Science a Major Reason ‘Nones’ are Skeptical of Christianity

Faith & Science Conversation
81

You say that, and yet…

Unless you want to deny the story of Angel visiting Mary, then you have to accept that God essentially arranged for Mary to be raped.

Whilst I agree with this in regards to crucifixion, you cannot compare it with the alleged rape of Mary.
Let’s rephrase it for clarity: “living word of God can turn sexual violence into a beacon of love and hope, completely turn reality upside down”.
How about we say that at the next meeting of an anti-rape charity? (!!!)

You’re being very naive here. Even in modern day western countries there’s blame put on women, even if nobody says it straight. And there are places where you have no chance of getting married if you are known to be a victim of rape. So never mind 2000 years ago.

Personally, I’ve never heard this claim.
But there’s a question for you: you’re obviously comfortable with Jesus being a bastard and a result of an arranged rape, is this better in your opinion than being trans or intersex?

Personally I prefer a freak abnormality than sexual violence against an innocent young woman (probably a teenager) that’s been orchestrated by the Holy Spirit

It’s not the “bastard” that’s abhorrent to me, as I don’t judge people based on their parentage (or lack of it). It’s the idea that God had to have Mary sexually violeted in order to achieve his plans. Was there really no other way? We are talking about God after all! If this is true, then He really, really hates women.
And once again, this and crucifixion are two separate things.

3 Likes
82

From an atheist point of view, I view it as operating under both a scientific-method driven mindset and a subjective mindset. I think both are very important in the human experience. While I may not share the same beliefs as theists I do think we can recognize we are human in the same way, in finding importance in the subjective and emotional experiences we have. I would fully agree that our ability to rationally understand the universe is pretty amazing, but so are the emotional ties that we have with other people and the emotions that come from our experiences day in and day out. They are both a part of being human. If we threw out everything that couldn’t be objectively and rationally explained then life would be the poorer for it.

1 Like
83

But, she was not sexually violated or assaulted. She was made pregnant without intercourse. Now, giving birth was no doubt traumatic…

1 Like
84

Phil, I don’t personally believe in the rape theory, not at all. But it seems that people do. I was just pointing out logical consequences of such opinion…

4 Likes
85

I view miracles as things that existed and have ceased. So they don’t conflict my day to day. But I can’t personally see a theological reason to abandon them as things that existed and defied rational thought or reality.

2 Likes
86

T_aquaticus: the concept of supernatural events is not equal to subjective understanding or emotions. Supernatural events cannot happen, though its apparently fun and rewarding to believe so.

87

Terry_Sampson: Has anyone been resurrected three days after death except your Christ? Have any of the 20 billion humans that have been on earth returned to life after death?

Can you explain Jesus’s resurrection technically and objectively without using unprovable, impossible religious claims?

88
  • Not that I know of. IMO, all other “resurrections” in the Bible were Near Death Experiences.
  • You need to get a grip, Kid. They all have, but not in any manner that you, personally, can wrap your head around. I’ve got good news and bad news for ya. After your flesh and blood body dies, you’re going to Heaven. There’s only Heaven to go to. Of course, Heaven’s going to be Hell, if you don’t want to go there. But not a Hell like you may have heard about.
  • Silly boy, you can’t explain the fundamental existing substance of the cosmos without using unprovable claims. If you think so, give it a try. Start with the absolutely smallest things that have mass: the fundamental substance in all of physical stuff.
  • Your turn.
2 Likes
89

The Trinity can be found in the Old Testament. Second Temple Judaism saw “two powers in heaven” and tentatively a third.

Of course not. But He did say He was/is God, repeatedly.

Nope – this is a category failure, confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.

“Offended”? You get the strangest notions.
By the standards of scripture, Jesus had to be fully God and fully man.

Putting science above scripture is idolatry

Yes, they do – but you reject the reality they tell us of.

1 Like
90

What is the difference between ‘Near Death Experiences’ and dying and being returned to life? How long should a person be clinically dead before that can be considered real death?
Should the body start to rot before we can say it was real death?

91

There is an element of being scientific that seems to be overlooked. Science s grounded in what can be seen, proved or demonstrated. It is a mind set that excludes “blind faith” or the invisible, or the unprovable. Yes there are things science cannot see but it still identifies them by perceived affects/effects. IOW it is the opposite mindset to religion which is based on things that are rarely provable. It is all very well for Christianity to encompass or include science, but we do not have to restrict ourselves to the scientific method, or prove our faith within the restrictions of Scientific method. There comes a point where we have to step back

It is not a case of science v religion, but it is a case of the provable against faith. We reach a point where you either have to take that leap of faith or stand firm in your certainties and facts.

It seems to me that in this debate it is religion that is expected to move, not science. Religion must encompass science, but science does not have to make exceptions for religion

Skepticism is not limited to the scientific mind. But the type of answers that overturn the skepticism or can be accepted, most certainly differ according to the ground rues we set for belief and certainty.

Richard

1 Like
92

I agree with a lot of what you say above.

Regarding the following …

That also raises an interesting point, and one that I’ve heard a lot from the biblicist side as a complaint that they are expected to “do all the moving”.

