1

Hi Joe,

Although not a Christian myself, I think you make some good points. Another thing to consider, which you might already have decided to cover in your next post, is how people of various beliefs use different definitions. For example, I've heard some ID critics describe aliens as supernatural, arguing that "supernatural" means "that for which there is no evidence".

2

actually i for one dont have any problem with this reclassifying angels,the devil and demons among the realm of the non-supernatural. That means that their existance or non existance can affirmed based of the presence of evidence or lack thereof. In other words,whenever i next corner a christian by asking to be provided with evidence for the existance of angels and demons,he wont be able to fall back on the tired chessnut of "its all a matter of faith"

3

In other words,whenever i next corner a christian by asking to be provided with evidence for the existance of angels and demons,he wont be able to fall back on the tired chessnut of "its all a matter of faith"

Doesn't eye-witness testimony qualify as evidence? The Bible is full of eye-witness testimony to the existence of angels and, to a lesser extent demons; I believe the Koran is too. You may not accept the evidence, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

4

Ucfengr,

Did your mother or father ever pose the question, "And if your friends told you to jump off the roof, would you do that too?"

I have a similar question: If you had "eyewitness testimony" that an angel wanted you to jump off the roof, would you do it?

5

Matthew,

Since an angel has the ability to not obey God (as we do) my answer to your question would be no.

6

Supernatural refers not only to that which is "outside of nature" but which defies the laws of nature. Since God created heaven and earth, it isn't difficult to replace these terms with supernature and nature, both being parts of creation. Naturally, (pun intended) many things which appear to defy natural law are actually obeying physical laws which we do not yet apprehend.

Miracles are supernatural. Using only thought and will, Jesus created matter from nothing. Raising Lazarus from the dead was obviously supernatural. To the extent that angels and demons can also manipulate physical reality in defiance of natural laws, these beings are also supernatural.

In other words, Creation contains both the natural and the supernatural, but God is not contained in one or the other. God transcends both, "preceeds" both, is outside and superior to both time and space, nature and supernature. He is Creator; He is above the line in that sense.

7

I have a similar question: If you had "eyewitness testimony" that an angel wanted you to jump off the roof, would you do it?

Matthew--Probably not, but how is that relevent? ludwig clearly implied that there is no evidence of the existence of angels/demons, I was pointing out that there is. We can argue about the reliability of eyewitness testimony as evidence if you wish, but it is evidence.

8

Interesting post.

I wonder if we need a further division along side the line as "visual and non-visual" by this I really mean sensual (in the 5 senses form). The problem I have is that angels and demons are sometimes visual (though I'm sure there are those that doubt this) and sometimes not, so it would be better to classify them moment by moment rather than permanent.

9

One way to address this is to ask are angels bound by any laws or limitations due to their nature (Satan being an angel himself is included here)? If they are then they too would fall to scientific inquiry. A billion angels may fit on the head of a pin but they are limited by laws of nature (such as, can they alter the speed of light? how can they interact with the world of matter?). The only thing that makes them 'supernatural' is that they seem to be closed off from the world of objective scientific experimentation (unless the gov't is keeping one in some lab at Area 51!).

Philosophically God would exsit then as supernatural because he is not bound by any laws. He could, for example, alter nature or his own nature as he pleases.

But using language honestly, 'supernatural' implies above nature. Nature means the matter and stuff we interact with in everyday life. It also means the stuff we are made out of and after centuries of study so far it looks like the stuff we are made out of is the stuff of matter. This, of course, does not preclude the existence of God in any way or of a human soul (for reasons I can get into if you really want me to).

The connotations implicit in the word supernatural differ based on the subject in which it occurs. When used in the natural sciences the term has a deistic flavor, while in a theological context it has a polytheistic quality. Consider, for example, the way our culture—including most Christians—have come to view the angelic realm. Although scripture is clear that they angels are created by Jesus (Col.1:16), we tend to consider them “supernatural” beings, existing not only outside of nature but outside of creation itself.

I'm not sure I see that. The 'Angel fad' has calmed down now but when it was going strong angels were always seen as created by God. In popular culture they are often depicted as humans who have died (Highway to Heaven) or at least as creatures who work for God (Touched by an Angel and a thousand other shows created in the mold of Buffy the Vampire Slayer).

10

Ucfengr,

You look at evidence that God, angels, and the supernatural exists, and invite us to accept it.

Ludwig points out, though, that the nature of eyewitness testimony is that it is a "matter of faith". One needs to trust the eyewitness or trust in God.

When you counter that, "You may not accept the evidence, but that doesn't mean it's not there", you seem to be saying that we need to take the eyewitness testimony in particular very seriously because the eyewitness testimony exists and that it a very important thing to consider.

I'm saying that's nonsense: eyewitness testimony doesn't mean anything unless it can be independently corroborated. People testify and bear witness to all kinds of ridiculous things. The more important the testimony, the more scrutiny it deserves and the more it needs that independent corroboration.

This just seems like the commonest of common sense to me, but when it comes to religion, people have a scary way of tossing common sense out the window. People have an undeniable willingness to metaphorically "jump off the roof" just because somebody says to.

Eyewitness testimony is essentially worthless (or worse) unless we have some way of checking it out for ourselves.

11

Just an observation about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. My understanding is that this hypothesis (at least in any strong, interesting form) is widely rejected by linguists.

12

You look at evidence that God, angels, and the supernatural exists, and invite us to accept it.

Did I? I didn't invite you to accept the evidence, only to acknowledge its existence.

Ludwig points out, though, that the nature of eyewitness testimony is that it is a "matter of faith". One needs to trust the eyewitness or trust in God.

I would argue that this is the nature of most evidence, not just eye-witness. We accept lots of things on faith. I accept the studies that show a link between smoking and lung cancer, even though I haven't read any of the studies and have never met any of the people who conducted them. I probably wouldn't understand the methodology even if I did read the reports, but I accept on faith that the folks conducting the studies knew what they were doing, that their measurements were right, and that they weren't letting their pre-conceived notions color the experiment.

When you counter that, "You may not accept the evidence, but that doesn't mean it's not there", you seem to be saying that we need to take the eyewitness testimony in particular very seriously because the eyewitness testimony exists and that it a very important thing to consider.

I said nothing of the sort. I made no comment on the importance or validity of the evidence, only that it is there.

I'm saying that's nonsense: eyewitness testimony doesn't mean anything unless it can be independently corroborated. People testify and bear witness to all kinds of ridiculous things. The more important the testimony, the more scrutiny it deserves and the more it needs that independent corroboration.

How do you independently corroborate the theory of evolution? I think current evolutionary theory claims that birds descended from reptiles, but I've never seen a reptile give birth to a bird, have you?

This just seems like the commonest of common sense to me, but when it comes to religion, people have a scary way of tossing common sense out the window. People have an undeniable willingness to metaphorically "jump off the roof" just because somebody says to.

Let's not limit this to religion, please. There are plenty of non-religious examples of folks tossing common sense out the window. Check out some of the crazy beliefs people have about Bush or had about Clinton during his Presidency. What about the JFK assassination, UFO's, or the OJ Simpson murder case?

Eyewitness testimony is essentially worthless (or worse) unless we have some way of checking it out for ourselves.

Of course this would make much of what we know about ancient history worthless. How can I check out if Alexander really did defeat Cyrus at the Battle of Issus? All I have are eyewitness accounts.

13

I would argue that this is the nature of most evidence, not just eye-witness. We accept lots of things on faith. I accept the studies that show a link between smoking and lung cancer, even though I haven't read any of the studies and have never met any of the people who conducted them. I probably wouldn't understand the methodology even if I did read the reports, but I accept on faith that the folks conducting the studies knew what they were doing, that their measurements were right, and that they weren't letting their pre-conceived notions color the experiment.

True but this is a different type of faith, faith in your ability to be strategically lazy. You could read these reports, interview the people who conducted them, study their methodology etc. If you did so you'd either find your faith reinforced or find it damaged. So what you are doing here is being strategically lazy, guessing that it's safe here to just trust the people saying these things rather than learning it for yourself.

How do you independently corroborate the theory of evolution? I think current evolutionary theory claims that birds descended from reptiles, but I've never seen a reptile give birth to a bird, have you?

You actually have two theories here. One is the theory of evolution in general and the other is a historical theory of how evolution played out on earth as it relates to birds and reptiles. There is a relevant difference. Probability has a lot to tell us in the abstract about dice tosses. Whether or not the dice toss at table 6 at Trumps AC Casino on 10:45 AM today was 5-6 is a matter of history. There may or may not be any evidence that would let you independently confirm this.

Of course this would make much of what we know about ancient history worthless. How can I check out if Alexander really did defeat Cyrus at the Battle of Issus? All I have are eyewitness accounts.

