According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
Furthermore, scientists today are no less likely to believe in God than they were almost 100 years ago, when the scientific community was first polled on this issue. In 1914…psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not….
26
Jan
2015
Scientists and Theism
I was talking to someone about the topic of scientists believing in God, and I went to look up the stats. I was fairly surprised by what I found. This was one of the top hits I got, an article in the LA Times talking about a Pew survey done in 2009. Some interesting excerpts, with bold from me:
The scientific community is, however, much less religious than the general public. In Pew surveys, 95% of American adults say they believe in some form of deity or higher power.
And the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true…
Given that scientists are much less likely than the general public to believe in God, it’s not surprising that the percentage who are affiliated with a particular religion is also lower. Nearly half of U.S. scientists say they have no religious affiliation — describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular — compared with 17% of all Americans.
Among scientists there are far fewer Protestants (21%) and Catholics (10%) than in the general public, which is 51% Protestant and 24% Catholic. And while evangelical Protestants make up more than a fourth of the general population (28%), they are only a tiny slice (4%) of the scientific community….
But the Pew poll found that levels of religious faith among scientists vary quite a bit depending on their specialty and age. Chemists, for instance, are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in biology and medicine (32%). And younger scientists (ages 18 to 34) are more likely than older ones to believe in God or a higher power.
If a substantial portion of the scientific community is made up of believers, why do so many people think evolution and religion are incompatible? It may be because some of our most famous and prolific scientists, such as American evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould and British physicist Stephen Hawking, were or are atheists and agnostics. But what about Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project, who was recently appointed as director of the National Institutes of Health by President Obama? Collins is an evangelical Christian who speaks passionately about his faith — and also thinks evolution is an established scientific fact.
As for Darwin….The concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.” The passage raises at least a little doubt as to how the father of modern evolutionary theory might have responded to the question on belief in Pew’s recent survey of scientists.
That Pew survey was a survey of American scientists, and it is not surprising that American scientists are more religious than other countries.
But once you go outside the US to other Western countries, you will find that theist scientists become a minority:
E..g, a survey of British scientists:
only 5.3% of the UK’s distinguished scientists believe in a personal god
86.6% disbelieve in god
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/atheism-among-anglophone-scientists-ii-the-uk/
Also, it is well known that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to believe in god:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/high-iq-turns-academics-into-atheists/402381.article
Also, amongst English-speaking philosophers in many countries:
72.8% atheism
14.6% theism
12.5% other
Forget the theist vs atheist argument. What I’d like to poll and track over time is what percentage of scientists are moral nihilists vs. believe in morality of the religious or secular variety.
LK:
“Also, it is well known that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to believe in god:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/high-iq-turns-academics-into-atheists/402381.article”
Bear in mind that such stats do not indicate any universal causal relationship. It is purely statistical. As long as there exists a religious peraon who is more intelligent than an atheist, which is the case now and has always been, one cannot say things like “you are less intelligent than me because you’re religious”.
There are religious people more intelligent than you and I.
One also has to keep in mind that most intelligence tests bias against religion, and bias towards secularism, thus favoring atheists over religious people.
If intelligence tests included knowledge of religious doctrines, texts, and history of religious ideas, then such tests may very well show that the more religious people are, the more intelligent they would be.
If you want to go by correlations, which I do not but you like to use them to suggest causation, one can argue that religion increases wealth, since the US is religious and among the most wealthiest nations. It is not cherry picking because we’re talking about hundreds of millions of individuals each of whom represents a data point.
Intelligence tests (or well designed ones at any rate) do not test for knowledge, but rather for cognitive ability. There aren’t any questions about religious doctrine, just like there aren’t any questions about politics, chemistry, history, or sports. They’re trying to test intelligence, not knowledge.
Gunnarson:
That’s what I mean. Testing constrained to logical rules, mathematical rules, geometry rules, and semantic rules, which constrains modern science, biases against religion because religion is constructed without strict regard to these rules.
Religious thought exists at all because thought can go beyond those particular rules. The totality of all possible human thought, which incessantly strives to transcend all rules, is not by nature limited to the above rules. Thought is only limited to the absolute boundary of all possible thought, which can go well beyond obedience to rules of thought which IQ tests are really testing for.
So if I understand you correctly, you’re claiming that there is some different kind of intelligence (let’s call it intelligence*) which religious people possess more of and which is not adequately captured by ordinary intelligence tests. How does intelligence* manifest itself? How does it change important life outcomes?
I ask this because regular intelligence is important because we know it to be associated with a wide range of positive life outcomes, such as academic and professional success, low rates of crime, addiction, teenage pregnancy, etc. All or most of these connections are very likely at least partially causal.
On the Science/Religion question, a great book is Where the Conflict Really Lies by Alvin Plantinga. He is a Christian philosopher and he very carefully examines the alleged incompatibilities of theism and science.
alleged
I was looking at Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism. At first glance it just appears nonsense – why would anyone give credence to such drivel. On further examination, it is still the same, but requires more clever refutation.
For anyone unfamiliar with the argument, if naturalism is correct, then human’s ideas arise from evolution – there is no guiding creator. There is no reason why the accuracy of ideas should be selected for – only the actions or behavours in which they result. For example, it doesn’t matter why we run from a tiger as long as we do. A false belief that results in us running away would be selected just as well as a true one, so belief itself is invisible to evolution. However, he says that our beliefs are in fact mostly true. What is the probability of our beliefs being true given both naturalism and evolution? Plantinga says that if the probability is either low or unknown (inscrutable), then this is a defeater for evolution and naturalism both being true.
This seems to rely on several assumptions – that our beliefs are mostly true for a start. This is significant in the development of the Baysian argument. Also that evolution would not select for true beliefs. Whilst any individual behaviour may be based on either false or true beliefs, the totality of our behaviour will use far fewer beliefs if they are true. For exmple, we may run from the tiger because we want to hug it, but we think running away is the best way to get a hug. That works for the tiger, but will manifestly fail with our partner or parent. We would need a set of beliefs for each situation – i.e. to get a hug from a tiger, run away, to get a hug from a parent, run towards. This is more costly than a singe belief – to get a hug go towards. Therefore true beliefs will be selected.
Anyway, apologies for the digression.
I think it’s a loaded question in a loaded survey, remember the phrase “or a higher power”, well evolution could be seen as a higher power, just a different sort of higher power to what most people think God is.
Heck, some people might see the US Constitution as “a higher power”, or might see some other moral principle as “a higher power”. It’s vague. The threshold of what that means is totally unclear.
From pew: “just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God,
18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.
By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power,”
83% believe in God
12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.
Given the way it is phrased -“universal spirit or higher power” I don’t think something like the constitution would be included by almost everyone.
