Future of Christianity in US

[watchamadoodle]

robvalue and watchamadoodle: I think that Josh McDowell's Evidence Demands a Verdict book contains arguments that show Christianity is reasonable. There is too much there to summarize here. I understand that an argument exists that Judaism and Christianity evolved, but I dont think it is convincing. If you ask how can supernatural entities observe and influence natural entities without being noticed by science? For example, there are plenty of scientists who notice miracles and believe them. Those who dont believe in the supernatural will never observe it.

I added that book to my wishlist, but the author seems to be an evangelical apologist who is trying to help evangelical readers overcome their doubts. Most of the questions McDowell seems to address are not interesting to me. For example a book addressing in detail the question of how Santa Claus eats all those cookies on Christmas Eve is only interesting to Santa Claus believers who are losing faith.

It would be interesting to discuss definitions of supernatural and models for the interface between supernatural and natural. I've noticed that people are often vague when discussing woo. They like to argue that woo might exist, but they don't like to define woo or guess how it lives with non-woo.

BTW I sometimes believe in woo. I don't mean to ridicule the idea of woo. I just think too many people want to believe in woo without thinking about it at all.

[Ryantology]

I assure you that the supernatural recorded by the mainline Christian Faith is real... But I cannot prove it to anyone or even reason with anyone who will not investigate it for themselves.

I find it impossible to swallow the notion that you're a "phd scientist" when you appear to have no familiarity with the scientific method.

The only assurance I'm getting from you is that you're a liar and a fraud.

[Jenny A]

[robvalue]

You said I should consider that christianty is reasonable.

Could you explain exactly what you mean by that please? I really don't know what you are getting at. I can't see any usual use of the word reasonable which could possibly apply.

The nearest I can get is that it is understandable why people become Christians.

[Jhayward]

Jenny A: Radiological science. I am a PhD engineer and tenured professor at a research university in the US working on instrumentation not unlike that used in gamma ray and X-ray astronomy. I don't see this area of expertise as especially relevant to topics of 'origins' and faith that I am discussing on this forum. I started off here by asking questions then moved on to say what I believe about certain things due to some questions and responses. Science and faith is a personal interest of mine.

Eatchamadoodle: don't read the book if it doesn't look interesting. It is simply an example of some Christian arguments put together that show in my mind that the Christian Faith is reasonable to believe in.

[robvalue]

Uh, did you mean me? I only asked what you mean by reasonable. Words are used so elastically I often have no idea what someone actually means, so I can't assess the question.

If you didn't mean me, never mind, carry on.

I can defeat the normal use of the word reasonable in one sentence.

There is no credible, testable, evidence that anything about it is true above some mundane history. Can the book counter this argument?

As a scientist you should be able to see this is enough to dismiss any claim. If not, you're refusing to apply the same standard. Religion don't get no free pass. Unless this book has fantastic new evidence, it's not going to matter. Supernatural claims are virtually impossible to verify, and certainly not by text. So unless you have some other meaning of reasonable, you're asking the impossible.

Then we've got the problem of what being Christians means. It means almost anything.

[Jenny A]

Jenny A: Radiological science. I am a PhD engineer and tenured professor at a research university in the US working on instrumentation not unlike that used in gamma ray and X-ray astronomy. I don't see this area of expertise as especially relevant to topics of 'origins' and faith that I am discussing on this forum. I started off here by asking questions then moved on to say what I believe about certain things due to some questions and responses. Science and faith is a personal interest of mine.

Thank you. I agree, your expertise is not particularly relevant to ultimate origins let alone faith. But then, neither is the expertise of most of us discussing it here. --- Engineers are often lumped together with scientists. But though related, the disciplines aren't really the same are they? Both their goals and to a large extent methods are quite different. The tag line Christian and PhD Engineer reads quite differently than PhD Scientist.

[watchamadoodle]

Jenny A: Radiological science. I am a PhD engineer and tenured professor at a research university in the US working on instrumentation not unlike that used in gamma ray and X-ray astronomy. I don't see this area of expertise as especially relevant to topics of 'origins' and faith that I am discussing on this forum. I started off here by asking questions then moved on to say what I believe about certain things due to some questions and responses. Science and faith is a personal interest of mine.

Eatchamadoodle: don't read the book if it doesn't look interesting. It is simply an example of some Christian arguments put together that show in my mind that the Christian Faith is reasonable to believe in.

Even though your scientific/engineering knowledge might not be relevant to religion, it shows you are smart. It would be interesting to see your ideas on Christianity. There are many varieties of Christianity.

[Jhayward]

Jenny: I do consider myself to be a scientist but understand the differences between applied and fundamental science. I work for a national lab, too, and we use the term scientist there too for PhD engineers and scientists from a fundamental or applied background. Yes the goals are different and the methods tend to be somewhat different.

---

Robvalue: My last comment was a reply to watchamadoodle.

[robvalue]

For enough, sorry