Indeed but such accounts are always taken with a grain of salt. Many scholars did not believe Troy even existed despite Homer's account of the Trojan War until someone actually dug it up. In a previous thread the subject of Julias Ceasar came up. In his eyewitness accounts he claimed to have witnessed miracles that lead him to believe the gods favored him. Historians are not playing unfair when they give some credibility to his memoriors but reject statements such as that.

14

Boonton--Trying to find significant points of contention between our posts, but I don't see any, so thanks, I think.

15

Too many questions being begged by this essay. It's one thing to have a reasoned position, but it's something else entirely to just make up a bunch of crazy strawmen and then take a blowtorch to the lot of 'em.

Those who believe that the material is all that exists (i.e., materialists, physicalists, some atheists) are forced to reduce or explain everything in terms of the physical.

Absolute nonsense. Well, you might find some crank somewhere who feels "forced" to explain this or that, and do so solely in physical terms, but I've never met such a person - and most of the people I associate with are vehemently non-religious. I call straw man on this one.

Look, as an atheist, I view the term "supernatural" to include talk of gods, angels, faeries, ghosts and the like. In this regard, the terms is excellent for referencing imagined superbeings.

Our view of reality is robust enough to recognize that the natural realms consists of such aspects as the quantitative, the ethical, the aesthetic, and the economic, that are not necessarily reducible to another aspect of reality.

Another straw man. Joe's saying here that a rational, physical and material view of the universe cannot embrace mathematics, sociology, the humanities or systems theory? This is beyond laughable. Really, there's not much difference between the way I and most of you view the universe in which we live. The biggest difference is that I deny the existence of supernatural entities. But that doesn't force me to deny mathematics, or abstract ideas - indeed, it demands that I grasp them.

Because it is possible for angels, demons, time, and the entire universe to cease to exist, its existence must be radically contingent.

This begs the question that it is possible for the universe to cease to exist. Yet the laws of physics suggest that space and time are emergent properties of matter. Laws of thermodynamics and conservation indicate how these properties change depending on their state, and they seem to follow fairly well-ordered rules that are consistent and independently verifiable.

So far as we know, matter doesn't suddenly wink out of existence (except at the quantum level) so there's no reason to posit that a supernatural agent is preventing this from happening. You follow this line of logic, then you have to think up all kinds of crazy correlates: Frogs don't suddenly appear in the sky and rain down on us, so God must be preventing that from happening. I don't grow 50 feet taller every second, so God must be preventing that from happening, etc.

The rest of the piece continues the circular reasoning. Per Sapir-Whorf (which lies in my area of expertise), most linguists see the hyphothesis as being an important contribution to understanding how language works and how languages affect speakers. What has been criticized are some of the more outlandish claims made with regard to how Sapir-Whorf might be applied, along with attempts to over-extend its application.

16

Ucfengr,

In your first comment, you asked a question:

Doesn't eye-witness testimony qualify as evidence?

I responded that eyewitness testimony is a very unreliable form of evidence unless it can be corroborated. Your counter-response is:

I made no comment on the importance or validity of the evidence, only that it is there.

To which I say, I agree with you that eyewitness testimony exists. If you don't have anything else to say about the importance or validity of eyewitness testimony, then we are in total agreement.

You go on to point out that most of our knowledge of the world comes through eyewitness testimony or some other kind of second-hand information.

You raise the more general question of how do we determine the reliability or truth of any of the information we receive and use every day. You give the examples of lung-cancer studies, the theory of evolution, and ancient accounts of the Battle of Issus.

Allow me to address your examples.

Most people assume that lung-cancer studies are generally or widely accurate because research scientists have a stake in producing accurate and trustworthy reports. They have a very, very strong self-interest in being as accurate and reliable as possible.

On the other hand, many people would view a lung-cancer study with great skepticism if it were funded by a tobacco company and if it concluded that smoking wasn't as dangerous as you might think.

I personally don't accept the results of any study, scientific or not, that seem counter-intuitive to me unless I can examine the methodology and the experimental data to my own personal satisfaction. In the case of scientific studies, I will outsource the verification process to the scientists who are engaged in peer review. But even then, I never accept the verdict of peer review as infallible.

The theory of evolution is something I accept because it corresponds well to reality. As you point out, it is not something that can be checked out in every respect in a laboratory setting through repeatable controlled experiments. Nonetheless, there is so much circumstantial evidence for it in so many different areas that I am very willing to believe it and use it as a paradigm for thinking about nature.

On the other hand, if the only reason I had to believe evolution (that is to say, the theory of evolution through natural selection) was because someone told me about it, then not only would I not believe it, I would actively disbelieve it and hold it to be false. The theory of evolution describes the world out there, and if there is no evidence at all for it besides some person's testimony, then that would conclusively prove it to be false.

As for the Battle of Issus, it was a battle that changed the course of history. It ensured the successful conclusion a few months later of Alexander's initial Mediterrean campaign and led to the dominance of Hellenistic culture in the region for many centuries.

As you point out, we will never be able to establish the particulars of the battle because all we have are long-ago accounts that may or may not be accurate in any given detail.

But those long-ago accounts indicate to us what may have happened on the battlefield back then. That is the best we could hope for.

We can do a lot better, though, when we want to know what was the result or the outcome of the battle (Alexander's decisive defeat of the sixty-thousand strong army of Darius III). The reason we do not doubt the outcome is because we have lots of corroboration in terms of the aftermath: Alexander went on to establish an empire upon the ruins of the Persian empire and his other conquests.

Let's not limit this to religion, please. There are plenty of non-religious examples of folks tossing common sense out the window. Check out some of the crazy beliefs people have about Bush or had about Clinton during his Presidency. What about the JFK assassination, UFO's, or the OJ Simpson murder case?

The fact that people are willing to abandon common sense for non-religious reasons serves to strengthen my point: uncorroborated eyewitness testimony is generally worthless or even pernicious.

"You look at evidence that God, angels, and the supernatural exists, and invite us to accept it."

Did I? I didn't invite you to accept the evidence, only to acknowledge its existence.

What is the point of your drawing our attention to the evidence if you are not inviting us to examine it and perhaps accept it as well?

Cheers,
Matthew

17

Most people assume that lung-cancer studies are generally or widely accurate because research scientists have a stake in producing accurate and trustworthy reports. They have a very, very strong self-interest in being as accurate and reliable as possible.

I don't think the evidence shows this. There are two many examples of sloppy science and outright fraud being accepted as conventional wisdom. Look at Piltdown Man or the "Archaeoraptor" hoax. What about the conventional wisdom that ulcers where caused by stress? What about all the connections we hear about the dangers of second-hand smoke, when the World Health Organization could find no statistically significant increase in cancer risk for a non-smoker living with a smoker.

The theory of evolution is something I accept because it corresponds well to reality.

The TOE has changed significantly over time to accomodate reality. It corresponds with reality, until it doesn't and then it changes to accomodate whatever the new reality is.

The fact that people are willing to abandon common sense for non-religious reasons serves to strengthen my point: uncorroborated eyewitness testimony is generally worthless or even pernicious.

None of the examples I used rely exclusively or even primarily on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony.

What is the point of your drawing our attention to the evidence if you are not inviting us to examine it and perhaps accept it as well?

To bring out the larger point that much of what people (myself included) accept as fact is really a matter of faith.

18

If the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is correct, then it would be wise to become as conscious of our "language habits" as possible.

It's wise to be conscious of language habits irrespective of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which I think Joe mentions here to give his post an aire of erudition for it has no bearing on his point. And a strange point it is.

The terms supernatural and natural are pretty darn useful in everyday conversation. "A demon caused him to hit his child" everyone would agree is a statement about the supernatural. "She turned the handle and water flowed from the faucet" is about natural causes. If I understand him at all, Joe seems to be turning this common understanding on its head.

In his first diagram Joe presents the conventional view: God, angels and demons are supernatural; man, plants, animals are natural. But he's unhappy that God is not alone in Her own category, so rather than create a new category like "metasupernatural" he evicts angels and demons, bizarrely, putting them in the same group with man, plants, and animals.

His motivation? He doesn't want "to concede a point to the physicalist worldview." So much easier to just the change common, useful defintions of ordinary words. Orwell is smiling from beyond the grave, Humpty Dumpty has been put back together again.

Joe, say it ain't so!

19

"The TOE has changed significantly over time to accomodate reality. It corresponds with reality, until it doesn't and then it changes to accomodate whatever the new reality is."

