Creation, Evolution, and faith

Seriously?I have to provide a source to back up the assertion that 75-90 is significantly greater than the average life expectancy circa 30-60 AD? When the average life expectancy in America today is 78, with all of the medical advances we've made in 2000 years?Not to mention that such a person would remain unaffected by any age-related disorder like dementia?Perhaps I should start backing up claims that "water is wet," and "the sky is blue?" Jesus fucking Christ, slevesque, are you really an idiot?Fine. Here you go: Census data from Roman Egypt circa 30 AD.Same general region, within the Roman empire, same general time period. Notice what happens after the 45-49 age range. I didn't say that. I never said anything even remotely like it.A contemporary source means: existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time.If a person wasn't actually alive when the events happened, then nothing they write is contemporary with the source. You were alive during Obama's campaign, so your writings would be contemporary with that event.That's a bit different from talking about people who weren't even alive when the supposed event took place. I do consider Obama's account of his own election to be contemporary. As I said, in the very post you're replying to, which apparently you did not read.I am consistent in demanding that a person have been alive during a supposed event in order to write a contemporary account of it.Writing about the events of circa 30 AD roughly 40 years later when the life expectancy dropped off around ages 45-49 strains credulity that a person would still be alive and able to write.That's significantly different than Obama's case, because living past 80 or even 90 isn't all that uncommon. You know, being that our life expectancy in modern America is nearly fucking twice that of Roman citizens in the midle east circa 30 AD.

Hi Percy,Of course I agree with all this, but this isn't really opposing science with religion. This is opposing science with historical claims of religion. But of course it presents a difficulty, in that a lot of historical claims of 2000 years ago will fall into the same category of subjectivity unfortunately.But I believe that in past history just as in science, some things can be proven. By proven I mean of course 'proven beyond reasonable doubt', as in a court room. You may never know if a further evidence will not turn the murderer into an innocent, but this doesn't mean that as of right now, he is proven to be a murderer beyond reasonable doubt.Of course, there is a difference between past historical events and science, And too often, people put the same burden on historical facts that they put on scientific facts. But doing so cuts off just about every single piece of evidence we have about what happened 2000 years ago from even being reliable.This can be seen in the movie religulous, when Bill Maher interviews Francis Collins. He asks something along the lines of ''would that stand up in a laboratory as absolute full-proof evidence ?'' and Dr. Collins responds to him ''you are setting up a standard for proof, that I think would be an almost impossible standard to meet''. And the documentary stops there, which is a shame really because of all the documentary it was the one possibly-interesting inerview ...Anyways, I think this same fallacy is being done here again and again, asking of historical records to be as precise as scientific facts.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

As I said, we know Paul was at Jerusalem at that time. We know that he was a premier Pharisee ''advancing in stature within Judaism's Jerusalem temple Leadership'' (wiki).And we know Jesus caused a turmoil in their ranks, and that they judged him. This are reasons to believe that Paul could have met Jesus. Well, you made the baseless assertion. ''Paul never met Jesus''. And you rebuke me for asking any reasons why you think that, defending yourself behind ''you can't prove a negative'' ? When I don't even ask a proof of it, only for reasons to think it to be possibly true.Did they live in separate geographical location ? No, they were both at times possibly quite close.Did they lie in different time periods ? No, they lived at the same time.Did they opperate in unrelated issues ? No, both of them were involved in matters of religion.These are all reasons to believe they could have met, not the contrary.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Now that is a reason for thinking they never met. See GM, it's not complicated to provide supporting facts to a negative.In any case, I my intent is not to affirm that they met, I am contemporary of Obama even if I didn't meet him. All I want to show is that you can't just assume baseless assertions. I just provided reasons that makes it totally possible that they had met.

No, you showed quite clearly that it relies only on appeal to authority, the written word of the bible. That's the only "evidence" that you relied on. True, anyone can look at the bible and see what it says. But looking at the bible and seeing what it says is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Nobody can look at any evidence to see if what the bible says is true.A classic appeal to authority.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Hi Slevesque!I think most of the attention in this thread is comparing science that is based upon facts gathered from the real world to religion that is based upon what someone wrote a long time ago. I don't think there would be much objection to comparisons with religions that were actually based upon real history.In a way science is completely historical in nature because it can only study things that have already happened, events from the past. Some things happened just femtoseconds ago, others billions of years ago, but science can only examine evidence from past events. I think many scientists have a very healthy respect for scholarly approaches to history. If religion were to take this approach I think it would get a lot more respect.--Percy

