Can Science and Religion be reconciled?

[(Q)]

scientific evidence is little more than the kind of evidence that christians use, evidence based on the testimony of witnesses.

Sorry, but that is entirely incorrect. Testimonials stand up in court ONLY if they can be corraborated with hard evidence. If not, the testimonial is essentially useless. No jury would convict on testimonial alone.

Experiencial evidence is not inherently better than other types of evidences, it's just different. Experiencial evidence can be tainted by biases and presuppositions like any other types of evidence.

Experimental evidence is the only evidence that will stand scrutiny. And of course if tainted or biased, this will be revealed in the peer review process or the next time someone tries to replicate the experiment.

True religious people, like true scientists, don't believe what others say just because they said it.

Ridulous. Religion is based entirely on what other people say. Science is based entirely on observation and experiment. They are completely opposite.

He has provided ways that He may be tested to show that what He says is true.

And what would that be?

 

[(Q)]

Imagine that this same kind of thing is happening in other scientific fields?

Didn't you just finish telling us you never believe what other people tell you?

 

[dharveymi]

With the greatest respect, the most recent posts display a huge degree of ignorance of religious systems, for example,

Christian witnesses have experiences that only they can relate too.

The biblical injunction is that a thing is established by two or more witnesses. The uncorroborated testimony of one christian is as worthless as any other uncorroborated testimony. The accounts of Daniel, Ezekiel, and John the Revelator are an example. Their accounts of future events are amazingly parallel. The story of the gospel is repeated FOUR times in the bible, from four different perspectives. The veracity of the events they report in common is almost beyond question considering three of them where, by most accounts, first hand reports. Biblical accounts which do not find support from other authors, in my mind, are somewhat suspect. (I know of only a few of these.)

Concerning experiential evidence for Christianity, God has made many promises through the authors of the Bible. By fulfilling the conditions of these promises, one can test to see if the words are true, for example,

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that [there shall] not [be room] enough [to receive it].

And ye shall seek me, and find [me], when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Concerning on what juries convict, they only convict on testimony. Even if evidence exists, the jury does not directly test the evidence, they except or reject the testimony of expert witnesses about the relative value of the evidence.

And of course if tainted or biased, this will be revealed in the peer review process or the next time someone tries to replicate the experiment.

It is obvious to me that you did not listen to the radio segment that I recommended. The limitations of peer review was the whole point of my post and the radio segment I recommended.

Religion is based entirely on what other people say.

This is ridiculous; although the lives of most 'religious' people make this statement seem truthful, true Christians demand evidence for what they believe, but through experience have found that the Bible is a reliable source of truth and place a very high bar on evidence that might seem to contradict it. I do not believe that the Bible is simply a collection of fairy tales as you might suggest. Many of the historical events and figures in the Bible find evidence in archeology and history. These lines of evidence strengthen my faith in the truth of the words of the authors of the Bible; when combined with my own experience of fulfilled promises from scripture, the Bible has become, in my mind, the most reliable source of truth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Many of the historical events and figures in the Bible find evidence in archeology and history.

Folklore is powerful precisely because it weaves myth and reality. Even the silliest of fiction shows evidence of the real world. But the archaeological and historical truth of farms and tornadic activity in Kansas is insufficient warrant for belief in the Munchkins or the Good Witch of the North.

Predictably, your "many of the historical events and figures" does not include the Global Flood, the Nephelim, the Patriarchs, Moses, the Exodus/Conquest, the Virgin Birth, cursed fig trees, suicidal pigs, resurrections, and zombies strolling the streets of Jerusalem.

You claim "evidence in archeology and history". Open a thread with your evidence of the Exodus.

 

[dharveymi]

I don't like to be told what to do, so I won't be opening the requested thread. If the poster would but look, this evidence is easily found.

I disagree with the supposition that there is a lack of historical or archeological evidence for the Global Flood, Moses, or the Exodus. Although the archeological evidence for the Patriarchs is questionable (after all they were only a small insignificant family of people who only had local influence), there is archeological evidence for events that are propertied to have happened during their lives.

Concerning evidence for the other things, it is unreasonable to look for archeological evidence for a Virgin Birth (for example), because only two people would know the truth of this event. (Their testimony is included in the Bible, and they agree.) As another example, what evidence could be provided for a resurrection? Only eye-witness accounts (which are provided) could be given. All other evidence would be meaningless.

Concerning fiction, folklore, and mythology, there is no evidence of such a tradition in Jewish literature until very recently.

I am interested in a serious discussion. I am currently speaking about the nature of evidence. All that I am claiming is that the accounts in the Bible are no less credible that those of many scientists; for example, the efficacy of a particular drug is determined largely (and often wrongly) on the word of a respected scientific author (reference the radio segment that I quoted.) Other examples include, the origin of the species is the result of natural selection, or that the "geological record" is the result of slow sedimentation. If you want to talk about mythology, these are good examples of modern fables. I don't want to get into a shouting match about this point, all I am saying is that the nature of the evidence is similar, it is based on the testimony of 'respected' authors. Now you may not 'respect' the authors of the Bible (I'm quite sure you do not), and I most certainly do not 'respect' the authors of the modern scientific world view, but in fact the nature of the evidence is the same. To accept this world view (as distinguished from the science as a methodology, which I accept and to which I adhere,) you must believe these authors in much the same way that I believe in the authors of the Bible. To the extent that their beliefs are based on evidence, the evidence is not conclusive and is subject to bias and presupposition. To accept the conclusion that species originated from a common microorganism, for example, requires faith in the authors of this theory largely not based on conclusive evidence but bias and presupposition.