Elaine Howard Ecklund’s book Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think has a slightly different split. “It is just 9% of scientists (compared to 63% of the public), who chose, “I have no doubts about God’s existence.” An additional 14% of scientists chose, “I have some doubts, but I believe in God.” Giving 25% of scientists that believe on God.
Tegmark published about the “belief gap” – only 11% of Americans belong to religions who’s public position is in conflict with science, yet Gallup reports that 46% believe God created humans in their present form less than 10.000 years ago. This suggests that many individuals are not in-line with the teachings of their own religions.
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/survey.html
Europe is a little different. Numbers reporting atheism are 25% for UK, 27% for Germany and a surprising 40% in France, compared to 9-10% in USA. If we expand to atheist/agnostic, these numbers rise to (for example) 41-49% for Germany, and another surprise to me of 81% for Vietnam.
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf
It has also been noted that religious belief is lower among more accomplished scientists. Belief in a personal god was 39% among scientists, but only 7% among National Academy members.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/atheism-among-anglophone-scientists-i-the-u-s/
Although USA is generally much more religious than the UK, among elite scientists (National Academy cf Royal Society) there is little difference.
According to the text above, more than half of scientists actually have a religious affiliation. I doubt any of the respondents mistook evolution or a man-made document for a higher power. I’m sorry, but that would be really dumb.
I think that slightly ironic is a fact that people rejecting – for example – evolution theory to be closer to truth than science… What that tells you about science and religion?
I’d say it’s even funnier than it looks.
And the question way screwier as well. And kinda pointless since science became religion itself, with way more brutal followers than one could expect.
Here is a more recent Pew study on international attitudes. France comes in as the highest belief that religion is not necessary for morality at 85%. I was not aware that France had this attitude to religion, but it is apparently widely recognised, having its own wiki article. The French revolution had a different result from American war of independence, although they were about the same time.
http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/05/Pew-Research-Center-Global-Attitudes-Project-Belief-in-God-Report-REVISED-MAY-27-2014.pdf
Hmm.
51% of all scientists believe in God.
41% of chemists believe in God.
32% of biologists believe in God.
So both chemists and biologist are less likely than the average scientist to believe in God. This means that there must be fields in which scientists are more than 51% likely to believe in God in order to bring the average up to 51%. I wonder which fields those are.
I also wonder about the 41% of people who do not believe in God. Does this include both atheists and agnostics, or just atheists?
51% of scientists believe in “god or a higher power”. Only 33% believe in god.
The averages are interesting. All scientist believe in god -33%. Men -33%, women 35%. that suggests too few women to raise the average above that of the men.
Biological -32%
Chemistry -41%
Geo-30%
Physical -29%
The age breakown is interesting –
<35 – 42%
<50 – 37%
<65 – 32%
65+ – 28%
Not just that the younger scientists were more religious, but showed a steady decline with age. The overall proportion was virtually unchanged since 1916, so presumably this decline in religiosity is a normal trend showing scientists lose their faith with age, rather than a feature of people born at particular times being more or less religious.
Harold,
I’m not sure that the 1914 survey is comparable (the wording of the question seems to be substantially different). In any event, it’s possible that religious belief among scientists is something that waxes and wanes across generations (as in fact it has among the general population).
Josiah, yeah, not conclusive I would agree, but I think it more likely that a decline with age is the answer than the numbers believing in god has steadily risen since 1945. This Gallup poll suggests those answering “none” to the question “what is you religious preference” has risen fairly steadily from 2% in 1948 to 16% in 2014.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx
Harold,
I could see a bounce back in religion from folks who came of age professionally in the 1960s, which is what the 65+ would largely be.
Don’t Christians who “believe” in evolution implicitly make the claim that the bible is not the word of God?
How can a person make such a claim and still be considered christian?
Taking the Bible literally hasn’t been the same since they changed the meaning of “literally”. Maybe they should also change the meaning of ” fundamentalist” to mean, any normal person. That would solve a lot of problems I think.
It’s the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Darwinian-style evolution is compatible with the Catholic faith, and belief in an ultimate creator.
We Catholics don’t think the Old Testament is literal, for one thing. Rather, they are ‘faith stories’ designed to get people to believe in a specific (Hebrew) god. But as Christians, we do believe that Jesus is the son of God, and not just a prophet (though a big-time prophet).
I think it’s very easy to reconcile belief in a higher power or God and also accept that the bible is the *inspired* word of God, since we’re most of us are well aware that the current bible is significantly different from it’s Hebrew and Greek roots. So we can think the story is generally correct, but details are not. After all, religious and secular politics have had plenty of influence on the evolution of what we currently accept as the bible.
Combining this response with Aby’s, can we say that the pope is a Catholic, but maybe not a Christian?
Harold,
no, we can conclude that aby has an unusually narrow definition of Christianity.
I wasn’t trying to define Christianity at all. I’m just not sure if there can be a non arbitrary way to determine which parts of the bible are true and what parts are false (or mean actually somethingdifferent from what it actually says) if you don’t believe it’s the word of god.
just sounds a bit like cherry picking to me, that’s all
“87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes”
13% of scientists are creationists ? What sort of science are they doing ?
Transformer wrote: “13% of scientists are creationists ? What sort of science are they doing ?”
Wait, so Transformer, you think science officially began in 1859?
DNA also wasn’t discovered till after 1859, but it would be kind of weird if 13% of scientists in 2009 said they didn’t believe in it.
I’m not saying you can’t do science without a belief in evolution, just that the evidence for evolution is quite strong and it seems odd that 13% of scientists either reject this evidence or are unaware if it.
I wonder what % don’t accept gravitational theory?
There were 8% of scientists who believed in creator driven evolution on top of the 87%, meaning 95% believe evolution did occur. 5% don’t know or refused to answer.
For clarity, the statement with which 8% agreed was “A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today”
OK Transformer (and Josiah), perhaps I misunderstood Transformer’s rhetorical question about “what kind of science are they doing?” if someone doesn’t believe in evolution.
When I was hip deep in this stuff, I would see people make glib statements like, “If those people feel that way, they can go to Intelligent Design hospitals when they get sick, ha ha.” Which is unbelievably stupid.
When I was hip deep in this stuff, I would see people make glib statements like, “If those people feel that way, they can go to Intelligent Design hospitals when they get sick, ha ha.” Which is unbelievably stupid.
Agreed. One of the guys who developed the MRI scanner is a young earth creationist, which gives a kind of ironic ring to the phrase “Intelligent Design hospitals.”
one reason why people Macy’s scientists as he kissed or agnostic more than they really are is because there are people like Richard Dawkinswho consistently ridicule faithful believers.
Here’s the poll.
The breakdown is:
I believe in God’ 33%
I don’t believe in God, but I do believe in a universal spirit or higher power: 18%
I don’t believe in either: 41%
No answer: 7%
They also have an atheist/agnostic breakdown as follows:
Atheist: 17%
Agnostic: 11%
Nothing in Particular: 20%
Presumably some of the “Nothing in Particulars” believe in a higher power of some kind.
