Stephen said
However, there are observations of the historical Jesus that can’t be fully explained historically and aspects of consciousness that can’t be fully explained scientifically, which allow one to consider inclusion of the supernatural in one’s world view.The proper answer to a question for which we lack data is “I don’t know” not “insert favorite explanation”.
No, Stephen, that’s a cop out. The proper answer to a question for which we lack data is “I don’t know, but here is my explanation, what’s yours”
“I dont know” [but I don’t agree with or like your explanation because I think it’s your favourite one] – won’t advance knowledge one iota and is actaully the more prejudicial position to take
godspell said
I can’t overemphasize the importance of separating scientific opinions from religious beliefs. The two can and do (and should) co-exist, but not in the same exact space. Each has the potential to corrupt the other.
Complete nonsense. If you separate you religious beliefs from your scientific beliefs, you can fail to challenge any of your religious beliefs and end up beleiving in a fake God and a fake Jesus – that’s the mistake fundamentalists make. You can also fail to challenge any of your historical beliefs or scientific physicalist beleifs with evidence of the supernatural which is often staring you in the face – that’s the mistake that atheistic biblical scholars and scientists make.
godspell said
That’s effectively what we did to Jesus when we made him God. That’s the excuse we have for not being as good as him. No excuses.
That’s an interesting slant. I really doubt that sort of guilt and excuse-making was the reason for ‘inventing’ Jesus’s divinity. Beseaching us that we should all be as good as Jesus and stop making excuses for not acheiving it, is a very modern Christian belief (I thought you said this forum was not for discussing such matters
)
Neurotheologian said
godspell said
I can’t overemphasize the importance of separating scientific opinions from religious beliefs. The two can and do (and should) co-exist, but not in the same exact space. Each has the potential to corrupt the other.
Complete nonsense. If you separate you religious beliefs from your scientific beliefs, you can fail to challenge any of your religious beliefs and end up beleiving in a fake God and a fake Jesus – that’s the mistake fundamentalists make. You can also fail to challenge any of your historical beliefs or scientific physicalist beleifs with evidence of the supernatural which is often staring you in the face – that’s the mistake that atheistic biblical scholars and scientists make.
Not entirely complete. Any normal scientist is guided by prejudices, biases and various other personal subjectivities, conscious and unconscious. It is often the motivation behind the research. That’s perfectly acceptable and that is why the scientific communities have established methodologies for testing hypotheses arising in such circumstances. The parting of personal biases and science comes when the hypothesis is put to testing. One has to accept the result of the testing even if it runs counter to one’s religion.
gavriel said
Not entirely complete. Any normal scientist is guided by prejudices, biases and various other personal subjectivities, conscious and unconscious. It is often the motivation behind the research. That’s perfectly acceptable and that is why the scientific communities have established methodologies for testing hypotheses arising in such circumstances. The parting of personal biases and science comes when the hypothesis is put to testing. One has to accept the result of the testing even if it runs counter to one’s religion.
I agree
No, Stephen, that’s a cop out. The proper answer to a question for which we lack data is “I don’t know, but here is my explanation, what’s yours”
It’s a cop out when you admit you don’t know when you really don’t know? It’ll be the most honest words most of us ever speak. In the face of a lack of data any explanation that will satisfy us is almost guaranteed to be self-deception or wishful thinking. What is the source of this discomfort at the idea of saying “I don’t know”? I’ve met a lot of folks who cannot deal with blank spaces on their map. Is it taken as a sign of weakness?
Neurotheologian said
godspell said
I can’t overemphasize the importance of separating scientific opinions from religious beliefs. The two can and do (and should) co-exist, but not in the same exact space. Each has the potential to corrupt the other.
Complete nonsense. If you separate you religious beliefs from your scientific beliefs, you can fail to challenge any of your religious beliefs and end up beleiving in a fake God and a fake Jesus – that’s the mistake fundamentalists make. You can also fail to challenge any of your historical beliefs or scientific physicalist beleifs with evidence of the supernatural which is often staring you in the face – that’s the mistake that atheistic biblical scholars and scientists make.
I don’t see how that’s remotely what fundamentalists do.
