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

[Robert Cohen <Robert.Cohen@PO-BOX.ESU.EDU>]

Below I comment on three items in Aaron's message.  I think all
three reflect the weakness inherent in "supernatural" explanations
in that religious faith is not based on testable evidence (nor, in
many cases, even the evidence [or lack thereof] provided in the
Bible).

Unfortunately, many supposedly scientific discussions suffer from
the same weakness.  It shouldn't be.  If taught correctly,
the difference between religious instruction and science
instruction should be clear.  But it isn't easy.

Anyway, back to the three items...

On Sunday, May 22, 2005 11:12 PM, Aaron Titus wrote:

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

I wouldn't be surprised if, when faced with the discovery that
a "literal" truth is found to be false, the "truth" is
reinterpreted as a "rhetorical" message.  What prevents someone
from doing that?

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

I doubt there is any one verse in the NT that is 100% conclusive
and not open to [re]interpretation.  John 10:29-38 is pretty
strong but even there I can think of a [re]interpretation
where "Jesus.ne.God" (or "Jesus+others.eq.God").

> [snip]
> 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.

Isn't this a false dilemma.  Why are there only these three
choices?

____________________________________________________
Robert Cohen; 570-422-3428; www.esu.edu/~bbq
East Stroudsburg University; E. Stroudsburg, PA 18301
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l