Also, I thought it was weird that only 87% of scientists said they believed in evolution. In the poll question, a separate answer option is given for a kind of theistic evolution, which isn’t counted towards the 87%.
Eric Metaxas had a great piece in a recent WSJ:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
God=ignorance. Got it.
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/astrobiology-made-case-god
This makes a nice distinction between believing in God and religiosity. What I think a good appreciation of science does real damage to is the willingness to draw firm conclusions from spotty evidence. There’s really nothing science has given us as far as I can figure that suggests there’s not a god (or that there is one for that matter!). But it does provide sensibilities that lead people to wonder why they should believe a particular book or religious leader that claims to offer a very detailed set of facts about God without clear evidence.
The result is a bunch that believe in God but aren’t really religious – which seems fair enough to me.
In fact given that science doesn’t really speak to the existence of God, in a way 50/10/40 split roughly between theist, agnostic, and atheist (I assume that remainder is essentially agnostic) is about what we should be seeing! I think the agnostic share should probably be bigger, but old traditions die hard 🙂
Aha – I see from Josiah that agnostics are roped into “I don’t believe in…” which is a little strange but I guess it works
It’s worth keeping in mind too that AAAS members are not necessarily scientists. I’m not sure exactly what the breakdown is or whether any filter was applied by Pew, but that’s worth remembering.
Some more observations.
From the scientist survey, the agreement about evolution (Humans and other living things have evolved
due to natural processes such as natural selection) was 87%. The agreement about global warming (The earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels) was 84%. This is pretty similar.
The view of the general population about whether scientists generally agree about these things was 62% for evolution (a ratio of 0.71) and 59% for global warming (ratio 0.74). Thus scientists are just about as much in agreement over both, and the public is almost exactly as mis-informed about that agreement.
The view of the general population about whether scientists generally agree about these things was 62% for evolution (a ratio of 0.71) and 59% for global warming (ratio 0.74). Thus scientists are just about as much in agreement over both, and the public is almost exactly as mis-informed about that agreement.
The general public is very bad at estimating percentages of things (for example, if you separately ask people to estimate the percentage of the population that belong to different races, you end up with a total of something like 135%). On the other hand, from talking to people it does seem like people are especially likely to overestimate the percentage of scientists who don’t believe in evolution or global warming, for reasons that are probably obvious.
The basic issue here is that some people are capable of seeing the difference between philosophy and its purview and science and its purview. Science can only speak about the natural world, so it stands to reason that those who presuppose that the natural world is all that exists (this is called “naturalism”) will believe that science can tell us about everything that exists. Those same people will look down at philosophy as silliness from a bygone era. This is roughly the position of the “Four Horsemen of the New Atheism.” As the any scientists do not have that same presupposition (naturalism), thus they are capable of understanding that there is some kind of limit on the purview of their craft. They can separate philosophical statements from scientific ones and understand that the two can exist harmoniously.
Atheists today refuse to admit that many original contributions to science were made by clergy (Father Georges Lemaitre, the father of the Big Bang theory comes to mind). An example of this is the surprise Bill Maher seemed to feel when he interviewed Father Coyne for his documentary “Religulous.” One need only to read Dr. Tom Woods Jr.’s work on the subject of Catholicism and science to understand the logic of the connection.
It really is that simple. Sadly though, the days of Jean-Paul Sartre and other thoughtful atheist philosophers are gone. We are left with the pseudo intellectual garbage of deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, and their friends in the YouTube comments section. These men may be fantastic scientists, but they make elementary errors when it comes to philosophy.
“Atheists today refuse to admit that many original contributions to science were made by clergy.” That is wrong – it is a matter of history and accepted by all. Mendel and his peas for example – I don’t think anyone rejects the idea that Mendel was a friar.
“Those same people will look down at philosophy as silliness from a bygone era. ” Again not true. Even naturalists recognise that what is right or wrong cannot currently if ever be answered by science. The is/ought gap is significant. Science can tell us what is, not necessarily what ought to be.
Harold,
You apparently haven’t met the literally hundreds of atheists I’ve spoken with over the years. Many of them, when faced with the story of Mendel or Copernicus or Lemaitre simply shriek that those people only entered religious orders or became clergy so as to get an education.
On your second point, you’re being disingenuous. The (literally hundreds) of atheists I’ve spoken with claim that right and wrong are just useful fictions or just evolutionarily convenient happenstances. Even if you’re correct, it still implies that naturalists, purely by assumption, ignore the possibility of the supernatural. That is, after all, the definition of naturalism.
Just read knoxharrington’s post below, Harold. This is the level of discourse most atheists are equipped to handle.
Obviously I cannot comment on the comments of people you have personally spoken to, but I can offer evidence that atheists do not deny that Medel was a friar, Newton’s study of the bible was among his greatest passions etc. Dawkins in The God Delusion recognises that religion has valuable “cultural and literary traditions,” and suggests that we can give up dubious supernatural beliefs without “losing touch with a treasured heritage.” I am almost sure you will not find Dawkins has denied the clerical status of historical figures. The claim you made “Atheists today refuse to admit that many original contributions to science were made by clergy” is not accurate.
“Even if you’re correct, it still implies that naturalists, purely by assumption, ignore the possibility of the supernatural.” I agree that they reject the supernatural, but it is not purely by assumption. It is because there is no evidence for it, and no rational theory to justify belief in it.
Your claim that “Naturalists…look down at philosophy as silliness from a bygone era.” does not really fit with naturalism actually being a branch of philosophy.
Harold,
I think you should spend time talking with more atheists.
Yes, naturalism is a philosophical point of view, but those who hold it reject philosophy as a means of understanding the world around them. I know this sounds strange, but it really does describe the perspective of a lot of atheists out there. I can assure you that the (very minor) positive statements made by the famous new atheists today are by and large ignored by their readers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4r2J6Y5AqE
Dr. Kenneth Miller, Brown University Professor of Biology – practicing Catholic and defender of evolution. I don’t understand how anyone can believe ANYTHING in the Bible after evolution has destroyed the creation myth. This applies to all religions that posit a creation story – not just Christianity.
One comment and I probably can’t come back to this for a while:
A huge problem in this debate is the term “evolution.” For example, Michael Behe–one of the leading lights in the Intelligent Design movement–believes in common descent (or at least, is not threatened by the theory). That is, he has no problem with the claim that every living cell on Earth shares the same ancestral cell, billions of years ago. However, Behe looks at something like the bacterial flagellum and says, “That couldn’t possibly have arisen step by step, where each incremental change conferred a reproductive advantage, in a totally blind process. An intelligence was involved.”