There are things religion can do that science can’t, and vice versa. Don’t get them confused. Of course you can challenge your religious beliefs without resorting to science (which will never be able to disprove the central tenets of any faith). And science has to challenge itself on a daily basis–that’s what science does. Faith and knowledge both change over time, in different ways.
But they are separate realms–science asks for proof–faith doesn’t. Or shouldn’t.
In either case, one has to be rigorous in one’s analysis–as Robert was in the post above. You want to reconcile Mark and John, and there are areas in which they are agreement–and many others in which they are inalterably opposed. I don’t believe John can be reconciled with any of the synoptics, because John was on a different track.
There are things religion can do that science can’t…
Like provide excuses for people to believe profoundly silly things on no evidence whatsoever.
Of course you can challenge your religious beliefs without resorting to science (which will never be able to disprove the central tenets of any faith)…
Science disproves the central tenets of religious faith all the time. Take for example Paul’s view of sin and the fall of Adam in his letter to the Romans, so highly influential in the religious imagination of subsequent Christian thinkers. But there was no Adam and death is not the result of sin but inherent in the evolutionary process, certainly not the result of some primeval catastrophe. There is no archeological evidence for the Exodus when there should be because we do find clear evidence of lesser migrations. The Exodus is foundational to Jewish thought. According to orthodox Hindus Vedic civilization is the oldest but archeologists have found evidence of pre-Vedic civilizations. Native American mythology includes the idea that the Great Spirit placed them in America after its creation but of course we now know that the original inhabitants migrated from Asia after the last glaciation subsided. On and on.
But they are separate realms–science asks for proof–faith doesn’t. Or shouldn’t.
You should take this up with the current crop of Christian apologists who think you can “prove” the claims in the NT. See Prof Ehrman’s debates with Mike Licona, etc. I agree it is all very silly.
Stephen said
There are things religion can do that science can’t…Like provide excuses for people to believe profoundly silly things on no evidence whatsoever.
Of course you can challenge your religious beliefs without resorting to science (which will never be able to disprove the central tenets of any faith)…
Science disproves the central tenets of religious faith all the time. Take for example Paul’s view of sin and the fall of Adam in his letter to the Romans, so highly influential in the religious imagination of subsequent Christian thinkers. But there was no Adam and death is not the result of sin but inherent in the evolutionary process, certainly not the result of some primeval catastrophe. There is no archeological evidence for the Exodus when there should be because we do find clear evidence of lesser migrations. The Exodus is foundational to Jewish thought. According to orthodox Hindus Vedic civilization is the oldest but archeologists have found evidence of pre-Vedic civilizations. Native American mythology includes the idea that the Great Spirit placed them in America after its creation but of course we now know that the original inhabitants migrated from Asia after the last glaciation subsided. On and on.
But they are separate realms–science asks for proof–faith doesn’t. Or shouldn’t.
You should take this up with the current crop of Christian apologists who think you can “prove” the claims in the NT. See Prof Ehrman’s debates with Mike Licona, etc. I agree it is all very silly.
Oh Stephen, don’t be so modest. Atheists believe silly things with no proof all the time (like “There was no historical Jesus at all!”). You don’t need religion for that (or a good knowledge of science, which I’ve found most atheists tend to lack). That’s the shared heritage of every human. And strangely, we’re getting less religious and sillier all the time. 😉
Paul’s view of sin (you’re saying we know exactly what that was from seven letters?) certainly isn’t a proven fact, and you can agree or disagree (I disagree), but can you show me which scientific study proved it was factually wrong? Science can’t even prove sin exists, and in nature, of course (science’s fiefdom), sin doesn’t even exist.
Individual stories told in the mythology of a given religion are not, as any theology passman would know, tenets in the complete sense. But you’re saying SCIENCE has proven that there is no basis whatsoever for the entire story in Exodus? Didn’t Archaeology say there was no Trojan War until Schliemann found the city, right where it was supposed to be? You are perhaps confusing the inability to find clear evidence for something with having disproven it?
Science is about facts, not beliefs, not values, not morals. That’s where you are confused. And will doubtless remain so, because you continue to deny that atheism IS your religion, and you can’t ever view it dispassionately, logically–as science must be viewed.
