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

[Whateverist]

Not everything documented is a fact and some alleged facts are of the alternative variety.

[Simon Moon]

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.

Of course, using methodological naturalism, a supernatural cause for an alleged miracle could not be verified. But here's the real problem, there has never been a confirmed supernatural event, that has no possible natural explanations.

Your bar is very low if you do not consider there being any possible natural explanations for the Swedenborg fire predictions.

Swedenborg also claimed to communicate with spirits on the moon, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Saturn, Venus. What a coincidence that the only planets he was able to communicate with spirits, were the only planets known at the time. If only he could have hung on another 9 years, then he would have been able to add Herschel's discovery of Uranus to his list.

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.

That may be true, but there are specific clues in each Gospels pointing to their not being written by eyewitnesses. And I believe the majority of scholars are on the side of them not being eyewitnesses. My cousin graduated from Harvard divinity school, and that is what is taught there, and he's still a believer.

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.

I believe you missed the point I was making.

First of all, you need to explain what you mean by "undoubtedly real". If you mean, the witnesses sincerely believe they had an experience, then yes, it is real that they had an experience.

The question I asked though, is do you believe they were accurately abducted by aliens? If you don't like the alien abduction scenario, what about all the sincere believers in Bigfoot or Chupacabra who claim to have witnessed them? Do you believe they ACTUALLY saw a real Bigfoot or Chupacabra? Again, I am not saying they are lying, only that they are misinterpreting what they witnessed.

What I am leading at, is why when an extraordinary claim of events are written on little pieces of parchment decades after the alleged events, almost 2000 years ago, they become more credible, than people actually still alive that witness some other extraordinary event?

---

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.

N.T Wright (leading British New Testament scholar, Pauline theologian, and retired Anglican bishop) - “I don’t know who the Gospel writers were and nor does anyone else.”

“The argument of this book [Jesus and the Eyewitnesses]–that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus–runs counter to almost all recent scholarship. As we have indicated from time to time, the prevalent view is that a long period of oral transmission in the churches intervened between whatever the eyewitnesses said and the Jesus traditions as they reached the Evangelists [the authors of the Gospels]. No doubt the eyewitnesses started the process of oral tradition, but it passed through many retellings, reformulations, and expansions before the Evangelists themselves did their own editorial work on it.”

Not sure how it could be the minority of scholars, when a leading mainstream scholar (and hardly on the fringe, and a Christian) states that it is the prevalent view.

[vorlon13]

And Apostle Paul was not bashful about contradicting the 4 gospel writers in the least.

Kinda moot point how quickly the gospel writers managed to pen things when Paul had free reign shortly thereafter to hijack the movement and implement what he wanted.


Of course, seeing as to how useful 'personal revelation' is to today's Christian, maybe being more Pauline and less Christian is what the masses want. And they certainly aren't interested at this distant remove in what Jesus wanted . . .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've never had fatih.

[Neo-Scholastic]

N.T Wright (leading British New Testament scholar, Pauline theologian, and retired Anglican bishop) - “I don’t know who the Gospel writers were and nor does anyone else...Not sure how it could be the minority of scholars, when a leading mainstream scholar (and hardly on the  fringe, and a Christian) states that it is the prevalent view.

Tom Wright is a fine scholar and a firm believer in the resurrection. So why do you cite him since you obviously disagree with him on the central issue? It's kind of like complaining that you aren't being hung with a new rope.

---

I've never had fatih.

That's too bad. I sincerely hope that soon you receive the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.

---

First of all, you need to explain what you mean by "undoubtedly real"...The question I asked though, is do you believe they were accurately abducted by aliens?

The UFO phenomena isn't a single thing. There are everything from night sky sightings of lights to abduction stories. But if we are going to focus on alien abductions then, I would have to say that something very real has happened to the abductees, something extraordinary and uncanny. By all accounts they are a strange mixture of physical and consciousness effects. Personally, I doubt that 'the Greys' are a physical species from another far away planet. At the same time the circumstances around some abduction stories suggest that they aren't purely psychological fabrications, either. Part of what makes it difficult to figure it out is that the phenomena don't fit within any pre-existing narrative or paradigm. I suppose it would make a great difference if I had shared such an experience or been close to someone who has. But I haven't so it's an esoteric topic for me.

On the other hand I do have experience with the divine, can apprehend it in the gospel accounts. These are not stories from long ago; but rather, an on-going story in which I am a participant. The resurrection account fits within and illuminated a pre-existing tradition that was hundreds of years old before it happened. It reaffirms my trust in the rational capacity of Man and the intelligibility of the world. So while I respect the analogy you are trying to draw (and from the outside it looks like a good one), I can only say that things look much differently to those who accept the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

[Fireball]

---

I've never had fatih.

That's too bad. I sincerely hope that soon you receive the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.

---

Sounds like a curse.

[The Valkyrie]

I've never had fatih.

Tastes like long pig...

[Harry Nevis]

Not sure how it could be the minority of scholars, when a leading mainstream scholar (and hardly on the  fringe, and a Christian) states that it is the prevalent view.

When in doubt, redefine. In this case, scholar.

[Mister Agenda]

Tom Wright is a fine scholar and a firm believer in the resurrection. So why do you cite him since you obviously disagree with him on the central issue? It's kind of like complaining that you aren't being hung with a new rope.

I am impressed. The fallacy of 'how dare you cite someone on something they are qualified to have an educated opinion on when you don't agree with every position they hold' seems a little long, but it may be the most concise way to describe what's been accomplished here. It seems like a round-the-block to get to a tu quoque combined with a reverse appeal to authority and a backwards ad hom. If I were one of the judges, I'd give it a ten.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Tom Wright is a fine scholar and a firm believer in the resurrection. So why do you cite him since you obviously disagree with him on the central issue? It's kind of like complaining that you aren't being hung with a new rope.

I am impressed. The fallacy of  'how dare you cite someone on something they are qualified to have an educated opinion on when you don't agree with every position they hold' seems a little long, but it may be the most concise way to describe what's been accomplished here. It seems like a round-the-block to get to a tu quoque combined with a reverse appeal to authority and a backwards ad hom. If I were one of the judges, I'd give it a ten.

Just to be clear the quote doesn't even accurately reflect Wright's position. Every informed person knows that the gospels are titled the "Gospel According to (fill in the blank)..." not the "Gospel written by ( fill in the blank). So, indeed, none of the gospels claim to have been written by actual apostles. That's hardly anything surprising. They are however understood, even by Wright, to be written by people intending to and capable of accurately record the recollections of the apostles after which the gospels are named. Moreover, the notion that Luke and Acts were in fact written by a highly educated contemporary of the apostles with command of extensive non-trivial facts about official titles, contemporary medical terms, geography, and even meteorology that could not be known by anyone other than a travel companion of Paul, that notion, is much more credible than any alternative interpretation of both those texts and external sources. Moreover, if Luke relied on source material from Mark and Mathew, something out of which skeptics tend to make a big deal, then Mark and Mathew are credibly dated within the generation of possible eyewitnesses.