So does Behe believe in or reject evolution? Do you see how he could think the above, and yet be perfectly acquainted with the fossil record etc.?
Yet people will very often–even trained biologists–say stuff like, “Darwin showed us that we don’t need God to explain the origin of life.” No, Darwin didn’t really show that.
Bob,
You’ve hit on one of the things I find most baffling about the whole ID debate. If you read Ken Miller’s book, he arguably allows God a greater role in shaping evolution than Behe does. Yet Miller is seen as a staunch opponent of Intelligent Design while Behe is considered an evolution skeptic. It’s a bit weird.
I don’t know if you are interested, but here is the secular evolutionary explanation for the flagellum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU
The problem with intelligent design is that they don’t really run experiments that attempt to disprove their thesis. A well run experiment attempts to disprove a theory, not prove it. The scientific community is still waiting for an experiment that has the ability falsify intelligent design. Until then, it has no business being in a legitimate science textbook or classroom.
A well run experiment attempts to disprove a theory, not prove it.
How would I disprove that claim, Michael? I had thought about all the famous examples of experiments that people will say “proved” a new theory (like wobble of Mercury and general relativity), but I’m guessing you meant your statement in a non-falsifiable way.
I don’t think I worded that as well as I should have. It might be easier to give an example. One of the ways that relatively was proved is that they looked at the sun during an eclipse and were able to see a star that was behind the sun, which meant that the light of the star bent around the sun because of its gravity. If relativity were not true, they would not have been able to see the light of the star, which is what I mean by falsifiable.
In other words, falsifiable experiments can say, “if I get result x, theory y is not true, or needs modification.” I am unaware of any proposed experiments that if there is result x, then Intelligent Design must be rejected or modified.
MichaelT, the other thing, it looks in your last comment that you:
(a) Provided a scientific refutation of ID when it comes to bacterial flagellum and
(b) Complained that ID theories can never be falsified.
So which is it?
(I know I sound hostile perhaps in these; it’s just lack of body language and tone of voice.)
What I meant was that for ID to be taken seriously in a scientific sense it has to have at least an experimental result or two that suggests that ID is true. There has been no experiment or study that I am aware of that began with the Hypothesis “ID is supported if we get result x, and not supported if we get result y.”
What makes the flagellum theory of irreducible complexity so atrocious is that if Michael Behe did a small amount of literature review he could have ample evidence that there are many bacteria and other single celled organisms that have useful structures containing a few components of the flagellum, but not all. Combine this with the short time period of cell division in most single celled organisms, the long time period that single celled organisms evolved during, and horizontal gene transfer make evolution plausible with just our known laws of the universe.
Finally, if there is a sentient creator of our universe, it would be impossible to know the mechanics by which it/he/she/? created and effected the unfolding of the universe because we cannot (in this life anyway) experience or measure the dimension in which that creator exists. It would be like a fish trying to understand quantum mechanics (or maybe a human trying to understand quantum mechanics if you want to be cheeky).
I do not believe he refuted ID- he merely offered an alternative. ID says that structures such as the flagellum are irreducably complex and could not evolve. MichaelT offers a possible mechanism. I can still say that is not enough, and ID is required.
Observing the star behind sun did not prove relativity, but it did falsify Newton. That left relativity as the best explanation that fits the facts. People may say this “proved” relativity, but they are wrong.
1.) It refuted the theory of irreducible complexity, which states that certain structures don’t have any function if you remove any of their parts. This is obviously not true, but is still used by ID proponents.
2.) The problem with ID is that it cannot be refuted, which is my main argument for why it cannot be a legitimate scientific theory. Maybe you disagree, but I would challenge you to propose an experiment that could falsify ID. A theory must be falsifiable to be considered legitimate science. Which is why many physicists consider String Theory an exercise in high level mathematics and not physics.
3.) When I (and most scientists) say proved, what I really mean is a hypothesis that has survived all falsifiable experiments conducted on it. Maybe I should say “well supported” instead.
3a.) Newton wasn’t necessarily falsified with relativity, his theories were merely modified. Relativity adds an adjustment to Newtonian calculations, but from a human perspective (us being small enough not to exert much gravity and not traveling anywhere near the speed of light) makes that adjustment effectively 0 in most cases. The Apollo missions were charted using old school Newtonian mechanics.
MichaelT, I agree with you entirely that ID is not a scientific theory. I will be delighted if your evidence refutes irreducible complexity –I had missed th esubtlety of your point. However, it can only demonstrate that the flagellum is not an example, they may be able to think of others. I am sure these in turn will in turn be shot down, but it is hard work to do this on a case-by-case basis. On Newton and proof, Newton was falsified *as the complete description of gravity*. Newtons equations were accurate enough to get us to the moon and back, I think. These problems crop up often when technical terms are used colloquially. Theory/hypothesis and atheist/agnostic are others. Many “atheists” would more accurately be described as agnostics, but that suggests the wrong thing. I am still not sure if I am an atheist or an agnostic, but atheist would convey the meaning best in a general discussion.
Ahhh,
So one of the interesting things about those that believe in God versus those that do not believe in God is always fun. I have met many people who say they do not believe in God in scientific circles ( or a higher power ) however whey you actually track down the REASON for this it is often that they have dismissed the notion because they see a divergence from what was written in the ‘Bible’ to what they understand the natural world to operate as.
Once you help reconcile this often times the words they then say ( not always ) is, ‘Oh I never thought about it like that’ when you then ask if God ‘could’ exist, they say, ‘Well I suppose He COULD exist.’
Then you proceed to demonstrate that there is a scientific method of finding God. Which of course there ‘is’ though unfortunately the results to date are difficult to document, other than the fact that people convert to religion.
Someday we will be able to ‘see’ the methods of God, since I do not believe anything God does is beyond the physical. I believe, based on my understanding of God, that God does not exist outside the law but rather obeys all natural law perfectly, because He is God.
God is, He exists independent of us. All can find Him. Words are inadequate to describe Him. Ancient texts do their best, unfortunately time and cultural understanding make it difficult to see what portion is ‘of God’ and what portion is ‘of culture’.
Finally what is the purpose of existence? I would argue that in the end we are all dead. But the understanding that God has brought to my life has elevated it. It has brought me joy, it has brought peace, it has brought understanding. God is, you may know Him. Just as the instructions to arrive to a city exist, and a road trip must be taken, so too the journey to where God is takes time, energy, and effort. many stop before they reach the destination. But stopping before you arrive to a city does not mean it is not there. You will see many sign posts on the way, to those that believe these ‘signs’ verify their faith and keep them strong in the journey.
Just as you do not teach calculus to a newborn, neither does God simply hand over all his knowledge at the first asking. But to he who seeketh they shall find, to whoso knocketh it shall be opened.