Science can’t tell us what to believe. For that, we need other disciplines, not necessarily theistic, but certainly not scientific. Without such disciplines, science just becomes a tool for us to despoil the planet and hasten our own extinction, something religion has utterly failed to do in the tens of thousands of years it’s existed in various forms.
However, it is an undeniable fact of history that science is the child of religion–religion came first, and provided the basis for us to look past the mere day-to-day struggle for existence, organize socially, devote resources to non-materialistic study, the accumulation of knowledge that had no immediate practical application–and here we are. Here you are. In debt to something you hate. Which is irrational. Also deeply silly. 🙂
Just FYI–historians (who are not really scientists, incidentally–it’s considered one of the humanities, albeit with some aspirations to scientific analytical methods) do not at this time conclude Exodus has no historical basis at all, but that it may be a myth constructed out of genuine memories relating to persecution in Canaan, that were later transferred to Egypt.
Now if you want to say the entire Jewish religion in all its complexity depends on whether it was Canaan or Egypt, and whether any of it happened the way it’s told in the Pentateuch, that’s certainly your prerogative, but that’s a bit like saying you’ve invalidated the tenets of Plato’s Republic by saying there was never an actual cave.
Could we please leave literal interpretations to the fundies?
Robert said
What evidence of the supernatural are you speaking of?
1. Consciousness – the fact that there is experience / mind at all (this is the biggest of all the elephants in the room and my favourite subject 
). I would inlclude under consciousness: sensation & perception from (all 5 senses especially touch and vision), logical thought, conception, all shades emotion (especially pain and pleasure of various types), a sense of morality and conscience, a sense of justice, a sense of beauty and a sense of free will (which I could argue elsewhere is real and not illusory). Human consciousness, of course, is what makes us people. The fact that any of this exists, although clearly dependent, in every aspect, on brain function, cannot be explained by physical science (ie by ‘natural’ causes). Consciousness is therefore supernatural until proved otherwise (which I don’t believe it ever will). This is what the book I am writing will be principally about.
2. The Universe (the fact that there is matter and energy at all ie the fact that there is anything). This is the second biggest elephant in the room.
3. The fact that there are laws of physics that the universe and everything in it abides by (at least most of the time). This of course, makes ‘the supernatural’, when referring ro mircacles, a paradox.
4. The evidence for the ressurection (much discussed and not a debate I will be tempted to get into, but my view is that the evidence is close to irrefutable and even Bart, I think struggles, to explain how the early disciples came to believe in the bodily resurection of Jesus.
5. Lots and lots of evidence for miracles ancient and modern, including day near death experiences, angelic appearances and some healings, coincidences, prophecies etc etc (I haven’t got the time to argue this case fully here, but Dean Radin’s new book ‘Magic’ is a very good non-religious introduction to the topic and his experiments on consciousness influencing the double slit intereference pattern is stunning)
Neurotheologian said
No, Stephen, that’s a cop out. The proper answer to a question for which we lack data is “I don’t know, but here is my explanation, what’s yours”“I dont know” [but I don’t agree with or like your explanation because I think it’s your favourite one] – won’t advance knowledge one iota and is actaully the more prejudicial position to take
Stephen said
No, Stephen, that’s a cop out. The proper answer to a question for which we lack data is “I don’t know, but here is my explanation, what’s yours”It’s a cop out when you admit you don’t know when you really don’t know? It’ll be the most honest words most of us ever speak. In the face of a lack of data any explanation that will satisfy us is almost guaranteed to be self-deception or wishful thinking. What is the source of this discomfort at the idea of saying “I don’t know”? I’ve met a lot of folks who cannot deal with blank spaces on their map. Is it taken as a sign of weakness?
Stephen, you have mis-represented what I said: We AGREE that “I don’t know” is crucial. It’s your prejudice against mine or others’ ‘favourite’ explanation that I disagree with you on
Robert said (in regular text) my response in bold:
It seems like you are discussing the messianic secrecy motif, not as a literary or traditional theological motif but as an historical occurrence in the life of Jesus, specifically Jesus not proclaiming his messianic identity or ministry, at least not in its early stages. Me thinks you are right: I have hijacked a Markian textual theological nubbin of debate, but I would argue the critical theologians were the first to hijack the idea of a messianic secret from its historical occurrence (Markian & extra-Markian) and prophetically announced secret (Isaiah 53:1) ????
