[Phys-L] Re: god friendly science

[Steve Clark <sclarkphd@MINDSPRING.COM>]

Herb asked a question that I tried to answer in a few short paragraphs. I wasn't looking for an in-depth discussion. This doesn't seem to be the place for that. I stand by my claim that the resurrection is the basis of Christianity - without it, Christianity falls apart and is without merit. I believe the resurrection to be true, others don't.

Steve Clark

-----Original Message-----
From: John Mallinckrodt <ajm@CSUPOMONA.EDU>
Sent: May 24, 2005 10:50 AM
To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
Subject: Re: god friendly science

Dear Phys-l'ers,

I apologize in advance for the fact that my impatience with this
ridiculous thread and with the thinly disguised contempt being
expressed for rational thought has unleashed my inner snark.  But
events of the past few years have convinced me that religious
fundamentalists--especially of the Abrahamic variety--pose the
greatest threat to the future of humanity that the world has ever
known, especially now as their collective self-righteous fingers are
gaining unprecedented access to the buttons of genuinely existing
"weapons of mass destruction."  I especially apologize to those whose
religious sensibilities are informed primarily by the golden rule, a
rule that, it seems to me, forms the basis for all respectable
religions despite the fact that it has nothing whatsoever to do with
"faith" and one that I do truly wish I were better equipped to
observe.

Steve Clark wrote:


> And then there is the historicity of the New Testament documents. I
> know that some have tried to discredit the gospels as history, but I
> don't think they can simply be dismissed.

Perhaps I am extrapolating too far from this statement, but, if
Christians view historical study as an attempt to discredit or
dismiss the Bible, then it seems to me that that says quite a lot
about their interest in and/or respect for evidence.

> There is little doubt about the crucifixion of Jesus.

I'm certainly no expert here, but that seems pretty unlikely in the
light of the fact that there is at least some doubt about Jesus'
existence in the first place.

>  So, the only real question is did he rise from the dead?

Fine.  Let's suppose for a moment that that is "the only real
question."  Can we at least admit that it is one doozy of a question?

> It seems unreasonable to think that a small group of not very brave
> men would get so fired up about Jesus if he didn't.

Now let me get this straight: People getting "fired up" about a
person who did not rise from the dead, who is not the literal "Son of
God," seems more unlikely to you than a dead man coming back to life?
Tell that to the followers of Jim Jones, Charles Manson, George
Washington, Mohammed, Buddha, Hitler ...  The list is surely endless.

> And as the movement gained strength, it made a lot of people very
> unhappy - unhappy enough to kill and torture. Reason suggests that
> these people had something remarkable to tell.

It's "reason" that does that?  "Reason" that says that being unhappy
about a movement and killing and committing torture is MOST likely to
be a response to people who "have something remarkable to tell"?  The
irony here is almost too much for me to bear.  Do I really have to
connect the dots for you?

> Of course, if Jesus really didn't rise, then his body could have
> easily been produced by the Romans

Unless, of course, someone else took the body.  But how likely is
that?  Surely not as likely as Jesus awakening from the dead.  Would
this be an instance of "Macco's razor"?  And please remind me where I
might find Adolph Hitler's body.

> and the movement would have stopped right them. So, the evidence for
> the historicity of the resurrection seems pretty solid to me.

Indeed.  Case closed.  Thanks for opening my eyes.

> Of course, there is a certain amount of faith that must accompany a
> belief in the resurrection since you can always choose not to
> believe it.

Right.  I now see that it always comes down to a simple matter of
choice to "believe" or "not to believe" since evidence is nothing
less than the cursed weapon of infidels and worse ... historians.

>  And many do. But the Bible tells us that we should expect that, too.

That seals it for me.  How could the Bible have possibly been so
prescient as to predict that there would be some who would find the
stories of virgin birth and resurrection from the dead implausible?

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l