Cheers and I actually have a fairly high IQ. What I would really suggest is that there is a culture of teaching that removes God from peoples lives and a pervasive attitude to that end in academia. Correlation does not equate to causation. I found Lord Keynes comment on this matter quite silly and fallacious. Could it be that there is social pressure among academics to ‘group think’ in this regard? That would be a more interesting study.
“Then you proceed to demonstrate that there is a scientific method of finding God.”
I can’t let this go. What method is that?
“Could it be that there is social pressure among academics to ‘group think’ in this regard?” Could it be that there is social pressure and group think in a nation where 95% of adults believe in god or a higher power?
Not sure if you saw this…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGQ-nWOZrok&feature=youtu.be
Wow, I agree with Daniel Kuehn. Does that mean there is a God?
Why should it matter one way or the other what “most scientists” or “most people” think about any question? Being “a scientist” does not confer truth value on one’s beliefs automatically. One’s beliefs either are true, or false. Only a scientist who has *tested* whether God exists has relevant information to contribute. The set of such scientists is presently empty, and likely to remain so.
I wonder how much of the lack of change was a result of an increasing number of scientists coming from non-far-Eastern, non-Western cultures.
It would be so nice if people in these types of discussions could employ more integrity and diligence. It never fails to amaze me the emotionally charged and regurgitated talking points that always get repeated. For example Jeff above writes:
“since we’re most of us are well aware that the current bible is significantly different from it’s Hebrew and Greek roots. So we can think the story is generally correct, but details are not. After all, religious and secular politics have had plenty of influence on the evolution of what we currently accept as the bible.”
Not surprising coming from a Catholic but this statement is patently absurd. Here is the simple truth that no honest intellectual (or avg Joe that does surface scratching investigation) would deny or try to refute.
In terms of ancient literature and historical accuracy the Bible is in a class of it own. Leaps and bounds beyond anything else the world has from antiquity. This is based on standard academic criteria for ancient literature and archeological substantiation. I could go on much more about this. The point is that Jeff’s claim is a standard talking point presented as “obvious fact” when the smallest bit of diligence would show the exact opposite to be true. This is really common. it really amounts to nothing more than ad hominem. The point is nothing could be farther from the truth.
Then he goes on to say “After all, religious and secular politics have had plenty of influence on the evolution of what we currently accept as the bible”.
again repeated talking points. Most of the Bible is traced to Apostolic roots and was circulated in the early church in early first and second century A.D. This is another point where the Bible is in a league of it’s own. no other ancient texts are closer to the source with so many manuscripts to verify content. Again much could be said of this but it’s just sad to see such dishonest or misguided discussion. If people are going to state things as “facts that everyone knows” you would think they might look into the topic a little huh?
Another example is knoxharrington with:
“Dr. Kenneth Miller, Brown University Professor of Biology – practicing Catholic and defender of evolution. I don’t understand how anyone can believe ANYTHING in the Bible after evolution has destroyed the creation myth. This applies to all religions that posit a creation story – not just Christianity”.
This is the really sad and dishonest one because there are countless fools running around screaming about how “evolutionary science has destroyed creation myth.”
The bottom line is this. There is absolutely no solid or conclusive evidence of macroevolution. it does not exist. The truth is the THEORY of macroevolution ought to have never ending evidence. Yet the opposite is true. Many embarrassing lies and frauds have been exposed over the years with the scientific community desperately attempting to substantiate the theory. With all great lies there is some truth to evolution and that is how these type of conundrums get perpetuated.
I am really just pointing out how weak these conversations are while people are so passionate about their ignorance. I will leave some quotes that are a whole lot closer to being honest analysis.
“… the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.”– George Orwell
“There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane [secular] history.” –Isaac Newton
“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable [matchless] contrivances [plans] for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” –Charles Darwin
“Just one living cell in the human body is, more complex than New York City.” –Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize winner
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” –Charles Darwin
“The positive evidence for Darwinism is confined to small-scale evolutionary changes like insects developing insecticide resistance….Evidence like that for insecticide resistance confirms the Darwinian selection mechanism for small-scale changes, but hardly warrants the grand extrapolation that Darwinists want. It is a huge leap going from insects developing insecticide resistance via the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation to the very emergence of insects in the first place by that same mechanism.” –William Dembski, Ph.D.
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” –Francis Crick, biochemist and spiritual skeptic, shared the Nobel Prize for discovering the molecular structure of DNA
“To say that we cannot know anything about God is to say something about God; it is to say that if there is a God, he is unknowable. But in that case, he is not entirely unknowable, for the agnostic certainly thinks that we can know one thing about him: That nothing else can be known about him.” In the end, agnosticism is an illogical position to hold to. –J. Budziszewski
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” –Robert Jastrow, a confirmed agnostic, and founder of NASA’s Goddard institute for Space Studies
I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.–H.G. Wells
“Now as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are, they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend (myth) and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing.”
–C. S. Lewis (1898–1963), Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University
“It never fails to amaze me the emotionally charged and regurgitated talking points that always get repeated. ”
Preach it, Taboo, preach it. Your post is full of “emotionally charged and regurgitated talking points.” The Bible is a horrendous historical source. Assume that Jesus existed and was crucified in the year 30. The first gospel, Mark, was probably not written until around 65, with Matthew and Luke around 80 and John around 90. These are not eyewitness accounts. They are not contemporaneous with the events they depict. Additionally, they contradict each other on key points. Where is the evidence external to the Bible that proves the Bible is true? I’m talking about evidence for the miracles OUTSIDE of the Bible. You can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible is true – that should be fairly obvious. Where is the proof that zombies walked in Jerusalem as set forth in Matthew? Where is the proof that Jesus fed the multitude? Walked on water? Raised the dead? If these events occurred in reality surely someone would make a note of it in a letter or in official documents. None exist.
You can recycle quotes and make bald assertions all day long – where is the evidence? You are passionately WILLFULLY ignorant. I’ve asked Bob on here repeatedly to provide outside sourcing for any of the Biblical stories – Exodus, Jericho, resurrection, water into wine, zombies, etc. To date it has been stone silence and I expect that to continue. Why? Because, put simply in deference to you, there is no evidence that any of the Biblical stories are true. In fact, so much of the Bible is contradicted internally, as well as externally, it is absolutely stunning that anyone can believe it to be true.
“The bottom line is this. There is absolutely no solid or conclusive evidence of [Biblical truth], it does not exist.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNn7b_kz9dM
Bart Ehrman gives a quick takedown of the gospels as unreliable and not meeting scholarly criteria as historically accurate documents.
The problem is your arguments do not counter Knox’s. he says ” the current bible is significantly different from it’s Hebrew and Greek roots…religious and secular politics have had plenty of influence on the evolution of what we currently accept as the bible.” You counter with “In terms of ancient literature and historical accuracy the Bible is in a class of it own. ” I think this is a non-sequitur.
