[Phys-L] Re: god friendly science (long)

[Aaron Titus <titus@MAILAPS.ORG>]

On May 20, 2005, at 3:09 PM, Michael Edmiston wrote:
> I am absolutely sure there are Christian seminaries, training future
> Christian pastors, that do not teach literal virgin birth, do not
> teach
> literal resurrection, and do not teach the deity of Jesus.  The
> faculty
> and graduates of these institutions will be very shocked to learn they
> are not Christians.

Jack wrote regarding the earliest creed:
>  This is a surprise to me.  What is the document you are referring
> to?


I already agreed that there are people who refer to themselves as
"Christians" when in fact they reject the tenets upon which the
Christian faith was birthed in the first century.  The earliest creed
comes from a letter by the apostle Paul to the church in Corinth  (1
Cor. 15:3-7). Supposedly this creed predates the writing of Paul's
letter (55 AD) since it was passed down to him. This creed was likely
passed down among people in the faith to Paul who actually later
converted after an encounter with the resurrected Christ, though
after Christ's ascension (again, the only evidence of this is his own
account of the event, though he mentions that others were present at
the event; obviously this is another supernatural event).

(I'm not an expert on these things, so you'll have to check out the
information from other sources if you want more credibility.)

The creed is the following: (from 1 Cor. 15)

1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you,
which you
received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you
are saved, if you
hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have
believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]:
that Christ died
for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that
he was raised on the
third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,
[b] and then to the
Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the
brothers at the same
time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7Then he appeared
to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to
me also, as to one
abnormally born.

The resurrection of Christ was essential to the faith of the early
followers. Without it, then "they believed in vain."

Paul goes on to say (v. 14-15) "And if Christ has not been raised,
our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we
are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified
about God that he raised Christ from the dead."

He adds (v 17), "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is
futile."

There are many things that distinguish between denominations within
the Christian religion. However, take away the resurrection of
Christ, and you take away the foundation of Christianity, according
to Paul. He freely admits that their faith is useless and he is a
lier if Christ was not raised from the dead.

Jesus referred to himself using the name of God (translated "I AM",
though Marc would have to help me with the original Hebrew for that
term) told to Moses. When doing this, those present picked up stones
to kill him. Jesus, on many occasions, referred to himself as God.

Though some denominations and seminaries are doubting these things, I
don't think that it can be removed from Christian faith without
undermining the essence of that faith. At some point, if you take out
enough of Christianity, then it's no longer Christianity. In this
case, taking out the death and resurrection of Christ is tantamount
to changing Christianity to a different religion called by the same
name.  As with all things philosophical or religious, others argue
differently.

This is the issue that Christians face, was Jesus who he claimed to be?

A well-known author, C.S. Lewis, writes in his book *Mere Christianity*:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing
that people often say about
Him: 'I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t
accept His claim to be
God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a
man and said the sort
of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would
either be a lunatic–on a level
with the man who says he is a poached egg–or else he would be the
Devil of Hell. You must
make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or
else a madman or something
worse. You can shut Him for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him
as a demon; or you can
fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with
any patronising nonsense
about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to
us. He did not intend to. "

C.S. Lewis is basically saying that there are three choices:

(1) Jesus was who he claimed to be.
(2) Jesus was a charlatan.
(3) Jesus was a lunatic.


> I agree with Aaron that it is not blind faith to believe that Jesus
> existed and that we have reasonable evidence of his message.  But I do
> think it is closer to blind faith to believe in the virgin birth, the
> resurrection, and the deity of Jesus.
>
> In the end, eyewitness accounts that conflict with established science
> are extremely suspect and accepting them as truth is indeed an act of
> faith.


John M. also says,

> Can you give us any examples of the evidence used to establish the
> credibility of the putative eyewitness testimony?  IMO, believing in
> the credibility of testimony on the basis of no evidence other than
> the testimony itself is at least a first or second order
> approximation to blind faith.

This is the crux of the issue for Christians, do the eyewitness
accounts conflict with established science?

As Jack points out, there are various scholars who say that the
eyewitness accounts are fiction. There are other scholars who argue
that they are not fiction. Once again, you'll find scholars on both
sides of the fence arguing their cases, and I suppose that one has to
investigate both sides. I'm not an expert. I'm just saying that for
those on the side of the fence believing the eyewitness accounts,
they have "reasons" for their "faith" in their credibility. For those
on the side of the fence believing that the eyewitness accounts are
fiction, they have "reasons" for their "faith in their inaccuracy.
Granted, you may accept some of these scholars' reasons as more
probable than the other. But neither of them have faith that is
without reason.

(BTW changes in the accounts due to the time between their earliest
writing and our earliest manuscripts is probably not an issue; as far
as documents of antiquity are concerned, the Gospels and Paul's
letters were written very close to the time of our earliest
manuscripts.)

As Robert points out,

> Most religious people I know are religious NOT because they were
> convinced by evidence in the Bible but rather because they "know in
> their hearts" through personal experience that what they believe is
> true.  Examining evidence for their belief is done only to give them
> insight into their beliefs, not as a test of their beliefs.

I agree. When a person has a personal religious experience, then they
have a reason to accept what is the less probable case.

A recent movie *The Body* with Antonio Banderas explored the effect
of an archaeologist finding the body of Jesus of Nazareth. The movie
was interesting to me because of the reactions of the atheistic
archaeologist, the priest (played by Banderas) whose faith seemed to
not depend on the  resurrection of Jesus, another priest who commits
suicide over the likelihood that the body found was indeed Jesus, and
others who had political and personal reasons to cover up the find.

I think that if the body of Jesus is found, it makes Christianity
moot and it makes the interpretation that either the gospel writers
were duped or part of the world's biggest conspiracy, the only
interpretation (i.e. Jesus is absolutely not who he said he was). If
this happens, I think that any personal Christian religious
experience is precisely blind faith and completely unreasonable. But
then again, how can I argue with someone's personal experience,
right? Until then, I think that one's personal Christian religious
experience is based somewhat on reason, as unlikely as it might be.

I am not an expert on these things. I freely admit my own
inadequacies in understanding the interplay of science and religion
in my own life. My best mentor in this area was the late Larry Martin
who tragically died a few years ago of a brain tumor. (I believe that
many of you knew him) Wow, I sure miss talking to him about these
things! Sometimes I think that I miss him as much as I'll miss my own
father when he passes. Larry was that close to me. He was the
consummate teacher, not answering my many questions, but often
motivating me to continue investigating. He was incredibly educated
and incredibly well-read in both science and religion. He was
confident as a scientist and confident as a religious man. He was an
active member of the American Scientific Affiliation (http://
www.asa3.org/), so I wonder if that organization may be a good place
to go for those who want a serious discussion of these issues and
find more resources on this topic.

I want to end this long email by saying thank you for the discussion
on this topic. I can't afford the time it takes to continue
responding on this topic; however, I've appreciated the dialogue.

Thanks again,

Aaron
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l