Before focusing on the historical realities behind the gospels, some 40 to 70 years before the gospels were written, can we first understand the so-called messianic secrecy motif as a literary motif in the gospel of Mark? That discussion has occupied scholars for over a century, and it is not at all clear that we can speak speak with much confidence even about Mark’s purposes. One potential aspect of the motif is Mark’s understanding of how and why Jesus spoke in parables. Some say that is part of the secrecy motif, others say no and propose a separate parable theory. Yes, there appears to be both the ‘motif’ of secret teaching and also the ‘motif’ of a secret mission. Must we really use that dreadful metaphor? ????
Mark 4,10-12 When he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. He said to them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those outside, everything is in parables, so that although they look they may look but not see, and although they hear they may hear but not understand, understand, so they may not repent and be forgiven.” With you absolutely
Compare Mark’s citation of Isaiah 6,9-10 with Paul’s string of citations and allusions to the Jewish scriptures:
Rom 11,7-11 Israel failed to obtain what it was diligently seeking, but the elect obtained it. The rest were hardened, as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, to this very day.” And David says, “Let their table become a snare and trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they may not see, and make their backs bend continually.” Yes
Notice some similarities? Do you think it is likely that Mark, like Paul, is reflecting on the rejection by the Jews of Jesus as Messiah? Yes and Yes
See also John John 12,37-41:
Although Jesus had performed so many miraculous signs before them, they still refused to believe in him, so that the word of Isaiah the prophet would be fulfilled. He said, “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” For this reason they could not believe, because again Isaiah said, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their heart, and turn to me, and I would heal them.” Isaiah said these things because he saw Christ’s glory, and spoke about him. Yes again
So, no, the two perspectives of Mark and John are not always in conflict with each other, but we are speaking about the later theological perspectives of the evangelists and not necessarily of events in the life of Jesus. One can also detect a progression within the continuity of perspectives. Paul still hoped for all Israel to be saved. In Mark, Jesus does not clearly reveal his messianic identity until he is on trial before the Judean authorities (ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ …). In John, Jesus clearly reveals even his divine identity (ἐγώ εἰμι) several times but is nonetheless rejected, even though many of the rulers of the Jews believed in him but would not confess their belief because of the Pharisees influence in synagogue expulsion. Yes, there is a contradiction or a difference of view between them on when the secret was revealed. Maybe different disciples got the revelation at different time points. Maybe Mark is right and John is wrong. All very interesting. Very good and helpful, thanks Robert
Robert said: With these first three ‘items’, it seems like you are more or less redefining what most people consider to be the natural world or even the whole universe as somehow supernatural. Your ‘atheistic biblical scholars’ discussing Mark’s conscious use of a ‘dreadful literary motif’ would be wild-eyed fundamentalists.
Ok I get it, but arguably not.
Re items 2 & 3: The ‘natural world’ (a phrase I didn’t use) obeys laws which are what define the adjective ‘natural’. The very FACT of the existence of a ‘natural world’ / natural universe is a ‘supernatural’ fact (Godel might turn in his grave if I referenced him here). Even so, consciousness cannot be explained naturally and thus is the ‘supernatural’ elephant in the room. In other words, consciousness is a mircale which I think is staring us all in the face.
Neurotheologian said:
If you separate you religious beliefs from your scientific beliefs, you can fail to challenge any of your religious beliefs and end up believing in a fake God and a fake Jesus – that’s the mistake fundamentalists make. You can also fail to challenge any of your historical beliefs or scientific physicalist beliefs with evidence of the supernatural which is often staring you in the face – that’s the mistake that atheistic biblical scholars and scientists make.
Godspell said:
I don’t see how that’s remotely what fundamentalists do.
All I meant was that because fundamentalists believe in the inerrancy and literality of scripture against historical and scientific evidence, they believe in a God who literally walked on the earth in Genesis, who created the world in 7 literal days etc. I think that’s a fake God.