He says ““religious and secular politics have had plenty of influence on the evolution of what we currently accept as the bible”. You say “Most of the Bible is traced to Apostolic roots and was circulated in the early church in early first and second century A.D.” which does not refute what Knox said.
knoxharrington I love you. Thank you for illustrating my first post so beautifully. I am not preaching so much as teaching. Apparantly you got your education on youtube which gives you the pride to refer to some of the most prolific writers and brilliant minds (real historians, literature critics and scientists of the highest order) as ” recycle quotes and make bald assertions all day long” and you would be correct. There is no shortage of brilliant people who stand by the Bible for what it is.
You go on to say “The Bible is a horrendous historical source. Assume that Jesus existed and was crucified in the year 30″. We can go one better. It is absurd to claim the historical Jesus never existed. That debate (if a serious one ever existed) ended long ago. You may as well ASSUME George Washington and Abe Lincoln existed. There is so much scholarship on this, including extra Biblical sources, that it is a testament to how little diligence people in general (like yourself) actually apply to these types of dialogues.
you really hit the nail on the head with the next sentence: The first gospel, Mark, was probably not written until around 65… .” Exactly!
The book of Mark is dated c. A.D. 50-70). Peter and Paul were both alive then as well as John who was exiled around A.D. 89-95. So these guys who walked with Jesus were alive and well. But lets just ASSUME that is not the case. lets address the statement I made initially and see if it is true. Shall we?
I said “In terms of ancient literature and historical accuracy the Bible is in a class of it own. Leaps and bounds beyond anything else the world has from antiquity. This is based on standard academic criteria for ancient literature and archeological substantiation.”
The Original date of composition of the New Testament is AD 50-95, the earliest manuscript fragment or book is dated AD 125 with only 30 years from earliest fragment to original work! There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts to work from to verify accuracy and the Dead Sea Scrolls proved the breathtaking consistency of the scribes.
Lets compare that to other ancient manuscripts from antiquity. lets say Tacitus, The Annals Of Imperial Rome which you will find taught as gospel in the secular world. Original date of composition is AD 100 and the earliest manuscript is from AD 850!! 750 years removed with only 20 copies or fragments to work from.
How about Aristotle? 1400 years removed!!!! And so on. You see the Bible is discounted by the secular world simply because it contains supernatural elements. That is illogical. They would rather rely on documents 1400 years removed from the source with only a handful of manuscripts to work from written by imperial goons and academic snobs? However my statement about ancient literature and history for antiquity is accurate. Now for the other side of the fence. countless scores of archeological sites verify the Bible. What are you so afraid of? Can’t you just be honest and fair? The Bible is in a league of It’s own! The people are credible, they existed and are substantiated by archeology and the best ancient manuscripts humanity has. Those are facts weather you like it or not. Luke is a credible historian and doctor writing to dignitaries.
As for extra Biblical accounts of Bible events and Jesus goes, perhaps if you read stuff like Josephus, Tacitus and the like you would find your answers. That is what due diligence is my friend.
It is you sadly who are willfully ignorant. I hope that changes. Just open your mind a little and try reading instead of relying on youtube and other people to provide the facts for you. Maybe try reading up on some Biblical archeology and history that is fair and doesn’t have a secular slant or agenda. You claim there is no evidence that any of the Biblical stories are true and this is ridiculous. Centuries of legit scholarship and archeological evidence say otherwise.
lastly and this is another remedial talking point you claim “In fact, so much of the Bible is contradicted internally, as well as externally,… .” Again nonsense. What to you think you are reading? Dr. Seuss? The Bible is incredibly profound, written by many people across many cultures over the course of 1000 years all telling a cohesive story. There is nothing like it! You simply have no understanding of literature. You are referring to apparent contradictions. The Gospels are complementary not contradictory. The have a different focus or view or emphasis on the same account.
Lastly, if anything you were saying were true you wouldn’t be so baffled. Because nobody would believe anything in the Bible and it would be long gone. It’s here for a reason.
God Bless you knox.
Josephus’ reference to Jesus was an interpolation and not present in the original text. We know this from the recovery earlier complete versions of the text which lack the Jesus passage. Also, the passage itself doesn’t read like Josephus and is out of context with the surrounding material. Tacitus was writing in the second century and is a repetition of a story (he wasn’t an eyewitness and did not talk to eyewitnesses) – repetition of a false claim doesn’t make the claim true. Likewise, the number of manuscripts doesn’t make a claim true. By that rationale, John Galt should be appearing any minute.
The Bible is here because credulous people believe false things all the time.
I’ve read the Bible Taboo and believed it because I was raised in a Christian family. When I was a child I behaved as a child, when I became an adult I put away childish things. Grow up Taboo and face the uncomfortable truth – the Bible as history is worthless. As literature, it is worth something but the events portrayed in it are no more accurate than those of the Odyssey or the Koran – none of the stories concerning the miracles, in the Old or New Testament, can be proven to be true. The burden of proof is on you. You say that the Bible is internally consistent. Answer the questions posed by Ehrman in the video, if you can.
Willful ignorance is being presented with truth and turning away from it because you are unwilling or incapable of recognizing the truth because it hurts too much or destroys the safety blanket of your pretend god. You are delusional and don’t even see the sheer nonsense you put forth as argument.
“The Bible is incredibly profound [assertion not backed up by an example of its profundity], written by many people [people, not god himself] across many cultures over the course of 1000 years [that must mean it’s true, no myths survive that long (head in hands)] all telling a cohesive story [an assertion which is actually contradicted by the Bible itself – again, see the Ehrman video]. There is nothing like it [apparently the Koran, the Book of Mormon, etc. don’t count]!”
Seriously Taboo, engaging with you is not unlike arguing with a three year old who lacks reason.
“Maybe try reading up on some Biblical archeology and history that is fair and doesn’t have a secular slant or agenda. You claim there is no evidence that any of the Biblical stories are true and this is ridiculous. Centuries of legit scholarship and archeological evidence say otherwise.”
Finally, I have to pull this gem apart. There is no such thing as Biblical archaeology – there is only archaeology. Setting out to prove the Bible through archaeology has yielded nothing that proves the Bible miracles. Evidence of a pool at Bethesda, or whatever, doesn’t prove that Jesus rose from the dead. You can understand that much at least. You would be better served by reading something other than self-affirming apologetics. Provide proof that the Bible stories are true. You say that my claim that no evidence exists that proves the Bible stories is ridiculous. You should very easily be able to prove otherwise then, right? Prove the zombies in Matthew walked around, prove the water turned into wine, prove that the Red Sea parted, prove that Jesus walked on water, prove that Jesus was resurrected, prove the Jews wandered for 40 years. Prove any of the miracle stories Taboo. Go on, if my claim is so ridiculous prove me wrong. You accuse me of just posting videos and that I should check out legit scholarship. Bart Ehrman is a legitimate Bible scholar. He disagrees with your claim that the Bible is reliable. Prove him wrong Taboo. You can do it. It should be easy given how ridiculous I am. I’ve waited for Bob to prove the miracles for months and I’m still waiting. Take up the challenge Taboo – prove the miracles are true. Give us some real time, contemporaneous attestations to the miracles. Give us the evidence that the Bible claims are true. It should be easy, right?