That is what theories do. They evolve as data emerges, and they become stronger for it. If additional data emerges that cannot be reconciled to the theory, the theory is history like so many others. That, of course, hasn't happened. You seem to imply some sort of deception or disingenuousness on the part of scientists. The basic tenets of the theory are unchanged; only certain aspects have been adjusted when new data suggests adjustment is necessary. Theories, particularly theories as well-supported as the TOE, are not discarded when they are found to be less than comprehensive; they are modified.

20

I, too, feel pretty comfortable with the first definition of supernatural. It is fun, for instance, to point out to materialists that the "Big Bang" was a supernatural event.

21

Ucfengr,

The [theory of evolution] has changed significantly over time to accomodate reality. It corresponds with reality, until it doesn't and then it changes to accomodate whatever the new reality is.

Aha, you believe in the theory of evolution of the theory of evolution! :)

The theory of evolution as set forth by Charles Darwin in his book Origin of Species has not been refuted in any way, shape, or form since it was first published in 1856.

Darwin's original theory has changed inasmuch as it has grown tremendously in both depth and scope (which, as you point out, has also led to the theory's outgrowths being pruned back in spots). But the original theory has withstood the test of time.

Darwin's theory has held its ground while the theories of Newton were fundamentally challenged and modified. It has held its ground while many other branches of science have had to discard some key paradigms as well. In short, by scientific standards Darwin's evolution through natural selection is one of the most robust theories ever.

The fact that people are willing to abandon common sense for non-religious reasons serves to strengthen my point: uncorroborated eyewitness testimony is generally worthless or even pernicious.

None of the examples I used rely exclusively or even primarily on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony.

Uncorroborated eyewitness testimony is generally worthless or even pernicious. Anyone who relies on such testimony for religious purposes is making a mistake and abandoning common sense.

The fact that people are willing to abandon common sense for non-religious reasons (Bush, Clinton, JFK, UFO's, O.J.) reinforces the point that people believe what they want to believe whether or not such beliefs can be justified by common sense standards of evidence.

Uncorroborated eyewitness testimony is just one out of a variety of unreliable kinds of evidence that gets passed along for various reasons and enjoys a credibility that is wholly undeserved. You seems to understand that, so you should understand why I feel my skepticism is justified, even when it is applied to religious beliefs that you would strongly like to shield from skepticism.

"... research scientists have a stake in producing accurate and trustworthy reports. They have a very, very strong self-interest in being as accurate and reliable as possible."

I don't think the evidence shows this. There are two many examples of sloppy science and outright fraud being accepted as conventional wisdom.

Too many? What percentage of research scientists engage in sloppy or fraudulent studies? Ten percent? One percent? One hundredth of a percent?

Are we to discount or even disregard all research because some scientists are sloppy or dishonest? And if we do, does that somehow make religious beliefs based on personal testimony or on Biblical accounts more credible?

What about the conventional wisdom that ulcers where caused by stress? What about all the connections we hear about the dangers of second-hand smoke, when the World Health Organization could find no statistically significant increase in cancer risk for a non-smoker living with a smoker?

I agree with you that science should not be taken on faith. Scientific consensus changes on a regular basis, to the point that our understanding of the world at any given point in time seems entirely different if you travel 100 years or so in either the past or the future. (However, as I mentioned above, evolution seems to be the exception that proves the rule here.)

"What is the point of your drawing our attention to the evidence if you are not inviting us to examine it and perhaps accept it as well?"

To bring out the larger point that much of what people (myself included) accept as fact is really a matter of faith.

It seems I take a whole lot less on faith than you do.

Faith should be what one falls back on when you don't have anything else to use.

Yet when it comes to cosmology and our place in the world and other big questions about our lives, religion stubbornly clings to faith when other modes of knowledge are quite accessible and more productive. The unfortunate truth is that people often prefer to choose faith, even when faith is irrational, if they find that faith is more comforting than the alternatives.

Trust me on this one, O.K.? :)

22

You seem to imply some sort of deception or disingenuousness on the part of scientists.

That wasn't my intention, but by the same token, I am sure you don't mean to imply that scientists aren't sometimes dishonest or disingenuous.

23

Uncorroborated eyewitness testimony is generally worthless or even pernicious. Anyone who relies on such testimony for religious purposes is making a mistake and abandoning common sense.

But what is "uncorroborated" testimony? If 2 people claim to see the same thing, is that corroborated, how about 12, how about 500? The 4 Gospels seem to be pretty consistent in their observations.

Uncorroborated eyewitness testimony is just one out of a variety of unreliable kinds of evidence that gets passed along for various reasons and enjoys a credibility that is wholly undeserved. You seems to understand that, so you should understand why I feel my skepticism is justified, even when it is applied to religious beliefs that you would strongly like to shield from skepticism.

I don't feel the need to shield my religious beliefs from skepticism. They have withstood scrutiny by smarter folks than you or me. They've even withstood scutiny from people who are smarter than I think I am, and that's pretty darn smart.

Too many? What percentage of research scientists engage in sloppy or fraudulent studies? Ten percent? One percent? One hundredth of a percent?

I'll just stick with too many.

It seems I take a whole lot less on faith than you do.

Maybe, maybe not. The "engr" in my "nom de cyber" is short for engineer. I test everything, including my own faith and my wife's patience.

Yet when it comes to cosmology and our place in the world and other big questions about our lives, religion stubbornly clings to faith when other modes of knowledge are quite accessible and more productive.

I might agree with respect to cosmology, but while science does a pretty good job of explaining many things, it does a pretty poor job of giving things meaning.

24

The unfortunate truth is that people often prefer to choose faith, even when faith is irrational, if they find that faith is more comforting than the alternatives.

Maybe evolution selects for faith;).

25

I, too, feel pretty comfortable with the first definition of supernatural. It is fun, for instance, to point out to materialists that the "Big Bang" was a supernatural event.

It might of been but I don't see why it would have to be.

But what is "uncorroborated" testimony? If 2 people claim to see the same thing, is that corroborated, how about 12, how about 500? The 4 Gospels seem to be pretty consistent in their observations.

Indeed but how to interview the people who wrote them? What if one Gospel was copied from another with a few changes added in? It would be consistent but hardly multiply the eyewitnesses.

Maybe evolution selects for faith;).

Indeed it might ucfengr but I think the point is worth taking seriously. People do have a very large ability to believe what they want to believe and shape their observations of reality around that rather than the other way around. Before putting too much credibility in claims of seeing demons, devils, angels etc. it's fair to ask how much credibility would you give such accounts if they contradicted your beliefs? How about 'eyewitness' accounts that attest to Hindu reincarnation, for example? What about the testimony of Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormons)?

I'm not saying there is no value to eyewitness testimony but I am saying there's a big danger that one can fall into special pleading here.

26

Good point, Joe. In my writing (for example, about horror fiction), I always use "supernormal" to describe occurrences which do not accord with "normal" explanatory frameworks--this includes most things people call "supernatural" such as miracles, apparitions, etc. The "paranormal" I leave in the hands of those who already use it.

The important thing is to re-align our thought such that the most basic dualism is Creator/created, with all other differences being instances and signs of the Creator/creature relationship.

Cheers,
PGE

27

Ucfengr,

Yet when it comes to cosmology and our place in the world and other big questions about our lives, religion stubbornly clings to faith when other modes of knowledge are quite accessible and more productive.

I might agree with respect to cosmology, but while science does a pretty good job of explaining many things, it does a pretty poor job of giving things meaning.

Science is not the only non-faith mode of knowledge, although it may be the most reliable sometimes.

If science does a bad job of giving things meaning, it is probably because it does not try to give things meaning. It is trying to describe the nature of reality and the physical laws that govern it.

Nonetheless, there is a lot of meaning in our world that science helps us understand. At the very least, any meaning that we find in our lives has to be consistent with any scientific truths that we know about.

As an atheist, I would judge most religions as doing a less than perfect job of giving meaning to our lives. But I'm not here to throw stones, I'm trying to defend truth against assertions based on unreliable evidence.

I test everything, including my own faith and my wife's patience.

Oh yeah, well I bet I test my wife's patience just as much as you do your's.

And if you test your faith on a regular basis, then it's really something more than just faith. It's more like a working hypothesis that you assume for convenience sake.

I don't feel the need to shield my religious beliefs from skepticism.

You may be pretty unusual that way. Most religious people feel very uncomfortable when their beliefs are challenged in a meaningful way.

But what is "uncorroborated" testimony? If 2 people claim to see the same thing, is that corroborated, how about 12, how about 500?

If two people independently claim to see the same thing, then their testimony is no longer uncorroborated. Depending on the circumstances, having just one person independently confirm someone else's testimony boosts the credibility of each person tremendously.

Five hundred people could still all be wrong independently of each other. But there would have to be some good explanation of that -- there would be some presumption that independent eyewitnesses need to be discredited somehow before their testimony can be ignored.

Maybe evolution selects for faith;).