There are things religion can do that science can’t, and vice versa. Don’t get them confused. Of course you can challenge your religious beliefs without resorting to science (which will never be able to disprove the central tenets of any faith). I didn’t say you couldn’t, I just said that in separating scientific from religious beliefs, you can fail to challenge religious beliefs. Also, fundamentalists hold to more than what I would consider as central tenets and science can indeed challenge some of those other add-on fundamentalist beliefs.
But they are separate realms–science asks for proof–faith doesn’t. Or shouldn’t.
There is no proof except in mathematics. Science asks for strong evidence and a little bit of faith – faith perhaps in the beauty or simplicity of the equation or explanation. The faith that I have asks for reasonable evidence (I don’t hold to completely unreasonable and un-evidenced religious beliefs) and it also asks for some trust – what is called somewhere in scripture, a ‘believing heart’ as opposed to an ‘unbelieving heart’ ie a cynical or sceptical heart.
In either case, one has to be rigorous in one’s analysis–as Robert was in the post above. You want to reconcile Mark and John, and there are areas in which they are agreement–and many others in which they are inalterably opposed. I don’t believe John can be reconciled with any of the synoptics, because John was on a different track. I do, but reconciliation in my book, is about trying to work out what actually happened without holding to inerrancy and may include accepting that there may have been some mis-remembering, but I think I am just less cynical in my synthesis than the archetypical ‘historical Jesus’ brigade
NT, I don’t believe there ought to be such a thing as scientific beliefs. There are theories, based on observable evidence. That can’t happen with religious beliefs (if it could, they wouldn’t be religious beliefs, because no faith would be required to hold them). Even mathematics can be questioned–anything can–and most of us can’t do the math, so we have to take it on faith that the mathematicians did their jobs right.
I don’t know what you mean by the ‘archetypal historical Jesus brigade’ and it sounds like you’re conveniently oversimplifying things to make it easier for yourself.
You have not explained how fundamentalists separate scientific from religious beliefs. They do the opposite (like building museums that show cavemen riding dinosaurs, because their beliefs tell them humans lived alongside every animal paleontologists ever found fossil evidence of.
I think that’s something you came up with, it sounded nice, and you didn’t think it through. Prove me wrong.
Honestly, I’m getting the feeling that the problem with you isn’t your religious beliefs, but rather your very poor understanding of how science works, which is something you share with far too many atheists.
If you want to know what a given religion believes, and how it came to believe that, it requires years of study–but anybody can know what he or she has personally decided to believe–that isn’t religion, when you get right down to it. Religion is organized belief, not individual whim. No two people ever believe the same exact same thing, but a group of people can reach an arranged consensus to pretend that they do, and that’s what religion is. It’s a useful way of getting people on the same page, so they can organize for various purposes.
Science also requires a lot of study just to understand what it is scientists do, and how they arrive at their determinations, and why those determinations change over time, and often prove to be flat-out wrong, but even mistakes in science lead to a better understanding of physical reality, as Einstein said. You also need (as I told Stephen) to understand all the things science can’t do, will never be able to do. You have to know where the limits of each discipline are, where one leaves off and the other begins–sometimes they overlap, sure But as a general rule, when science can explain something religion was once responsible for explaining, religion has to retreat. Science has authority over the physical world, but not the world of beliefs, because it is after all a belief that we need to know things like quantum physics, when homo sapiens survived for over a hundred thousand years without it, and is nearing global extinction an eyeblink after learning it (and other things). Without religion and philosophy, science is worthless–without science, religion and philosophy are clueless. But they have to respect each others’ boundaries.
We used to believe various creation myths, and some of us still do, but most Christian authorities now accept the account of creation in Genesis can’t be literally true. And it isn’t really written like something that’s meant to be taken as literally true. Myths basically never are, but the literal mindset resents anything that can’t be reduced to a recitation of rote facts. And the literal mindset can occur among atheists as well as theists. It’s basically a personality type some of us are born with a strong inclination towards. More digital, less analogue. I prefer analogue. (That’s why I have a huge collection of vinyl records and damned few CD’s.)
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
8 Guest(s)