Bob,
Here is Father Robert Barron on the issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGQ-nWOZrok
Knox lets try bringing some context to this dialogue. This is the blog of RPM. This post is called Scientists and Theism? The greater context is the western world and the US which is effectively in the midst of a cultural revolution with insane levels of change and propaganda. That being said, the very first paragraph of my first post was:
“It would be so nice if people in these types of discussions could employ more integrity and diligence. It never fails to amaze me the emotionally charged and regurgitated talking points that always get repeated.”
I went on to refute ad hominem attacks in the blog thread. From their you picked up and tried to flip the script on me claiming I was being emotional and repeating talking points and then you went on with unnecessary character assassination and vitriol etc. Just to be sure I reread my post and no. Not the case.
First off this blog belongs to a professional economist with a PhD in Economics (graduated with distinction) from one of the top graduate schools in the world. Do you believe it is becoming of you to constantly insult and attempt to degrade his blog posts as if he and his blog followers are all a bunch of idiots that haven’t a clue?
Look, I am only pointing out that you have exacerbated my initial claim. I’m not looking to win you over or beat you into submission or win a debate. I’m simply stating that it’s so common what is occurring between us. That it’s seemingly impossible to have fair and balanced dialogue on this topic (or really any for that matter) for the aforementioned reason. You concede nothing, acknowledge nothing, and continue to go on name calling and degrading people? How does that help your cause? lets take an honest and fair look at things.
I have to try and make this concise because this is a blog post comments section so I will do the best I can.
Lets start with some of your ad hominem “attacks: Finally, I have to pull this gem apart. There is no such thing as Biblical archaeology – there is only archaeology.”
So I guess this is my Imagination right?
William Foxwell Albright (May 24, 1891 – September 19, 1971)[1] was an American archaeologist, biblical scholar, philologist, and expert on ceramics. From the early twentieth century until his death, he was the dean of biblical archaeologists and the acknowledged founder of the Biblical archaeology movement. Most notably, coming from his own background in radical German historical criticism of the historicity of the Biblical accounts, Albright, through his seminal work in archaeology (and most notably his development of the standard pottery typology for Palestine and the Holy Land) arrived at the conclusion that the biblical accounts of Israelite history were, contrary to the dominant German literary criticism of the day, largely accurate. Albright’s view was novel among scholars at the time, but it has prevailed over a wide front, though there are detractors.
Many Archeologists have spent life’s work with archeological digs in the Holy Land (Biblical land) using the Bible as a historical reference and thus validating the historicity of the the Bible with immense Archeological finds. Entire museums exist all over the world.
Like other academic geniuses (Edmund Huesserl in Phenomenology and Max Weber in sociology and the sociology of religion), W.F. Albright created, advanced and soundly established the new discipline of Biblical Archaeology, which is taught now at major and even elite universities on a worldwide basis and has exponents across national, cultural and religious lines.
Also you claim manuscripts have nothing to do with rating ancient historical documents?
Actually we don’t possess any original works of ancient literature i.e. history, only copies of copies… Therefore scholars often establish the credibility of an ancient work by how many copies they have discovered and how many years the earliest copies are removed from the original works. This is standard academic criteria. The existing manuscripts of the New Testament documents in today’s museums date much closer to the original, are of higher quality, and exist in considerably greater numbers that any other ancient work of literature. The reason the amount of manuscripts matters is because it proves wide distribution and acceptance as well as shows consistency and accuracy in content. like I told you before the Bible is in a league of it’s own.
The significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls which are dated 200 BC to AD 100 is that they line up virtually word for word with the manuscripts from 1000 years later. This attests to the tedious accuracy of Hebrew scribes, they were extremely diligent (more like miraculous) making sure each word was transcribed perfectly. Today Hebrew scholars utilize the Dead Sea Scrolls along with other ancient texts to ensure that the Bibles we read are overwhelmingly accurate to the original documents that the Old Testament authors produced. Scholars place a high degree of trust in the reliability of the Old Testament. Nelson Glueck, a renowned Jewish archaeologist, states, “No archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements made in the Bible.”
Dr. William Albright, who was arguably the foremost authority of Middle Eastern Archaeology in the twentieth century, said “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament.”
Knox this is a guy who started out as a foremost critic looking to disprove the Bible.
What about the Merneptah Stele (stele is a stone slab erected to commemorate an event) with Egyptian inscription describing a battle between Egypt and the nation of Israel in about 1209 BC in the land of Canaan? Very few artifacts still exist from before 1000 BC, yet this corroborates the early accounts in the Bible of how the nation o Israel settled in Canaan about this time.
1&2 Chronicles, 1&2 Kings, The Book of Luke, they are all specifically history books.
what about the Tel Dan Stele and the Mesha stele, which attest to early Israelite Kings mentioned in the Old Testament. Likewise, numerous other documents from ancient Egyptian, Hittitie, Canaanite, Assyrian and Babylonian cultures describe the same events as the Old Testament?
Your claims about Josephus are weak. He would have no reason to be partial to Christians. He mentions John the Baptist and Herod in book 18 in Ch.5. He mentions Ananias the High Priest. Sounds like extra Biblical corroboration again.
He mentions Jesus in Book 18 ch.3. I am aware that the “Testimonium Flavianum” problem with the copies of Antiquities is that they appear to have been rewritten in favor of Jesus and some say too favorable to have been written by a Jew. Add to this that the Christians were the ones who kept and made the copies of the Josephus documents throughout history and you have a shadow of doubt cast upon the quotes.
First of all, there is no proof that such insertions into the text were ever made. They may be authentic. The “Testimonium” is found in every copy of Josephus in existence. Second, Josephus mentions many other biblically-relevant occurrences that are not in dispute like the ones mentioned above and also mention of James, the brother of Jesus in book 20 Ch.9.
This adds validity to the claim that Josephus knew about Jesus and wrote about Him, since he also wrote about other New Testament things. Nevertheless, though there may be some Christian insertions into the text, we can still reconstruct what may have been the original writing.
Two researchers (Edwin Yamauchi and John P. Meier)1 have constructed a copy of the “Testimonium” with the probable insertions in brackets and underlined. The following paragraph is Yamauchi’s:
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”
the “Testimonium Flavianum” cannot be so easily dismissed as pure Christian interpolation. Though it seems probable that interpolation did occur, we cannot be sure what was added. Also, the Arabic version contains very similar information as the Greek one regarding Jesus in His resurrection.
