[Phys-L] Re: god friendly science

[John Mallinckrodt <ajm@CSUPOMONA.EDU>]

Aaron Titus wrote:

> ... Christian faith is founded on the virgin birth, death, and
> resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Obviously, a virgin birth and
> resurrection from the dead are supernatural events that cannot be
> explained scientifically.

Aside from the technical caveats already expressed by others, I tend
to agree with that.  But as you seem to say and as Brian Whatcott has
noted, Christian faith--or at least fundamentalist Christian
faith--is actually founded on the thesis that these events really did
happen as described AND that those descriptions rule out natural
explanations.  To admit the possibility of natural explanations for
those events or that the descriptions could be inaccurate is, as I
understand it, to engage in heresy at some level.

> ... Christian faith is based on eye witness testimony, of which our
> earliest manuscripts are very near to the events recorded.
> Christians must examine the evidence of whether that eye witness
> testimony is credible.

I would hope so, but I'm not convinced that they do for the reasons
stated above.  Moreover, it would have to be remarkably compelling
evidence given the astonishing nature of the testimony.  IMO there is
no such remarkably compelling evidence.  That is where blind faith
becomes essential.

> ... Christians must have faith that a supernatural explanation is
> the best explanation for the events recorded in the Gospels. But
> that faith is based on evidence of eye witness testimony.

I can't make logical sense of this.  Someone's finding "that a
supernatural explanation is the best explanation for events" can't
logically be "based on" testimony that the events happened.  If
anything, testimony that an event DID occur would seem to be prima
facie evidence that it was natural.  But as you point out, things
like virgin birth and resurrection from the dead basically ARE
supernatural events.  It doesn't require faith to come to that
conclusion.

No, the faith--truly remarkable faith--is required to find the
accounts of the events credible.

> ... For a scientist who is a Christian, there are many events surrounding
> the life of Christ that must be explained supernaturally.

First, not all people who call themselves "Christian" believe in the
infallibility and historical accuracy of the Bible. Second, it is the
question of whether or not the events happened as reported that is
primarily at issue, NOT whether they require a supernatural
explanation.  Third, the identification of the person as a scientist
is irrelevant.

So I would put it differently:

"Fundamentalist Christians (whether or not they are scientists),
believe that the life of Christ was surrounded by supernatural
events."

I might go on to offer my opinion that there should exist some very
significant cognitive dissonance in the mind of a scientist who is
also a fundamentalist Christian.

> Also, that scientist would probably believe in prayer and that God answers
> prayer today, supernaturally. On the other hand, that scientist would
> not use supernatural explanations every day in the lab or to provide
> scientific hypotheses regarding observations in the physical world.

He or she wouldn't be able to use supernatural explanations as
scientific hypotheses since supernatural explanations are by
definition, IMO, not scientific.  But are you saying that this
scientist who DOES believe that supernatural events occur would,
nevertheless, NOT offer supernatural explanations for observations in
the lab?  Why on Earth not?  Doesn't that seem more than a little odd?

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