I'm sure it does. Faith allows people to survive in crisis situations. Faith allows people to commit to their spouses and start a new family.

Faith can also kill you if you're not careful. But everything in life involves trade-offs.

[My beliefs have] even withstood scutiny from people who are smarter than I think I am, and that's pretty darn smart.

I'd say that you actually are pretty darn smart. But smart people are notorious for believing the most foolish things, don't you know.

In fact, some things are so stupid, you have to be smart, or at least well-educated, to buy into them :)

28

ucfengur writes: "If 2 people claim to see the same thing, is that corroborated, how about 12, how about 500?"

Because Paul says 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus does not mean that we have the testimony of 500 eyewitnesses.

I feel fairly confident that none of the writers of the New Testament were themselves personally acquainted with Jesus. The closest any writer of the NT comes to even claiming to be an eyewitness of Jesus comes from the epistles attributed to John and Peter, all of which appear to have been written later by non-witnesses.

29

But what is "uncorroborated" testimony? If 2 people claim to see the same thing, is that corroborated, how about 12, how about 500?
I think corroboration is about other types of evidence, not the number of eyewitness accounts. And as has been noted in other threads, the more remarkable the claim, the more evidence required.
I assume anyone who is swayed by eyewitness accounts alone is also a firm believer in alien abduction. After all, tens of thousands of Americans - maybe even hundreds of thousands - swear they have encountered, as Carl Sagan put it, “sexually obsessive non-humans who live in the sky, walk through walls, communicate telepathically, and perform breeding experiments on the human species.”

30

In what way is the mind not reducible to the physical? If I recall correctly the brain cannot sense itself nor model its own activity for study. Alteration to the brain most certainly causes changes in the person, so where does this other play a part? I do not see how the mind provides an arguement for something beyond the physical.

31

I have great sympathy for people who have vested a lot in supernatural causes and explanations. They look at the trend line and see their world getting smaller and smaller. Natural disaster, disease, harsh weather, astronomical events all used to be explained by appeal to the supernatural. It's no wonder even educated, modern people can be disturbed by the expansion of scientific knowledge even as that knowledge improves some aspects of their lives (modern medicine for example).

Having faith, being faith-based, requires the supernatural -- by definition. Lots of people lack the education, support, and courage to let go of the supernatural aspects of their understanding of the world, and for those people I'm glad there are faith-based alternatives. I only ask that from time-to-time you find the courage to explore the natural understanding of our world. Test the water. You'll likely find it not so scary.

32

AndyS,

I don't think faith is related to fear as much as you say or think. Nor is it related to battening down the hatches against the relentless onslaught of scientific progress. Faith doesn't need to be condescended to.

Faith is much more an exercise in humility, an acknowledgement of the real limitations that have always and will always persist in all realms of human knowledge and endeavor.

It is not unlike the conservative principle of respecting tradition and the role tradition plays in stable, livable societies.

Irrational Entity mentioned his belief that the mind is purely physical, a belief that I share. But I am just as respectful of the opposing view, that the mind is a mystery, perhaps a touch of the divine which is distributed among all conscious entities.

Consciousness, after all, is still a mysterious thing. It has proved stubbornly intractable to complete analysis by scientific methods.

I have no doubt personally that science will soon have a thorough-going explanation of how exactly consciousness is generated and how it functions. But until that actually happens, it would be unfair for you or I to gainsay the fascinating mystery that still remains, or to begrudge in general the faithful their right to stand tall in their own sphere.

33

""How do you independently corroborate the theory of evolution? I think current evolutionary theory claims that birds descended from reptiles, but I've never seen a reptile give birth to a bird, have you?

You actually have two theories here. One is the theory of evolution in general and the other is a historical theory of how evolution played out on earth as it relates to birds and reptiles. There is a relevant difference. Probability has a lot to tell us in the abstract about dice tosses.""

Boonton. Probability won't help you with the theory of evolution because the probability of life emerging from non-life is almost zero and it seems unrepeatable by any experimental means. So how does your theory even get off the ground? It is just assumed true, ie by faith.
Both your theory types are equally 'historical', or they are worthless.

34

Ex wrote:

"I feel fairly confident that none of the writers of the New Testament were themselves personally acquainted with Jesus. The closest any writer of the NT comes to even claiming to be an eyewitness of Jesus comes from the epistles attributed to John and Peter, all of which appear to have been written later by non-witnesses."

For an ex preacher, you should know better, especially since I quoted this same scripture to you a few months ago.

". . . And we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotton of the Father." (The Gospel of John 1:14)

"But we were eyewitnesses of his glory . . ." (2 Peter 1:16)

I could give you other examples and inferences of those who knew Christ and who wrote of him. Irrespective of what you may think about the "higher critics," both the apostle John and the apostle Peter testified that they personally witnessed the things that they wrote about.

Marenatha!

35

Matthew,

I have no doubt personally that science will soon have a thorough-going explanation of how exactly consciousness is generated and how it functions. But until that actually happens, it would be unfair for you or I to gainsay the fascinating mystery that still remains, or to begrudge in general the faithful their right to stand tall in their own sphere.

Point taken. But does that mean we can't mercilessly mock Joe Carter for writing posts about angels and demons and suchlike as if he were cataloguing zebras in the Serengeti or parrots in the Amazon?

[Matthew responds: Not at all. As long as Joe neglects his duty to publicly apologize to the Danish cartoonists for slandering them at the precise moment he should have been expressing solidarity instead, he is fair game on any and all grounds. Just don't get carried away, is all.]

36

The Raven says: Yet the laws of physics suggest that space and time are emergent properties of matter.

What a convenient word 'emergent' is!

These same laws suggest incredibly precise initial conditions for the *possible* creation of matter as we have it. So how did the matter just 'emerge' from the flux? Why do these laws exist, or explain *anything*?
Deists say 'The Flux Stops here -with A Mind'.
Plato Lives!

37

"I feel fairly confident that none of the writers of the New Testament were themselves personally acquainted with Jesus. The closest any writer of the NT comes to even claiming to be an eyewitness of Jesus comes from the epistles attributed to John and Peter, all of which appear to have been written later by non-witnesses."

Ex-Preacher: Amazingly, you *choose* to have great confidence in the theoretical sceptics 1900+ years removed from the writers they are so sceptical about. So your confidence rests on very shaky opinions of remote 'scholars'.

The probability that named writers like Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and and Paul were lying or that their names were fraudulently used later is not high at all, nor proven; anyway, they are entitled to make their strong historical claims just as much as you are - far more, concerning *their own era*!

38

Consciousness, after all, is still a mysterious thing. It has proved stubbornly intractable to complete analysis by scientific methods.

"I have no doubt personally that science will soon have a thorough-going explanation of how exactly consciousness is generated and how it functions. But until that actually happens, it would be unfair for you or I to gainsay the fascinating mystery that still remains, or to begrudge in general the faithful their right to stand tall in their own sphere."

Matthew, I predict the opposite for human consciousness. Why? Brain complexity. And because I also can't see how science will explain the 'exact' way initial life was 'generated' either, any time in the next century.
Sorry, we'll both have to wait a bit at least, to be proven prophets.

39

Barrie,

I think you may be misconstruing what The Raven means by "emergent".

When he says "the laws of physics suggest that space and time are emergent properties of matter" he is not saying they appear out of nowhere like some kind of hocus-pocus.

He is just referring to how Einstein, with his theories of Special and General Relativity, demonstrated that there is no such thing as an absolute time standard for all observers, or an absolute position in space.

These facts and theories of Einstein have actually been verified and confirmed over and over again through various experiments and scientific observations. The subjective nature of time may seem like a paradox to someone who is learning about relativity for the first time. Yet it is not in the least bit controversial or doubtful.

For example, due to the relativistic effects of the unusual speed and acceleration of space travel, space shuttle pilots (and their onboard atomic clocks!) actually lose a fraction of a second when they fly into orbit and revolve around the earth.

If an astronaut were to fly at half the speed of light to another star, and then return home to earth, he/she would be decades younger than someone who had stayed on earth the whole time. May be hard to believe/swallow, but it's true nonetheless.

40

Barrie,

Thanks for mentioning the origins of life as another mystery that has yet to be fully unraveled by science. It is yet another reason to be respectful of faith and the faithful.

I would predict, though, that brain complexity will be well understood over the next 20 to 30 years. I further predict that the nature of the original primordial life forms that are the direct ancestors of all life today will also be well understood within the next 50 years.

Dramatic leaps in our understanding of the natural world have occurred over the past couple of hundred years, and I don't doubt that scientists will continue to produce them.

41

Matthew G:

Thank you. To go a bit further, when Einstein defines "spacetime," he suggests that we don't have a duality between matter and space.

