RE: Why science and religious fatih need not be in conflict: It's as easy as 1-2-3!
May 1, 2017 at 8:16 pm
(This post was last modified: May 1, 2017 at 8:18 pm by Simon Moon.)
(May 1, 2017 at 3:04 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: First, the naturalist would have others dismiss all miracles as impossible based on his own indefensible metaphysical commitment to physical causal closure.
That is not the methodological naturalist view.
I do not necessarily state the miracles are impossible, only unsupported by evidence.
And when told by theists that miracles can't be tested scientifically, all I can do is wonder, why I should accept them as being true?
Quote:Next, the core mystery of the Christian faith is the resurrection. The scriptural records of Resurrection are not based on the personal ecstatic visions of a revered mystic; but rather, purport to be historical testimony of observed events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Sorry, but ancient scriptural accounts of a bunch of prescientific, superstitious people, is hardly good evidence for miracles. Especially considering the amount of time that passed between the alleged events, and the time they were recorded, by anonymous non-eyewitnesses.
The texts that contain the stories, purporting to be historical testimony, is a bit circular. Again, hardly good evidence.
I can interview 1000's of people still living, that purport to have been abducted by aliens.
Should I believe them? Do you?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