The question you should infer from this discussion is: Are your sources more reliable than the authors of the Bible? The radio segment I referenced suggests that many scientists are not very reliable, their word cannot be trusted. You suggest that because there are spectacular events recorded in the Bible, that it cannot be trusted. I don't accept this. There are many spectacular things that have occured even in modern times of which there are multiple witnesses even newspaper accounts; just because a report is spectacular does not mean that it is unreliable. I am not suggesting that the only logical course is to accept the Biblical accounts, all I am suggesting is that an acceptance of Biblical accounts is not terribly different from accepting many scientific "beliefs", they depend on an acceptance of the word of another.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't like to be told what to do, so I won't be opening the requested thread.

You won't be opening the requested thread because you are obviously most comfortable staying as far away from anything concrete as possible. The reason for this should be obvious to anyone who takes the time to read your posts.

Concerning evidence for the other things, it is unreasonable to look for archeological evidence for a Virgin Birth (for example), because only two people would know the truth of this event.

It is not, however, unreasonable to ask for explanations of the date discrepancy, explanations of why such an amazing bit of information is missing from the works of Paul, Mark, and John, why there is no extra-biblical confirmation of infanticide, etc. Apologists twist and turn, slither and stutter, in their feeble attemps to make sense of the mess, when the most reasonable explanation is clearly that Matthew, wishing to use Isaiah 7:14 as prooftext, fabricated a virgin birth, and Luke copied Matthew.

Where is your evidence of the Exodus? Here we have 2-3 million participants, not to mention the Egyptian victims.

 

[dharveymi]

Did I do something cruel to you of which I am unaware?

Concerning the concrete, get as concrete as you like, but I can assure you that it all boils down to faith, which is my point. The point you are so eager to avoid. I can assure you that my stated reason for not doing what you tell me to do is exactly as I stated and nothing more. Your attempts at reading my mind were obviously unsuccessful.

Concerning the differences in the gospels, you have cited just one of many. Each of the gospel writers wrote for different purposes. A careful study of Matthew reveals that he wrote to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah; differences between his account and the others does not necessitate a discrepancy. Throughout the gospels it is made clear that Jesus was the only born Son of God. Based on the similarities between the accounts, I do not agree that is reasonable at all that Matthew fabricated anything. None of the apostles where, however, witnesses to the event; neither is there any record of Jesus, Mary, or Joseph recounting the event. Nevertheless, there is still no evidence that Luke did simply copy the account (not that citing another's work is wrong.) So, since there are two witnesses by your own admission, I can only conclude that Matthew and Luke where both telling the truth as they were lead by the Spirit of God. Now, I could say that both Matthew and Luke where lying and that you were telling the truth, but considering that you are much further removed from the events than they were, I'll be taking their word for it. (I think there is extra-biblical confirmation of infanticide, but I will have to get back to you when I find it.)

Concerning the Exodus, archeologists have found references to Moses, the missing Pharaoh, the Hebrew slaves, the location of the Red Sea crossing complete with chariot pieces, a golden chariot wheel, and markers erected my Solomon. They have found the location of Mount Sinai, complete with a blackened peak, glifs of the calf story, etc. What? Do you want a video?

But, as I stated before this is not really my point. I don't want to get into a duel with you. All I am saying is that it boils down to faith, your beliefs and mine. We are not so different as you imagine. You don't accept my evidence; I am not real keen on yours, but both of us accept the work of others based on the perceived credibility of the speaker. I have come to trust in the word of the authors of the Bible. You have come to trust in the words of the authors of modern scientific thought. You have your reasons, I have mine.

Am I being unclear in some way? If you can accept this one point, we can more civilly discuss the relative merits of our evidence without descending into attacks on one another.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

for example, the efficacy of a particular drug is determined largely (and often wrongly) on the word of a respected scientific author

If this statement were true, the inefficacy of most drugs should be easily shown. Can you provide any evidence to support this? Most of the prescription and over the counter drugs I have used have worked quite well, which tells me that so far scientists have been doing a bang-up job. I don't have to take anyone's word for it, I know from my own experience whether or not the drugs produced by science work.

 

[dharveymi]

Did you listen to the radio segment I recommended? Notice I did not say all drugs. That's not really my point. I could talk more about the drug problem in medicine, but the radio segment I referenced did a much better job than I could in a short post. If you want to know about drugs in general, I recommend a best selling book, Fit for Life: A New Beginning by Harvey Diamond. This book changed my mind about most of popular medicine.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Concerning the Exodus, archeologists have found references to Moses, ...

Why are you so naively willing to expose your ignorance and gullibility? You may find that the babbling of widely recognized frauds such as Ron Wyatt comforting, but he is viewed by archaeologists as little more than a joke. Even evangelists have stepped forward to expose this "outright scam". Have you ever, even once in your life, taken the time to read and understand anything about Syro-Palestinian or Egyptian archaeology? The very fact that you must cling to such pathetic nonsense in order to shore up your faith should be cause for concern, not to mention embarrassment. No, dharveymi, there is no compelling evidence for the Exodus - none, it never happened.

 

[dharveymi]

OK, well I'll just take your word for it then. Thanks for clearing things up for me.


Why do I bother?

 

[(Q)]

The nice thing about that is you don't have to take his word for it, if you do, you are as gullible as he has stated. You can actually find out for yourself. Although, you would be wise to be careful not to be crushed by the falling house of cards.