What really irks me about Joe's remarks is the false picture they construct of reality - he would have readers buy into a world peopled by "materialists" who live cold, unimaginative lives and who hold contorted views that don't map against observation. Then he balances that with the Noble Christian, who, unlike the "materialist," can appreciate beauty and truth. Poor materialist.

I thought the Transcendentalists put paid to this line of thinking in the late 1800s. And when I see diagrams with "angels" and "demons" on them, I wonder if I'm living in the 21st century.

42

The Raven,

Everything you say about Joe is true.

But I don't think there is much point in letting Joe get to you (that is to say, irritate, annoy, or irk you) by his caricatures of materialistic thought.

First of all, I have faith that Joe means well, even when he gets a little dramatic and demeans people who disagree with him.

Secondly, while Joe does have a certain amount of influence over his readers, he does give free rein to opposing views in his comment threads. The two-sided nature of the comment debates goes far to dilute any negative impact Joe's prejudices might have on his readership.

It is also a credit to Joe that he has such a commitment to free, open debate. Not too many successful bloggers allow commenters to hold as much sway on their turf as Joe does.

Thirdly, in general, when someone holds a beknighted or ignorant view, he's not really hurting those that he puts down. What he is actually doing is revealing to everyone the extent of his own ignorance on that particular point.

You can't attack someone without revealing your psychological need to attack. If the attack appears to be unjustified, then one's need to attack just seems silly or even a little pathetic.

So even though some of his readers might not realize it, Joe is really only discrediting his own views when he insults other people without justification.

Of course, Joe feels his attacks are justified. He probably thinks that materialists are harmful folks, if not to other people, then at least to their own souls. But we, and everybody else, are free to look at his writings and reach our own conclusions.

It's no big deal -- if materialism can't handle Joe's attacks, then it deserves to be attacked in the first place.

43

Barrie writes: "Ex-Preacher: Amazingly, you *choose* to have great confidence in the theoretical sceptics 1900+ years removed from the writers they are so sceptical about. So your confidence rests on very shaky opinions of remote 'scholars'."

My conclusions (always subject to revision) are not based on any remote scholars, but on my application of logic and common sense to the evidence we have.

Barrie writes: "The probability that named writers like Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and and Paul were lying or that their names were fraudulently used later is not high at all, nor proven; anyway, they are entitled to make their strong historical claims just as much as you are - far more, concerning *their own era*!"

You must surely be aware that the canonical gospels were anonymous. The names were attached later, their derivation based on tradition (from people who wanted to establish their authority) that emerged decades after they were written.

Even the most fundamentalist non-scholar concedes that Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses.

The writer of Matthew never claims to be an eyewitness nor does he (she, they) ever give evidence of being one. For instance, the writer never uses the first person (I, me, we) to suggest that he was present at any of the events described. Rather than being an eyewitness, a careful study of the text suggests that Matthew was based largely on Mark.

Although John's gospel is anonymous, tradition has associated it with the Johannine community. Even some conservatives admit that the gospel may be more the product of a community and multiple redactions rather than the sole output of the apsotle John. Some conservatives would also suggest that the "John" involved may be someone other than the apostle. My own study comparing the ministry and teachings of Jesus in the synoptic gospels to John's account leads me to question whether they were talking about the same person.

As for Paul, he never claims to have known Jesus in his earthly incarnation. He does claim to have experienced at least one vision of Jesus as well as a subsequent visionary visit to the third heaven.

You didn't mention Peter, but true believers often claim the passage in 2 Peter as eyewitness testimony. The text itself, as well as external evidence, argues strongly that both of the epistles attributed to Peter are pseudepigraphical.

44

Matthew:

I don't think faith is related to fear as much as you say or think. Nor is it related to battening down the hatches against the relentless onslaught of scientific progress. Faith doesn't need to be condescended to.

Faith is much more an exercise in humility, an acknowledgement of the real limitations that have always and will always persist in all realms of human knowledge and endeavor.

It is not unlike the conservative principle of respecting tradition and the role tradition plays in stable, livable societies.

Slavery was a tradition in the South until a horrible civil war ended it. The 911 terrorists were faith-based. So, while faith and tradition can be good things and often have quite positive attributes, they can both lead to terrible consequences.

Faith is much more an exercise in humility....

It can be, and when it is that's a beautiful thing. But humility is not what I see coming from the evangelical right. Instead, we see faith being brandished in a political and religious crusade by people who know they are right and wish to impose their views by force of law (abortion, church/state issues, Shiavo, ID) and by physical force (Iraq) on those that disagree with them. If they had no political power I would have little concern.

45

The Bible is clearly written by eyewitnesses to eyewitnesses. These people only knew what they had seen and experienced. They were slaughtered and dispersed. They were not rich empire builders.

Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-5 You don't believe that Luke was an eyewitness writing to an audience of Eyewitnesses?

Acts 2:14-40; 3:11-26; 4:1-22; 5:17-42; 7: Sermon of Stephen

All are clearly historical in nature.

Paul is clearly a First Person reporter. ICor 15
Luke, Peter, Silas, Barnabas, JohnMark (Peter's nephew) and Paul clearly cross reference each other in history.

Peter is a figure in every gospel account
1Peter 1:8 contrasts first person and "though you have not seen him"
5:12 refers to Silas

2Peter 1:12, 16 "we were eyewitnesses" 18 "We ourselves heard when we were with him" 20-21
3:15-16 he refers to Paul
(he evens warns us about you in 2:1-3)

John 1:14 We have seen His glory
John narrates clearly historical events and even gives his explanations all through the Gospel

Then 1John 1:1-5 he describes all his senses, can't be more historical than that.

What you need to do is read ancient mythology. The Bible, especially the New Testament are not mythological.

The clearest evidence of early authorship is the lack of references to the Fall of Jerusalem and the slaughter of Jews and Christians. To be a late date, it would be like a history of Virginia without referring to the Civil War.

exPreacher makes huge generalizations based on the farthest left textual critics but they do not hold up to the scrutiny of just reading the texts. Textual criticism has led Europe to desert their Christian heritage of western civilization and to embrace Islam. Not a winning strategy.

The best way to explain the extremes in this discussion is to read "The God Who Is There" by Francis Schaeffer. Presuppositional Apologetics.

Schaeffer explains that to hold a Naturalist presupposition, that all is just a consequence of nature, leads to a conclusion that life is random and meaningless. Like the Columbine boys.

People want to espouse this but they still want to hold "meaning" in their lives. They jump to an "upper story" of meaning just so they can feel better even though their presuppostions tell them that this is "mythological."

This is what exPreacher is telling us.

Instead of living with these contradictory ideas, the Truth of the Bible is that God can enter our human existence and work His will. He can forgive my sins by becoming human and dying for me. I can live a life of meaning because I know and give Glory to my Creator.

The problem with this is that I cannot insist that I am god, I have to confess that Jesus is Lord. Some people cannot bring themselves to admit this.

This makes the debate over Intelligent Design all the more central. Darwin cannot explain the complexity of life as we learn more science. Darwin bases his theory on the mythological word "simple" one-celled creatures. Perhaps you might have learned that they are not simple.

Darwin lost.

Christians could be Christians if Darwin were true. Many good people accept Theistic evolution. The PROBLEM is that an atheist CANNOT be an atheist if he admits that Darwin is false.

www.ideacenter.org
Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness has great resources about Intelligent Design. All are written using secular academic facts. All demonstrate the impossibility of Darwin. He was just wrong, sorry.

Joe, It seems that you have attracted a large ministry of people who want to argue with you and say rude things about you. Just notice that they don't have their own blogs, we don't go to theirs, they come to yours. I call them "lurkers" they don't have anything, they feel threatened by you so they have to attack you. Kind of like my children at school. Sad. especially exPreacher. He is on the blog all the time.

Hey ex, if Joe is so wrong, why are you still here? If you have a life, where is it? What do you believe besides nothing?

The Bible will stand on its own. Isaiah 55:11
"so is the Word that goes out of my mouth; It will not reutrn to me empty but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpoe for which I sent it."

46

Thank you Joe S, for your support against the unprovable opinions of ex-preacher. What Ex-P misses is that we are not saying all the named authors had to be eyewitnesses of everything under their names - that is impossible anyway, as with journalists today too.
The name tradition is quite early, and within the lifetime of some eyewitnesses to whom they appeal [as Paul does in the very early Corinthian letters] or base their accounts on [as Peter does in an open challenge to call him fraudulent].
Ex-P discounts all *early* tradition in favour of recent sceptical opinion, and *then* claims to be more respectful than us of ordinary historical/literary method!
He has no proof - or tradition either - but still won't let the authors speak for themselves because they claim remarkable truths he wants to reject.

