I spelled out the logical sequence of a vast conspiracy, no atheist on this site was willing to admit that they held this belief (until I named them and pulled out quotes).

Further a good portion of the Gospels is written in 3rd person omniscient form (i.e. Not from a given vantage point, and with no reference to the narrarator), which is the form one would use to write a narrarative, not an eyewitness account. Do any of the Gospels other than Luke even have a reference to "I" (as in the writer)? All the accounts of the Gettysberg Address seem to have that... funny how it works out that way, eh?

Feel free to join in the thread I started on this very subject. See if you can prove it.

Yet you can now use "decades later it wouldn't have mattered?" Well it would have been an efective war hawing tool during the time it was presented

During the time it was "allegedly presented" you mean? If it was just a hoax, then there would be no point in maintaining the ruse after the South was good and beaten. Yet people did, curious....

What would the point be of continuing beliefs which were totally unsupported? This alone would not make sense and it doesn't even mention joining this movement in the first place. Wierd there would be converts among people who were actually there is see supposedly nothing happen.

Like I said, feel free to join in the fun.

I established that such a conspiracy was a far less plausible hypothesis than Lincoln actually giving the speech. You have yet to do likewise for the Gospels.

Ah but isnt' that simply your opinon? Like I said, feel free to join in the fun. Your task is much easier than mine, so someone of your amazing calibure should have no trouble proving it while I play devil's advocate.

[Confused]

Viewing all the posts to date, I find a few things present:
1) science and religion are two different entities. It isn't so much that they are at odds with one another based on their own standings. I am not sure they should even be considered for a match. This being said:

2) Science is based on todays world and the application of life within it. Not just a set of moral standards, but human standards per se. Science test, validates, then either accepts or rejects. It has no place for right or wrong. It just is. Religion is a set of right and wrongs. Regardless of it's value in historical accuracy, or lack thereof, it still provides a set of values and ethics to live by. Now the confliction

3) Here is why they will never get along: as humans, we are in a constant state of challenges for survival. Many times in life, survival requires us to do things that would be considered a "sin" by religious standards. Many times in life, society itself dictates things must go one way which will be in direct conflict with scripture. Science sees this as progress. For example: stem cell research with aborted fetuses. Science sees the many potential benefits for this for survival. There is no moral or immoral component in the research itself. Religion adds the moral or immoral component with the method used to obtain stem cells. Another example: Sex: Science measures the sexual excitment of an individual in terms of chemical reactions, the release of hormones, and then an act to sate the result of these reactions. There is no component of moral or immoral grounds here. Just facts. Once again, religion comes in to add a moral or immoral component. Based on scripture: if one even looks at anothers wife w/lust in his eyes, he has already committed adultery. To have sex only to satisfy lust (the result of chemical reaction in the body and releasing of hormones) is an immoral act based on religion.

All that being said:

Science and religion may not get along, but they do complement each other on many things. Science yearns to test the limits of the imagination for the sake of doing so. Religion (while not a requirement because one can be moral and ethical without being religious) can provide the moral justification: Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should. But ultimately, they will always be at odds because science usually isn't soley dependent on deciding if the ends justify the means. It's the end product that matters, thats all.