But we should realize that moving is a healthy thing, and that one of the reasons science can engender so much of our confidence is precisely because it has done so much moving of its own! And religionists too (many of them also scientists and scientific-minded thinkers) should not sell themselves short on this - they have moved a lot too. It isn’t something to be ashamed of, but to rather encourage. There are very few things in life to which we ought to stubbornly cling - “d*** the torpedos” - so-to-speak. And it is right that we do have some of that too, even as scientific thinkers as well. But, by and large, too many of us make that set of non-negotiables way too large and detailed, which then causes us to hold onto stuff that should have been let go once we realize it’s causing us to cling to known falsehoods. When you are willing to move and change your mind, that shows you can be attentive to creation and others around you instead of being willingly blind to so much of it. And the irony here is that the more responsive moving you have done in life, the more likely it is you can be slowly settling into a larger body of things you can be more confident about! This is a strength of science and is also a strength of religion or anything else too, to the extent that we are able to let it be.

5 Likes
93

Ironically, the means of change makes scientists much more likely to move than people of faith. Scientific facts tend to be harder to dispute than reasons for faith, while the Bible has not changed since it was formulated.
Historically Scripture is bott the making and breaking of faith. Hinduism has struggled with reconciling the Vedics with the generally held belief that there is only one God while, of course, the Bible struggles with scientific explanations. It is trying to reconcile timeless truths with new found knowledge and understanding.

I suppose the ultimate question would be “does it matter exactly how the world (and humanity) was created?”

Richard

94

That is a tough question, and one with practical importance when talking about the ethics of organ donation. We are multicellular organisms, and different cells die, or suffer irreversible degradation and loss of metabolic activity at different rates. Some cells live for days after the brain turns to mush.

I think The Princess Bride quote is the best description:
Miracle Max : “There’s a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there’s usually only one thing you can do.” (Go through their pockets for loose change)

4 Likes
95

While the words on the paper haven’t changed much, the meaning that people get from those words has changed greatly.

96

Even as an atheist I would never say that. There is no evidence demonstrating that the supernatural does not exist or that supernatural events do not happen. At the same time, I lack belief in the supernatural because I have yet to be convinced by evidence, but I am also humble enough to understand that I could be wrong, especially since I have no evidence to the contrary.

2 Likes
97

It becomes more difficult as medical knowledge and technology advances. People can be drowned and dead for some time and be revived. One woman here drowned and was found ten minutes later on the bottom, lungs filled with seawater. She was revived although it was touch-and-go for half a day. I have heard that some have been clinically dead for longer and still were revived.

Modern medical possibilities make the situation very different than 2000 years ago. There were no technology to help when Jesus shouted to Lazarus and Lazarus came out from the grave.

1 Like
98

The Bible has changed a lot over time. At one time there was just the Torah. Over time, other books were added. Then there was the rather large addition of the New Testament within Christianity. The Bible changed over many centuries. Just to be clear, I’m absolutely not saying that this makes the Bible unreliable, but I think it is fair to say that the Bible has changed.

In my view of Christianity, I don’t think it makes any difference.

I like to use our own births as an example. In the Bible it says that God knits us together in our mother’s womb. Modern science tells us that fetal development can be explained by complicated genetic cascades and networks. Science supplies us with an understanding underpinned by observable natural processes. Does that somehow conflict with what the Bible teaches us? I don’t think so. I don’t think anyone’s faith feels threatened by our scientific understanding of embryonic development. People still believe that God is part of the process and that their children are miracles. I see no conflict between the two.

5 Likes
99

From what I have seen, brain damage seems to be the largest deciding factor. It may be possible to resuscitate someone who has not had a heart beat or circulating oxygenated blood for 40 minutes, but what would be the point if there was no person left?

100
  • Typically. a person who has an NDE will recover to some degree and bleeds if you cut them or bruises if hit hard enough and experiences normal body functions. Failure to do so suggests that the individual didn’t have an NDE but actually died, and has no brain function.
  • During an NDE, the person having the NDE can pass through walls, float above living people, and see very strange and unexpected things, while witnesses never see the flesh-and-blood body move. A person whose body has died but who reappears after death can travel through walls and appear or disappear unexpectedly according to witnesses, e.g. Jesus after his post-crucifixion death. (Something Allah never figured out.)
  • Now, name a person that you know or have heard of or read about, who actually died and returned to life, other than Jesus, and Moses and Elijah, if you believe in the Transfiguration story in the New Testament.
  • Now you’re just being as silly as Evan.
  • University of Virginia, School of Medicine, Division of Perceptual Studies for more information regarding Near Death Experiences, Out-of-Body Experiences, and distinctions between them:
    • Our Mission - Scientific Study of Extraordinary Experiences
      Founded in 1967 by Dr. Ian Stevenson, the Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) at the University of Virginia is a research group devoted to the rigorous evaluation of empirical evidence for extraordinary human experiences and capacities.
      The primary focus of DOPS is investigating the mind’s relationship to the body and the possibility of consciousness surviving physical death. In general, this process involves studying phenomena that challenge mainstream scientific paradigms regarding the nature of human consciousness.
      DOPS also studies the impact of these experiences on people, explores the implications for scientific theory, and disseminates this information broadly to both the public and scientific communities. It is our hope that other scientists join in addressing the serious study of the nature of consciousness and its interaction with the physical world.
  • Is There Life after Death? Fifty Years of Research at UVA
  • An NDE that lasts longer than 20 minutes is unusual, but not impossible.
  • P.S. You could have found this information on your own initiative.
1 Like