47

#39 I think you may be misconstruing what The Raven means by "emergent".

Matthew, I do know basic space-time theory. My problem with The Raven is that he refuses to admit the possibility of the philosophical idea of creation by a God *independent* of His physical creation, which is the Christian claim, based on revelation [as of course are Joe's references to Angels etc...] It's trite to just discount this sort of claim.
Augustine said that creation was not IN time but WITH time, so even he understood a key distinction.
The materialist must see time 'emergent' with matter, yet deny any creator for both. Yet physical laws mysteriously point to 'our' matter 'emerging' from 'quantum flux' only under extraordinary conditions, and deists also believe that God foreordained the very laws AND the fine conditions they stipulate.

The big difference is that Christians believe we 'think God's thoughts and laws *after* Him' or 'in His image', the materialist must think even rational laws mysteriously 'emerge' somehow along with matter, and from '??'

Have you looked at initial conditions theory?
It's such theory that even made Antony Flew give up his lifetime atheism.

48

#40
Says Matthew: I would predict, though, that brain complexity will be well understood over the next 20 to 30 years. I further predict that the nature of the original primordial life forms that are the direct ancestors of all life today will also be well understood within the next 50 years.

Have you any idea what a complex thing your brain is, Matthew?
Have you any idea what a complex thing the simplest life form is, let alone which one was the 'original'?
Have you any idea how impossible it is to study the 'primordial' in the precise way you need?

Prediction is easy, of course. So is over-optimism.

Read Michael Denton's Nature's Destiny. He says life *started* complex - but he's a deist who believes the same of the universe! [See above]

49

Barrie, I'm not sure how you derive your assertion that it is impossible to study the 'primordial' in a precise way. We are probably within ten years of being able to perfectly simulate a cell (in other words, have a computer and program powerful enough to simulate an entire cell by applying the rules of physics to each individual atom that makes it up). I would say we are probably close to mapping out abiogensis (the transition from non-living chemicals to the first living things).

As for explaining the human brain, I think we are just beginning to appreciate how complicated it really is. But then again knowing your ignorance is the first step to wisdom. So far we have not found any evidence that anything happens in the brain that is not explainable by physics and chemistry & the 'gaps' in which something outside standard physics/chemistry may be happening in the brain are pretty small IMO.

This, however, tells us nothing about the supernatural. I can easily lay out a handful of sceneros where the supernatural can really exist and humans could even have eternal souls even if every spec of the human body is reducible to 'just physics'.

50

EX:

"My conclusions (always subject to revision) are not based on any remote scholars, but on my application of logic and common sense to the evidence we have."

If your conclusions were indeed always "subject to revision" one would expect you to avoid repeating the same errors once they have been corrected, such as . . . "The closest any writer of the NT comes to even claiming to be an eyewitness of Jesus comes from the epistles . . ." (Read John 1:14). Several other people provided specific scriptures that refuted your points, but you chose to ignore them, relying instead upon the the willfull ignorance of your supporters.

"You must surely be aware that the canonical gospels were anonymous. The names were attached later, their derivation based on tradition (from people who wanted to establish their authority) that emerged decades after they were written."

The fact that we have no original ms. of the Gospels with autographs does NOT mean that they were "anonymous." There were several criteria used to identify the writers. (See also "Evidence That Demands A Verdict"). Most secular ancient ms. were bereft of autographs because they had no originals. You may recall, months ago I pointed to several places where the writer of John is identified within the text. Though Peter did not write a Gospel, he was an integral part of the Gospel. That is no trivial matter.

"Rather than being an eyewitness, a careful study of the text suggests that Matthew was based largely on Mark."

Several months ago you suggested that the 'majority' of Matthew was taken from Mark. Now, while it is a commonly held view among conservatives that the Gospel writers may have conferred with one another, it was pointed out to you that Matthew was 28 chapters long and Mark was only 16. Matthew would have been in trouble had his Gospel relied too heavily upon Mark's.

"Even some conservatives admit that the gospel may be more the product of a community and multiple redactions rather than the sole output of the apsotle John. Some conservatives would also suggest that the "John" involved may be someone other than the apostle."

In the past you suggested that 'nearly all reputable scholars,' conservative or liberal, hold this view. Now it is "some" do. Is that what you mean revising your opinions?

"You didn't mention Peter, but true believers often claim the passage in 2 Peter as eyewitness testimony. The text itself, as well as external evidence, argues strongly that both of the epistles attributed to Peter are pseudepigraphical."

The so called "higher critics" make the same type of accusations regarding most of the NT bools. It is primairly because they apply a different criteria to the NT than they do any other ancient ms. Every NT book is treated with hyper-skepticism because of its 'supernatural' element. The life of Christ and the disciples was unquestionably the most well documented event of anient history, 24,000 extant ms -- 5000 in Greek alone. It has been noted that with the exception of a few verses, the entire NT could be reconstructed by the correspondence of the leaders of the early church. Common sense, logic and a little research should reveal that the weight of evidence is against the skeptics.

The enemy of our souls does not care what lie we believe as long as we believe a lie.

Read Hebrews chapter 6 before it is too late.

Maranatha

51

JoeS,

You make a lot of assertions, but I don't think there's one of them that is well-supported by facts.

I did think, however, that you raised a good point here:

The clearest evidence of early authorship is the lack of references to the Fall of Jerusalem and the slaughter of Jews and Christians. To be a late date, it would be like a history of Virginia without referring to the Civil War.

I don't agree with you that the gospels and the New Testament were written before the fall of Jerusalem. But it is very interesting that there is no mention of it.

The reason I don't agree with you that your point is dispositive is because there are several explanations as to why the writers of the New Testament would have refrained from mentioning various historical events.

For example, I have several books about George Washington, and several books about the Revolutionary War. Some of these books, despite being several hundred pages long, make no mention whatsoever of the Civil War -- they don't even mention anything much at all about the nineteenth century. It's just not in their purview. You could read these books from cover to cover and not realize that the Civil War had ever taken place.

Joe, It seems that you have attracted a large ministry of people who want to argue with you and say rude things about you. Just notice that they don't have their own blogs, we don't go to theirs, they come to yours. I call them "lurkers" they don't have anything, they feel threatened by you so they have to attack you. Kind of like my children at school. Sad. especially exPreacher. He is on the blog all the time.

If Joe has commenters who are rude, I'm afraid it is partly because he fails on occasion to observe the highest standards of courtesy himself.

It's hard to encourage commenters to remain polite when you are blogging in a less than polite way yourself.

That said, I don't really think Joe really wants a perfectly polite discussion in the first place. I think he feels it is more interesting, more entertaining, and more educational (sometimes) to let the fur fly a little. And he may be right about that.

What's more interesting to me is that you seem to think it's bad thing that people "argue" in the comment threads.

I think you have hit upon a very key distinction between the mindset of a very religious person and the mindset of a very scientific person.

Religion and science both have large bodies of received wisdom, of established truths. The difference between the two systems of belief is that religion is primarily doctrinal and dogmatic, whereas science is primarily experimental and provisional.

Religion is received wisdom or revelation, transmitted by the witness of a chain of believers. Science is a dynamic enterprise, perpetually engaged in grappling with the reality of nature, and constantly probing and debating its truths.

Some of the Christians here are upset that scientists reject Intelligent Design because there is no evidence for it. Yet those very same Christians refuse to even entertain the idea that Darwinism might possibly be correct.

You, for example, are willing to admit that there are good Christians who subscribe to Darwinism. But as far as you are concerned, it is impossible that men and apes could have had a common anscestor. You hold common descent to be impossible even though there is no reason God could not have created a world with a Darwinistic process of life and evolution. You are the one who is close-minded, not the scientists.

Hey ex, if Joe is so wrong, why are you still here? If you have a life, where is it? What do you believe besides nothing?

Why would Ex-preacher, myself, or anybody else want to have a discussion only with people we agree with?

The point of discussing things is two-fold: to learn from your interlocutor (yes, even from Joe!), and to share your own knowledge and experience with your interlocutor. If we just discussed things with people who always agreed with us, it would kind of defeat the whole purpose of discussing, don't you think?

Barrie,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and intelligent replies to my comments. Our conversation is a good illustration of what I just said to JoeS about the value of discussing things with people we disagree with.

Thank you Joe S, for your support against the unprovable opinions of ex-preacher.

Barrie, you are obviously a smart fellow. Why are you characterizing Ex-preacher's opinions as "unprovable" when they are no more unprovable than yours? Get real, my friend.

He has no proof - or tradition either - but still won't let the authors speak for themselves because they claim remarkable truths he wants to reject.

Letting authors speak for themselves doesn't mean accepting what they say uncritically. And the more important an author's claims, the more those claims deserve close scrutiny.

