Do you think Science and Religion can co-exist in a society?

[Fake Messiah]

I'm curious, if you consider Bart Erhman, or a number of other atheist scholars, who don't hold a high regard for the "mythers" as liars in this regard as well?"

First of all it's Ehrman. Ehrman is apparently an agnostic not an atheist. Ehrman did not provide the best defense of historicity, and the best critique of bad mythicism in his 2012 "Did Jesus Exist?" but in recent books "How Jesus Became God" and "Jesus Before the Gospels", he recognizes that much of what the field relies on as established facts aren't so established after all, and corrects some of the mistakes he made in DJE. in HJBG, Ehrman increasingly turns to the same arguments as mythicists. He acknowledges that the earliest believers "knew" Jesus was raised from the dead; not because (as apologists argue) no one would make such a claim unless they knew the tomb was empty, but because they had visions of Jesus from heaven. Ehrman also now sees that ancient Judaism was not an example of monolithic groupthink, but just as rife with alternate opinions and heresies as anything in Christianity.

On a side note, I find it interesting, that the principles and methods proclaimed by these "scholars", often don't follow into any other areas of historical studies and research. Don't you?

I don't find it interesting I find it spineless. The truth is that theological and Biblical universities are in the blatant violation of basic principles of scholarship, they're touting academic freedom while covertly quashing it, abusing tenure – especially to score financial donations. They don't act as scholars but bullies. Let me give you few examples:

Thomas L. Thompson made archaeological proof against existence of biblical patriarchs during 1970s and 1980s. Bringing them in Catholic Theological faculty in Tübingen he immediately got in trouble and from none other then Joseph Ratzinger himself. For decades Thompson was barred from holding any teaching position. He was alienated from friends and colleagues in the Catholic faculty with whom he had worked and shared his life with for years. He was publicly attacked at Catholic seminars and was not allowed to defend his position. Number of articles were criticizing and rejecting his work, competence and integrity. No university in the world would employ him so he worked odd jobs like floor wiper, janitor, house painter etc.

Mike Licona a well-known Christian apologist in his 2010 book, "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach", briefly questioned the historical reality of incident that Jewish saints arose from the dead. Such blasphemy triggered a paroxysm of outrage from all sort of religious figures so much so that Licona resigned from both as a research professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary and as the apologetics coordinator for the North American Mission Board.

Peter Enns set off a two-year inquisition at Westminster Theological Seminary for saying that Bible is similar to other ancient texts, that there are conflicting theologies in OT and that NT authors plagiarized from OT. He was fired.

Few years ago Christopher Rollston, professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Tennessee's Emmanuel Christian Seminary, wrote an online article for the Huffington Post criticizing the marginalization of women in the Bible. He was fired from the college although he was a tenured professor.


Dr. Bruce Waltke was preeminent Old Testament scholar until he said that biological evolution could be true which made evangelical employers at the Reformed Theological Seminary to go ballistic. He was pressured to post a clarification where he dutifully reaffirmed his support for creationists and his belief that Adam and Eve were real and then was fired from Reformed Theological Seminary.

There are many more like few years ago when Fr Tom Brodie has been removed from his post after claiming Jesus never existed.
https://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-...-237560221

[RoadRunner79]

Examples such as your repeated and documented opinions, on these boards, regarding evilution..including that lovely missive above?  Conversations in which you, ostensibly, participated?

Ok.... that still doesn't help me to understand why you think that I am compartmentalizing.  I'm not saying that you have to search, or do a full quote or anything.  But looking for some inkling into the reasons behind your claim.
Now sometimes I may isolate or prioritize something for a period, to look at the different options of where that individual evidence is leading.  But the end of that process is integrate this with whole picture to reach the best conclusion based on the reasons and evidence. 
I will often do this when troubleshooting or investigating a machine problem as well.  And sometimes not everything may be resolved as neatly as we would like, or some questions may be left unanswered.

[Brian37]

I do not like the loaded title of this thread.

Our species has no choice but to get along. But as far as scientific method, it is totally incompatible with religion. It is not to say that religious scientists cant accept science, but in that scientific method itself is not a religion, it is a neutral tool, it is not there to prop up any club, holy writing, or supernatural claim.

There is not one religion worldwide, that does not try to either debunk science to point to their club, or when they cant do that, they try to claim science points to their club. Scientific method is universal and religion is not.

[RoadRunner79]

It could be, because some are difficult to have a discussion with; if God comes into the picture at all.   I have found this when discussing basic principles, and even when I am adamant to keep it about logic, and not a particular theological consequence.   Do you have an example in mind, perhaps I can clarify?

It could be that the difficulty you have making yourself understood is the way you express yourself. I rule I've just made up is: if a post requires three readings to make sense, and it still doesn’t make sense; then it's vacuous nonsense. An example:

I don't see any opposition between or need to compartmentalize between scientific and religious beliefs.  In fact, I find that the harmonize quite well.  There are times, that I may need to re-evaluate something, or take a closer look at my assumptions (or the assumptions of others).  Although some don't like that answer.

Regarding the highlight. This is a waste of keyboard ink, it says absolutely nothing. The rest, typo corrected, is even worse. You are using the theologians trick, use a deluge of words to disguise the fact that you have nothing of substance to say. But then you did commit yourself just recently:

...My position on evolution is dependent on what you are talking about in regards to evolution (and the reasons you give to support it)...

