Why science and religious fatih need not be in conflict: It's as easy as 1-2-3!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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?

You are right they are not tested scientifically, precisely because naturalism, even methodological kind, deliberately rules out attributing any effect to any type of cause other than material or efficient causes. You are also ruling out particular purported miracles just because they happened in the past. It is a matter of historical record, the Emanuel Swedenborg accurately described the timing and exact timing of a fire in Stockholm even though he was in Gotenburg, hundreds of miles away at the time making it otherwise impossible to know those things. To me that is certainly uncanny and by the common definitions of AF qualifies as a documented miracle.

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.

That is your opinion, most likely based on scholarly sources you trust. It is most certainly a minority opinion, but it would be futile attempting to dissuade you using research I find more trustworthy. The question for both of us, is whether or not we believe those sources only because we like their conclusions.

I can interview 1000's of people still living, that purport to have been abducted by aliens. Should I believe them? Do you?

The UFO phenomena is undoubtedly real. What exactly it means I haven't a clue.

UFOs aren't alien spaceships. They are UNIDENTIFIED objects. Nobody had provided proof they were abducted. In fact they make a point of saying that it can't be proven, which means it must be true in their way of thinking.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I thought I recalled something about how miracles are not intended to convince unbelievers anyways; but rather, to demonstrate spiritual principles and confirm the faith of believers:

“It is therefore well to be understood, that it was not the intention of His Miracles, to make converts to his doctrine, since there is every reason to believe that no one can be converted to the Truth by any miraculous testimony whatsoever, agreeable to what is intimated in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, where it is written, If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead. Accordingly JESUS CHRIST testifies in another place, If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of GOD ; instructing us by these words, that the qualification to admit the evidence of divine doctrine does not arise so much from miraculous testimony, as from a sincere desire to do the will of GOD, thus from a well-disposed heart and life. Accordingly the unbelieving Jews were not convinced by our LORD'S Miracles, nor does it appear to have been his intention to promote their conviction in that way, and therefore he says in another place, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh for a sign, but there shall no sign be given. The conclusion therefore is, that the LORD'S Miracles were intended for the confirmation of the faith of his pious followers; but not for the conviction and conversion of those who had no previous disposition or inclination to become his followers.” - The Miracles of Jesus Christ by Rev. J Clowes, 1816

So if you're looking for a sign to convince you, I'm afraid you're out of luck.

[brewer]

These are instructions for how to be religious without being a science moron.  To be fair the market for these instructions is apt to be minuscule.  I am not therefore seeking any trademark.

Instructions:

1) Think about the core mystery of your religion.  (Okay, I'll break "think about" down for you; I realize you may be a little out of shape.)  Whatever it is that you think of as supernatural, consider how it is that anyone ever found out about that stuff.  I mean all of the priest class agrees you can't detect it with an instrument of science nowadays.  The usual story is that the mystery itself reached out to some ancient scribe, possessed his body and wrote out everything He/they/it wanted known about itself .. and then went back into hiding.  At this point you have to decide whether your faith is in the core mystery of your religion or the claims of some ancient scribes.  If it's in the latter, you're doing faith wrong.  Try again.

2) Okay, if you got past step one you now realize that faith requires open ended-ness.  You can't dictate the details of God's nature or intentions.  If you're feeling a little insecure and humbled, you're actually on the right path now.  Keep it up.

3) Next step, think about the nature of science.  It is not a body of facts.  It is a method of empirical investigation, the observational facts and theories which arise are always subject to reinterpretation.  But the beauty is in the openness of process and how readily one can assess the soundness of the experiments proposed to test the hypotheses.  You can trust science-the-method to investigate the nature of the empirical world more than any other method ever proposed.  In the absence of an authoritative alternative, scientific theory represents the best operating hypotheses for what's out there.  Embrace it, it won't bite - and cannot conflict with your religious faith if done correctly.

You may now walk in faith regarding the central mysteries of who and what we are and any purposes you feel accrues to that, keeping in mind that little ole' you do not control the nature of that mystery; presumably the actual state of affairs is vice versa.  But by picking up and embracing the mantle of science you need not go blindly into the (empirical) world.  Rather you may stride confidently knowing you enjoy the fruits of a long history of careful investigation, which at its core is just as humble and open as you're now trying to be.  That's it.  Carry on.