By insisting that Ex-preacher is just trying to squelch "remarkable truths", it is you who is declining to let Ex-preacher speak for himself. Your emphasis on traditional interpretations appears to be little more than an appeal to authority. You appear to be dodging Ex-preacher's points.

My problem with The Raven is that he refuses to admit the possibility of the philosophical idea of creation by a God *independent* of His physical creation, which is the Christian claim, based on revelation [as of course are Joe's references to Angels etc...] It's trite to just discount this sort of claim.

I myself am willing to admit the possibility of an independent God creating the universe. I don't see any evidence for it, however.

Are you willing to admit the possibility of no God?

The big difference is that Christians believe we 'think God's thoughts and laws *after* Him' or 'in His image', the materialist must think even rational laws mysteriously 'emerge' somehow along with matter, and from '??

You have chosen the solution of "God" to the puzzle of the origin of the universe.

But "God" raises more questions than he answers: where does God himself come from? Is he conscious? Is he aware of us in particular? Does he love us? Do religious figures such as Jesus or Mohammed actually have anything whatsoever to do with the "God" of creation?

The concept of "God" is several orders of magnitude more mysterious to me than the concept of "no God".

Have you any idea what a complex thing your brain is, Matthew?
Have you any idea what a complex thing the simplest life form is, let alone which one was the 'original'?
Have you any idea how impossible it is to study the 'primordial' in the precise way you need?

Short answer: yes, yes, and no.

Long answer:

I don't think I think the brain is as complex as you seem to think it is. [ Maybe your brain is more complex than mine :) ]

I do think the simplest life forms are just as complex as you make them out to be. But I don't see anything in them that cries out to me "Intelligent Design", "irreducible complexity", etc. But as you point out, it is a very, very fascinating puzzle indeed.

And I think you might be surprised at the new technologies we develop over the next fifty years in our quest to probe the primordial. It should prove to be an exciting time to be a microbiologist (or just someone who is interested in microbiology).

Have you looked at initial conditions theory?
It's such [a compelling] theory that even made Antony Flew give up his lifetime atheism.

[ . . . . . . . . . . ]

Read Michael Denton's Nature's Destiny. He says life *started* complex - but he's a deist who believes the same of the universe!

Thank you for the references.

I've gone back and forth with deists, Christians, and various other assorted religious believers many times over the years.

I've learned a lot of things, but I've never learned anything that suggested to me that there might be a God out there.

I'm not actively trying to convert anyone to atheism by explaining and defending my beliefs. I think what I'm trying to do is find common ground between believers and un-believers of various persuasions. After all, when push comes to shove, there is only one truth, so there should be some way of settling some of these questions one way or the other.

But I respect what you and others believe, and acknowledge that it makes sense, at least up to a point.

Sometimes an apparently irreconciliable disagreement is just a matter looking at things from different perspectives. Once the perspectives are laid out for everyone to see, it often becomes apparent that there is no real disagreement at all. I often feel that this whole "God" versus "no God" business is like that, though I haven't quite demonstrated that to my satisfaction so far.

Peace, amigo.

52

After this barrage of questions, insults and snide remarks, I'm starting to get some idea of what it must be like to hunt with Dick Cheney.

I would be thrilled to debate any of the specific points that Joe S, Barrie and Terence have raised in a setting that is more conducive to online debate. I have offered this before to Terence and his pal Gordon, but they have always found reasons not to. I am still willing to debate this at the Biblical Critism forum in the discussion forums at www.infidels.org . Although, I can understand the reluctance of Christians to venture into the lion's den protected only with the armor of God.

53

Very nicely put, Matthew G.

There is much I could have penned in respone to Barrie. He makes an interesting remark here:

The materialist must see time 'emergent' with matter, yet deny any creator for both.

It's that word "deny," yes? Same as seen in many of Joe's posts. Total non sequitur. The rationalist works with what we have. Not the things we dream we have, or hope we have, or wish we have.

You start with Descartes and you work from there. Not necessarily diachronically, but he gives us square one.

54

Me: Thank you Joe S, for your support against the unprovable opinions of ex-preacher. [NOTE: about the NT]
Matthew:
Barrie, you are obviously a smart fellow. Why are you characterizing Ex-preacher's opinions as "unprovable" when they are no more unprovable than yours? Get real, my friend.

Me to Matt:
If you look at my comment on Ex-P.'s claim to 'follow the truth wherever it leads' I think what I say is clear. Truth implies he's *got* proof, when he only has at best some support So do Christians, of course, but our truth is revealed in NT texts, not contingent nor 'emergent'. We are frank about this, and willing to argue we are not naive.

It is also clear when The Raven criticises me for saying he 'denies' a Creator. If a universe 'emerges', where is it from? Language carries implications, does he deny that too?
No atheist can say where *the laws* come from either, but they seem to exist too, and apply to reality! [OK, I know I use exist in a funny way.]

Does The Raven believe he needs NO ultimate explanation of Everything? He may be like Stephen Hawking in seeking a TOE that *works*.
A kind of 'I'm God' solution, which is just reflexive. Christians I call it hubris.

Many argue that the Christian West developed science *because* they saw that man was NOT God, and that God is rational. So far, I think they're right..
I think the idea of God is perfectly rational, as is the Anthropic Principle Denton argues for..

The funny thing about the 'multiverse' theory is that it's *just as mystical* as the view that the universe is 'supported' by an infinite series of turtles [universes!] sitting on each others' backs.
At least Christians have one Creator and one Beginnning. Simpler, said Occam.

I appreciate your politeness and interaction, Matthew. Ultimately Joe C and I don't think we can *argue* you into our faith [Flew argued himself only to deism in some 70 years!]
We come to God through our acceptance of Christ, and there's no other way, we believe.
We think that is rational too, but for other reasons found in the Bible.
It's why Ex-P wants to trash our faith in the New Testament's true message.

55

Ex:

"I would be thrilled to debate any of the specific points that Joe S, Barrie and Terence have raised in a setting that is more conducive to online debate. I have offered this before to Terence and his pal Gordon, but they have always found reasons not to. I am still willing to debate this at the Biblical Critism forum in the discussion forums at www.infidels.org . Although, I can understand the reluctance of Christians to venture into the lion's den protected only with the armor of God."

You have a habit of throwing your 'fiery darts' and then heading for the hills when your words are exposed for what they are. The setting that is most "conducive to debate" is the one in right front of you, where you threw down the gauntlet. It is not at infidels.orc where no one seems to care what the truth is as long as faith in the word of God is mocked.

Twice you stated that "none of the 300 prophecies concerning Christ hold up to scrutiny." Twice I asked you to provide one example out of 300 and I am still waiting for a reply. At infidels.orc they presume to give several examples. I have read them. If you are so confident in their scholarship surely you can come up with something to demonstrate your position. Instead of selecting a passage that might at best be labeled 'ambiguous,'
how about something specific and verifiable -- something that demonstrates that you are more than a lost soul searching for company among believers.

I believe that there is still time left for you to turn back to the faith that you once had. You have the intelligence to search out the truth --use it.

56

Gee, Terence, I hope you're nicer in person than you are online.

There are many reasons that a discussion forum is better for online debate than the comments thread of a blog. I think that is the main reason that Joe has revived the EO Forum. Unfortunately, it appears to be almost lifeless. In contrast, the discussion forum at infidels is quite lively and widely read. There are even a number of evangelicals (or at least orthodox Christians) who could back you up over there.

One aspect of your behavior that does make me pause is your continual spelling of infidels.org as "infidels.orc." I notice that you did it twice in the above post, while everything else seems to be spelled correctly. Are you trying to be funny? Are you afraid that actually spelling out "infidels.org" might harm you in some way? More likely, I think you're trying to make fun of atheists. If I have misjudged you, please explain why you do that.

Regarding the supposed "300 prophecies." I think almost everyone who knows anything about debating would agree that the burden of proof is on you to provide examples that prove your point, rather than me finding examples that don't prove your point. You brought it up, you provide the evidence. Interesting that you want to make sure I don't bring up an "ambiguous" one. Wouldn't it be easier for you to pick one you feel is "specific and verifiable"?

On a side note, are you not a Calvinist? If you are, I'm not sure why you're telling me there's still time to "turn back to the faith." If you're not a Calvinist, I'd love to see and the multitude of Calvinists around here talk about the "once saved, always saved" doctrine.

Trust me, I have used my intelligence to search out the truth. If I had allowed my emotions, tradition and family pressure to prevail, I would still be an assistant professor of Bible at a Christian university.

I think you too have the intelligence to search out the truth. What I don't know is whether you have the courage and will to withstand the emotional pressure and cognitive dissonance that comes from learning that the truth is not what you want it to be.