Even if both versions have been tampered with, the core of them both mention Jesus as an historical figure who was able to perform many surprising feats, was crucified, and that there were followers of Jesus who were still in existence at the time of its writing.
No matter what you make of Tacitus he was a legit historian, probably the one most used in secular academia, and he (with no reason to favor the Christian movement) describes Jesus and the movement of Christianity that arose from His followers.
I guess Tacitus goes on your list of “credulous people believe false things all the time” with Robert Jastrow, Isaac Newton, Robert Murphy, C. S. Lewis, H.G. Wells, Francis Crick, William Dembski, Ph.D. and even Darwin himself.
What about Justin Martyrs’ letter appealing to Christ’s ministry and death suggesting the Roman Emperor can verify the historical accuracy of the events by referring to official Roman records, specifically, the Acts of Pontius Pilate. Archeologists have not discovered the Acts of Pontius Pilate, but it’s unlikely that a public figure like Justin Martyr would ask a Roman Emperor to consult these records if he was not extremely confident that they actually existed.
I already discussed the fallacy of your accusation of apparent contradictions in the Bible. Dissimilar details depending on their emphasis (the writer). Obviously we know that two peoploe can describe the same event, include dissimilar details depending on their emphasis and can both be fully accurate in what they communicate. Authors had distinctive purpose for what they wrote. Thematic vs chronological, literary genres and devices, prescriptive passages vs. descriptive, linguistic, geographical, cultural and historical perspective are critical.
As far as this statement you made “As literature, it is worth something but the events portrayed in it are no more accurate than those of the Odyssey or the Koran’
Knox that’s a joke. I am not even going to address it. would be like comparing a candle to the sun. actually I did address it already by refuting your ad hominem attacks.
I would like to touch on more but I really can’t believe I wrote this much and I have to go. Just remember I only ever asked be fair and decent. As regards this blog post topic the joke is on evolution not the credibility of the Bible which has survived century’s of persecution and empires, scoffers, and the like that have tried to squelch it. They never have and they never will.
elite astrophysicists put the actual math as more probable “zombies walked in Jerusalem” than the current take on the origin of the universe and mankind. Certain branches of “science” have become religion themselves. In need of much more “faith” that it takes to believe in the Bible. Many, Many elite scientists explain the the Universe “Screams of a designer.” Furthermore there is no empirical or scientific evidence of the origin of the universe (that’s impossible since the scientific method requires observation) and the same goes for macro evolution. It has never been observed, there is no empirical evidence or any conclusive evidence. It is a grand extrapolation that people pitch off as scientific fact. The fossil record is a joke. much more of a joke than the Bible. Science in many ways is the hubris and arrogance of man.
Lastly the miracles of the Bible are irrelevant. I even conceded before that secular world only discounts the Bible because of its supernatural elements. Even if they were total nonsense it changes nothing about what I have brought forth about the Bible in refuting your baseless ad hominem attacks. There are plenty of phenomena that we can not understand as it is. Just because you have never seen anything supernatural and nobody you know has seen anything supernatural does not mean supernatural things don’t occur. In fact they are often reported. If God created the universe and its laws, He certainly has the right to bend those laws from time to time. The question is weather we believe He can. The Apostles and witnesses could have just said Jesus raised in spirit and had more or less the same result. No they put themselves on the line and called it how it was. Don’t you think the mighty Roman Empire would have loved to stomp out all the madness? All they had to do was produce the body?
Knox, take the edge off. You don’t have to believe this stuff. Just stop calling people who do idiots. Because they are not.
God bless you.
“An ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the man’ or ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person’s character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized. Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.”
Taboo – I had to include the definition of ad hominem here because you don’t know what it means.
This is what you conclude is ad hominem:
“Lets start with some of your ad hominem “attacks: Finally, I have to pull this gem apart. There is no such thing as Biblical archaeology – there is only archaeology.”
Please explain how I attack your personal character in that quote. I certainly make light of an inane argument but I don’t accuse you of having a social disease, mental retardation or anything of a personal nature. I dismiss your argument but not you in a personal attack. Taboo, you are either ignorant of what ad hominem means, and now you know, or you are disingenuous.
You may have noticed that I don’t attack Bob for his economic views – I disagree vehemently with his views on Christianity and it is because I respect him so much on his economic views that I’m incredibly disappointed to see him hold such ridiculous views with regard to supernatural topics.
I noticed that you cut and pasted on Albright from Wikipedia (in full disclosure I did the same for the ad hominem definition) but the Albright biography is more hagiography then anything else. Albright was a notorious crank who would determine that certain things, like Sodom and Gomorrah, were found merely because the Bible said they existed. I could pick up the first issue of Spider-Man and see that on page 4 Peter Parker gets bitten by a radioactive spider, on page 8 Uncle Ben gets killed and on page 20 that Spider-man has a red and blue costume and brought Uncle Ben’s killer to justice. I could further see that the events depicted take place in New York and that the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings are present. I know that New York exists, I’ve been in the Empire State Building and seen the Chrysler Building – does that mean that Spider-Man is real? Assume that Albright really did find Biblical sites – so what? That doesn’t prove the miracles are true. You at least have to grant me that much, right? If the “miracles of the Bible are irrelevant” as you claim then what is the point of the Bible and Christianity? The resurrection would be a miracle and that is the cornerstone of Christian faith – that is irrelevant? I don’t think Bob would agree with you.
Conspicuous by its absence is your failure to prove that the miracles took place. You say that because I have not seen anything supernatural doesn’t mean that supernatural events take place. Have you seen something supernatural occur? What was it? Did others see it? Did you report it to people? Authorities? Can we test to determine that the event was in fact supernatural? Supernatural things may be reported all the time – does that actually make them supernatural? Wait, are you one of those UFO guys on Coast to Coast Radio?
I’m not even sure if you realize how damaging your quotation of the Testimonium is to your case. Josephus appears to be repeating things he has heard for which he has no first hand or documentary evidence. The interpolation shows the deviousness of Christians in attempting to hijack a text in order to lend credibility to their claims.
Taboo – you appeal to authorities constantly and it, at least to me, appears that you let others do your thinking for you. I never called you an idiot – I may have insinuated it by showing that your claims are nonsensical. Why are Christians so scared of being called to account for their ridiculous beliefs? I recall asking a Christian once to reconcile disparities in the Gospels and his response was something like “I don’t want to think about that, I’m happy where I am in church.” At least the acknowledgment of putting his head in the sand was honest – yours is something much worse. It’s dishonest.
Taboo – I just reread your post. This is ad hominem – you are an idiot. Taboo is not a handle for Kirk Cameron or Ray Comfort, is it? If it was I could understand the dishonesty.