I liked religious Faith in my adolescence. The very twisted daughter of the baptist minister. Sounds like you may have known one also.

Understand that this came after visiting A69 for about the 10th time today.

[The Valkyrie]

"It's as easy as 1-2-3"

And now there are 1-2-3 pages!

How did you predict that would happen?

Because you ARE the messiah!

[Whateverist]

Now I'm predicting a rash of new reveals in A69.

[The Valkyrie]

Now I'm predicting a rash of new reveals in A69.

I look forward to seeing them.

[Whateverist]

Now I'm predicting a rash of new reveals in A69.

I look forward to seeing them.

I just learned that May 6 is naked gardening day.  We'll see.

https://jobbiecrew.com/world-naked-garde...QlUuzKZPoy

[Harry Nevis]

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?

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?

Witchcraft is much more documented than christianity, with contemporary eye witnesses and confessions of all the witchy rituals they do so well.  And many confessions were obtained by the hand of god.  Why don't christians take these testimonies and events as fact?

---

I thought I recalled something about how miracles are not intended to convince unbelievers anyways; but rather, to demonstrate spiritual principles and confirm the faith of believers:

“It is therefore well to be understood, that it was not the intention of His Miracles, to make converts to his doctrine, since there is every reason to believe that no one can be converted to the Truth by any miraculous testimony whatsoever, agreeable to what is intimated in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, where it is written, If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead. Accordingly JESUS CHRIST testifies in another place, If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of GOD ; instructing us by these words, that the qualification to admit the evidence of divine doctrine does not arise so much from miraculous testimony, as from a sincere desire to do the will of GOD, thus from a well-disposed heart and life. Accordingly the unbelieving Jews were not convinced by our LORD'S Miracles, nor does it appear to have been his intention to promote their conviction in that way, and therefore he says in another place, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh for a sign, but there shall no sign be given. The conclusion therefore is, that the LORD'S Miracles were intended for the confirmation of the faith of his pious followers; but not for the conviction and conversion of those who had no previous disposition or inclination to become his followers.”  - The Miracles of Jesus Christ by  Rev. J Clowes, 1816

So if you're looking for a sign to convince you, I'm afraid you're out of luck.

Wow, so did god tell you he was speaking through this guy?  What kind of bar does something like this have to hit for it to be considered truth?  If it aligns with what you already decided to believe and makes you feel good?

---

You are right they are not tested scientifically, precisely because naturalism, even methodological kind, deliberately rules out attributing any effect to any type of cause other than material or efficient causes. You are also ruling out particular purported miracles just because they happened in the past. It is a matter of historical record, the Emanuel Swedenborg accurately described the timing and exact timing of a fire in Stockholm even though he was in Gotenburg, hundreds of miles away at the time making it otherwise impossible to know those things. To me that is certainly uncanny and by the common definitions of AF qualifies as a documented miracle.


That is your opinion, most likely based on scholarly sources you trust. It is most certainly a minority opinion, but it would be futile attempting to dissuade you using research I find more trustworthy. The question for both of us, is whether or not we believe those sources only because we like their conclusions.


The UFO phenomena is undoubtedly real. What exactly it means I haven't a clue.

UFOs aren't alien spaceships. They are UNIDENTIFIED objects. Nobody had provided proof they were abducted. In fact they make a point of saying that it can't be proven, which means it must be true in their way of thinking.

Didn't Swedenborg describe the aliens living on other planets?  Must be them.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Didn't Swedenborg describe the aliens living on other planets?  Must be them.

Yes, he did, in "Life on Other Earths." It is heavily laden with alchemical symbolism, something the reader should always keep in mind. Nevertheless, I do not consider myself a true Swedenborgian; but rather, a student of his work, which I find fascinating and insightful though not necessarily authoritative. This does not undermine my point that his uncanny predictions and incidents of clairvoyance are documented facts.

[Harry Nevis]

Didn't Swedenborg describe the aliens living on other planets?  Must be them.

Yes, he did, in "Life on Other Earths." It is heavily laden with alchemical symbolism, something the reader should always keep in mind. Nevertheless, I do not consider myself a true Swedenborgian; but rather, a student of his work, which I find fascinating and insightful though not necessarily authoritative. This does not undermine my point that his uncanny predictions and incidents of clairvoyance are documented facts.

Documented facts?  Hardly.