On another side note, as I recall, you still owe me an apology for accusing me of plagiarism on another thread. You were never able to provide a shred of evidence for your slander.

Have a great weekend!

57

Barrie,

If you look at my comment on Ex-P.'s claim to 'follow the truth wherever it leads' I think what I say is clear. Truth implies he's *got* proof, when he only has at best some support So do Christians, of course, but our truth is revealed in NT texts, not contingent nor 'emergent'. We are frank about this, and willing to argue we are not naive.

Maybe Ex-preacher has proof, maybe he doesn't. The "truth" that each person follows or believes in is normally a very difficult, if not impossible thing to prove.

You can't prove your truth, I can't prove mine, and most people can't prove theirs either. It's just an impossible task, unless the truth that you happen to believe is very, very simple indeed.

We can prove parts of our truth, a piece here and a piece there. But even then, the proofs are contingent upon whom we are trying to persuade. Some proofs will be accepted by just about anyone, while other proofs will be rejected by just about everyone. So any given person is going to believe only certain things that you believe, depending on what proofs he can or cannot accept.

You say the truth is revealed in the New Testament texts. I would say that's fine, if you first assumed the New Testament could be either true, false, or partly true and partly false.

But if you assume from the get-go that the NT is definitely going to be true, then that is just so far away from being proof of anything that I find it scary that you say such a thing. It's the kind of thing a cult member would say: my religious authority has spoken, and I submit to the truth as it has been revealed to me. I really do find that a little scary.

People can tell me anything they want -- but it's up to me to find out what, if anything, they say is true, or what, if anything, they say is false. No one should outsource his critical reasoning or his moral sense to the Bible or any other religious authority. It's not kosher.

58

56
"Gee, Terence, I hope you're nicer in person than you are online."

Actually I spend the majority of my time trying to tone down what I say. Since I type slow and think slower, if I edited out every reactive impulse, little would ever get written. But to calibrate how really nice I
am in person, check out the small elementary school where I sub. I get 25 hugs a day . . . on a good day.

"In contrast, the discussion forum at infidels is quite lively and widely read. There are even a number of evangelicals (or at least orthodox Christians) who could back you up over there."

A little back up would be a nice change.

"One aspect of your behavior that does make me pause is your continual spelling of infidels.org as "infidels.orc." I notice that you did it twice in the above post, while everything else seems to be spelled correctly. Are you trying to be funny?"

Yes, I crack myself up. I really do.

"Are you afraid that actually spelling out "infidels.org" might harm you in some way? More likely, I think you're trying to make fun of atheists. If I have misjudged you, please explain why you do that."

I find it strange that you would react so strongly to the change of one single letter in a web address whose moniker is entirely based upon a pun. Infidels.org obviously is attempting to make light of Christians, even though the word is used only twice in the entire Bible. It is Islam not Christianity that commonly refers to non-believers as "infidels." In Tolkien's classic, the orcs were servants of the 'dark lord." Atheists who expend so much energy trying to discredit the Bible unknowingly serve a dark lord -- the same one who said to Eve in the garden,
"hath God said . . .? In the final analysis that is what he has been saying ever since.

"Regarding the supposed "300 prophecies." I think almost everyone who knows anything about debating would agree that the burden of proof is on you to provide examples that prove your point, rather than me finding examples that don't prove your point. You brought it up, you provide the evidence. Interesting that you want to make sure I don't bring up an "ambiguous" one. Wouldn't it be easier for you to pick one you feel is "specific and verifiable"?"

Prophecied in the OT and full filled in the NT:

Born of a virgin, Seed of Abraham, Son of Issac, Son of Jacob, Tribe of Judah, Family of Jesse, House of David, Born in Bethlehem, Shall be called Immanuel (God with us), Shall be a prophet, Judge, King, Preceded by a messenger, Ministry begins in Galilee, Ministry of miracles, Teacher of parables, Entered Jerusalem on a donkey, A "stone of stumbling" to the Jews, A "light" to the gentiles, Betrayed by a friend, Sold for 30 pieces of silver, Money to be thrown into the temple, Price given for a potter's field, Forsaken by his disciples, Accused by false witnesses, Silent before accusers, Wounded and bruised, Smitten and spat upon, Mocked, Hands and feet pierced, Crucified with thieves, Made intercession for his persecuters, Rejected by his own people, Garments parted and lots cast, Suffered thirst Offered vinegar, A forsaken cry, Committed himself to God, Heartbroken, Side pierced, Darkness over the land, Buried in a rich man's tomb, Resurrected, Ascended and Seated at the right hand of God.

"On a side note, are you not a Calvinist? If you are, I'm not sure why you're telling me there's still time to "turn back to the faith." If you're not a Calvinist, I'd love to see and the multitude of Calvinists around here talk about the "once saved, always saved" doctrine."

I am not a Calvinist, was never a member of a church, and have little use for religion in general. In fact, I have more respect for those who believe in nothing than those who believe in something that isn't true. I believed in evolution and taught that Jesus was "just a good man."
I got saved one night when I was walking down the street in a rough neighborhood in Dallas. For reasons I can never explain, I was moved to knock on a stranger's door where three girls were having a Bible study. (It kind of reminded of Hesse's "Steppenwolf," where he enters a door that has a sign that says, "for madmen only." At the time I was a Steppenwolf and a committed skeptic). I prayed the sinners prayer that night but it was not until years later, when Christ appeared to me in a dream, that my life was commited to Him. Since then there have been so many miracles and uncanny coincidences in my life that I could write a book about them.

Concerning your loss of faith, I don't know what is the 'point of no return,' nor do I know if you ever truly believed and were saved. It appears dubious. But I do know people who have gone to the edge and turned back only to be stronger and more committed to Christ as a result.

"I think you too have the intelligence to search out the truth. What I don't know is whether you have the courage and will to withstand the emotional pressure and cognitive dissonance that comes from learning that the truth is not what you want it to be."

I have a lifetime examining the evidence on both sides of the issue and
found that the skeptics arguments do not hold water. I believe that evidence alone will not convert anyone because man has an innate ability to believe whatever he was programmed to believe, irrespective of the veracity of those beliefs. Only the Holy Spirit can produce a life changing faith and He will not abandon His own.

Maranatha!

59

Thank you, Terence, for your kind and thorough reply. This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

I too have spent a lifetime studying both (all) sides of the issue. Yes, I truly believed in God and I certainly believed (and everyone who knew me believed) that I was saved. From time to time people, usually Calvinists, tell me that I was never saved. It is the old True Scotsman fallacy. No true Christian would ever renounce his faith, therefore you were never a true Christian.

I was "saved" at age 10. Grew up the son a missionary, later preacher. Earned a B.A. in Bible (4.0), an M.Div., and a D.Min. from two accredited, evangelical universities. I was a minister for 12 years and an assistant professor of Bible for three years. It was the persistent questions from my students that convinced me to do a thorough and honest study of everything I believed. I had, as all thinking Christians have, a backburner filled with troubling questions about my beliefs that I couldn't adequately answer. A one year intensive study of the key issues convinced me that I had been completely wrong about everything I had believed. I resigned my position (thereby losing a great job and my entire career), lost many friends, and caused a great deal of anguish for my family. That was about six years ago. I continue to study these issues, hoping that maybe I missed something. I don't claim to be perfect or to know everything, but my honest search for the truth of life's most important questions has led me to this point. What I do claim is that I was a "true Christian," that I understand the key issues raised by both sides, that I have read hundreds of books on both sides, and that I am sincerely trying to follow the evidence wherever it leads me.

You say that one cannot be converted by evidence alone, but by the Holy Spirit. If that is true, than I must wait for the Holy Spirit for I feel that I have been exposed to the evidence pretty thoroughly.

I do agree that people tend to believe what they have been programmed to believe. The beliefs of one's family, heritage, culture, society, teachers and heroes can predict with about 90% certainty what a person's beliefs will be. Other influences might include the books, media, or new persons with differing beliefs that the person is exposed to. Those who change or lose their faith also tend to be highly curious, with above average intelligence, have access to a wide source of information, and the courage to "buck the system."

Regarding the prophecies, I still don't understand why you don't want to take this discussion to a forum. Pretty soon, this blog entry and comments will be relegated to the archive and readership will drop precipitously. In a discussion forum, it's relatively easy to keep a good discussion going for many weeks or months (or even years) with a fairly wide readership. On a standard forum, every new entry pushes that thread to the top of the chart.

For the time being, I will continue to discuss this with you here, but I may pull out if it seems that the time is not well spent.

You produced a long list of some of the standard "fulfilled prophecies." I would ask that you choose one, giving the Old Testament reference and New Testament passage that you believe signifies a fulfillment.

I will produce one example of non-fulfillment. The most basic requirement for the messiah was th