Evolution as espoused by Mr Charles Darwin? There are no reasons to support it. There is a mountain facts to support it. No belief required.

On one had, you say that you don't understand what I am saying, and then in the other, you say that it means nothing.  Which is it?  
And I apologize if the "deluge of words" which you quoted is too much for you to handle.  I'll try to keep my posts to you in the future, short and simple.  However; much shorter, and I fear that you may have trouble making sense of them.  I find myself in somewhat of a dilemma.

---

I just want to clarify, but you seem to be taking an opposing position; to the OP, and the often heard (religion doesn't evaluate new info).  I wouldn't say that you can reconcile anything, but I believe what you are speaking of is talking about a general description, in scripture (which I don't believe the intent was to be scientifically exhaustive), vs a more detailed scientific explanation.  Then yes, I don't see any issue with reconciling them.  I don't think that science goes against it; so there isn't a problem.

And to be clear, the post after yours is correct, My position on evolution is dependent on what you are talking about in regards to evolution (and the reasons you give to support it).
As to your other comments, that is an issue; dealing with morality (which if you take a subjective view of morality, then you have no argument), but either way is off topic.

Adam & Eve (together, as a couple) did not exist; their existence has been disproven, formally falsified, in that the human race did not descend from two individuals.  Now, if such was not the case (that the human race did, in fact, descend from two parents), then people like you would be saying that the Bible was correct and using scientific findings as proof.

Ok... what are that facts that formally falsify this?

---

I'm curious, if you consider Bart Erhman, or a number of other atheist scholars, who don't hold a high regard for the "mythers" as liars in this regard as well?"

First of all it's Ehrman. Ehrman is apparently an agnostic not an atheist. Ehrman did not provide the best defense of historicity, and the best critique of bad mythicism in his 2012 "Did Jesus Exist?" but in recent books "How Jesus Became God" and "Jesus Before the Gospels", he recognizes that much of what the field relies on as established facts aren't so established after all, and corrects some of the mistakes he made in DJE. in HJBG, Ehrman increasingly turns to the same arguments as mythicists. He acknowledges that the earliest believers "knew" Jesus was raised from the dead; not because (as apologists argue) no one would make such a claim unless they knew the tomb was empty, but because they had visions of Jesus from heaven. Ehrman also now sees that ancient Judaism was not an example of monolithic groupthink, but just as rife with alternate opinions and heresies as anything in Christianity.

Thanks for the correction on the spelling of his name.  For some reason it's a persistent problem that I keep wanting to do that.  However judging from his
Blog Here last fall about a debate against a mythicist, I feel fairly confident in saying that Dr. Ehrman (as well as a number of his commenters) do not have a lot of respect for the methodologies and "scholarly work" of the mythicist.  However the question still stands... are they just lying Christians in your view?  And while I may tend to agree with your distinction between agnosticism and atheism, most here, would put them under the same category of atheist.  And even if you are correct in your views about the author of the article, I don't believe that the genetic fallacy or attacking the man, negates the arguments made.

On a side note, I find it interesting, that the principles and methods proclaimed by these "scholars", often don't follow into any other areas of historical studies and research. Don't you?

I don't find it interesting I find it spineless. The truth is that theological and Biblical universities are in the blatant violation of basic principles of scholarship, they're touting academic freedom while covertly quashing it, abusing tenure – especially to score financial donations. They don't act as scholars but bullies. Let me give you few examples:

I was talking about the mythisist.  But I'm glad that you agree (at least in principle).

[Jehanne]

Adam & Eve (together, as a couple) did not exist; their existence has been disproven, formally falsified, in that the human race did not descend from two individuals.  Now, if such was not the case (that the human race did, in fact, descend from two parents), then people like you would be saying that the Bible was correct and using scientific findings as proof.

Ok... what are that facts that formally falsify this?

---

Right here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

[RoadRunner79]

Ok... what are that facts that formally falsify this?

---

Right here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Thanks for the link.  That is what I thought you where talking about.   However I don't think that it says... what you think it says.   The only thing that I can see that possibly be taken to your point is the statement "studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands".  I would disagree.  I think that it was zero at one point.  And I'm a bit skeptical of any claim, that it went from zero to tens of thousands, with no in between.

You may also want to look at the misconceptions part of the article.

[Jehanne]

Right here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Thanks for the link.  That is what I thought you where talking about.   However I don't think that it says... what you think it says.   The only thing that I can see that possibly be taken to your point is the statement "studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands".  I would disagree.  I think that it was zero at one point.  And I'm a bit skeptical of any claim, that it went from zero to tens of thousands, with no in between.

You may also want to look at the misconceptions part of the article.

I did, in particular:

Not the biblical Eve

Owing to its figurative reference to the first woman in the Biblical Book of Genesis, the Mitochondrial Eve theory initially met with enthusiastic endorsement from some young earth creationists, who viewed the theory as a validation of the biblical creation story. Some even went so far as to claim that the Mitochondrial Eve theory disproved evolution.[42][43][44] However, the theory does not suggest any relation between biblical Eve and Mitochondrial Eve because Mitochondrial Eve:

• is not a fixed individual (see above)
  
• had a mother
  
• was not the only woman of her time, and
  
• Y-chromosomal Adam is unlikely to have been her sexual partner, or indeed to have been contemporaneous to her.
  

[comet]

science and religion cant do a thing without people.

people have trouble coexisting. Its a bummer, but its also empirical.