Not exactly, you made the claim that ''being able to write at 75 at that time would require a miracle''. You claimed this without knowing the life expectancy of the time, and 'assumed' that it must have been significantly less then now. Are you really accusing me of being an idiot, when I ask for historical claims to be more 'proved' then 'assumed' ? What is wrong of askign for a claim to be supported ?Clearly, the claim ''it requires a miracle to be able to write at age 75 in 50AD'' is clearly not comparable in 'obviousness' to 'water is wet'. Interesting, I notice that there are 49/350 people who were past 49 years old. And this does not show all those between 0-49 who will effectively go past 49.Considering the correct date is probably nearer 30 years after the event rather then 60 as you said, it shows that a miracle isn't require to live up to that age.Also, note the the main reason for thinking the story of Jesus passed from oral tradition to written accounts is that the eye-witnesses were beginning to pass away. If the dropoff is about at 50, as your diagram suggests, and the first gospel was written 30years after the event, then the dates correlate to about the same figure. Sorry, my memory failed in associating Subbie's previous comment( that my account of Obama's campaign would not be considered contemporary) to you. See above. It does not require a miracle for eye-witnesses to be alive when the gospels were written. Furthermore, the very dates seem to align up were the oral tradition became a written account when eye-witnesses started to die.

Hi Slevesque!I think what people are really focused on is that your criteria for considering something to be a reasonable possibility seems to be "not proven impossible yet."--Percy

I don't see such a fallacy being committed here.What I do see is that some on the theistic side, particularly kbertsche, have been claiming a near equality between the basis of theological reasoning and that of scientific reasoning. Those on the scientific side have, unsurprisingly, been emphasizing that the differences are far greater than is being admitted.Those on the science side of this debate fully recognize that historical studies have to rely on weaker evidence than is typically available for scientific studies. Yet, even those who do historical research still have standards of evidence that they uphold. Thus we see them pointing out that the evidence regarding Jesus is shaky. Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

Hi,I just want to assure that this is not my intention. The first replys of ''how do you know paul never met Jesus ???'' probably gave that impression however. Something becomes a reasonable possibility when there are not only no facts against it, but also a couple of facts that make the thing likely and therefore reasonably possible.

Maybe I'm caught in a discussion inside a discussion, since I didn't read kbertsche's discussion.Besides, I have the feeling the historicity of Jesus is quickly demanding to be in a topic of it's own.

Perhaps you should browse through those posts to provide some context for recent posts. That could be an interesting topic, though I won't be the one starting such a discussion.I think you would find that most of those on the science side support the idea of such historical studies, while there would be some criticism from the more fundamentalist Christians.

If you want to steer this on topic then discuss how the historicity of Jesus is established with respect to religious belief and how it compares to the construction of scientific theories. It has been suggested that religious beliefs are not based on blind faith but upon evidence, logic, and reason in a similar fashion to how scientific theories are constructed.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The analogy is between Scripture and nature. Science studies nature; if someone disagrees with an interpretation of nature, he can go and examine nature himself. Analogously, Christianity studies the Bible. If someone disagrees with an interpretation of the Bible, he can go and examine it himself.

---

The question is whether the Bible accurately portrays reality. It would seem to me that whether or not the Bible is accurately interpretted has little to do with whether or not the Bible accuratley portrays reality.

---

Another good question which I was not trying to address, and another good analogy between nature and Scripture.Analogously, whether or not nature is accurately interpreted in science has little to do with whether or not our science accurately portrays reality. I have mentioned "last Thursdayism" and Omphalism a few times already in this thread. We can't prove or disprove such metaphysical positions. We can't prove that science, even when correctly done, tells us something "real" about the past.In fact, this is even true of the present. The "Standard Model" works well. It has been verified repeatedly. But does this mean that quarks REALLY exist? Do they REALLY come in various flavors and colors? Or is this simply a fictitious model that gives accurate predictions, similarly to Aristotelian geocentrism patched up with epicycles on epicycles? We can't say for sure.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Paul's logic and reason is an interesting question, and perhaps a good topic for a Bible study thread. But I was not trying to address it here. It is not necessary to establish my claim that theology involves evidence and reason.

---

In this thread you have claimed that theologians use logic and reasoning to arrive at religious beliefs. Why wouldn't Paul's logic and reasoning be applicable here?

---

It would be applicable, of course. But Paul's logic and reasoning in any particular instance doesn't affect my general claim that theology involves evidence and reason.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Close; this is reason and evidence as applied to Greek grammar.

---

Yes, otherwise known as linguistics. That linguistics is taught in seminaries is not under dispute. That students study greek and hebrew at seminary is not under dispute. What is under dispute is that religious belief (not our understanding of greek grammar) is reached through logic and reason. Or are you saying that learning a language is the same as believing in a deity?

---

My claim that you and others have been disputing for the past few pages is that "theology involves evidence and reason." My initial claims back in Message 25 relating to this were: Note what I mentioned: theological data and biblical evidence. The Bible is a text; its evidence is necessarily literary and grammatical. This is a central, inseparable part of theology. Your attempts to divorce study of the text from Christianity are disingenuous.Christianity is based on the teachings of the Bible. The Bible must be studied to understand first what it says and then what this means. This study involves evidence from many different disciplines (grammar, history, literature, etc.) This process clearly involves evidence and reason. I don't understand why you and others find this claim objectionable and try to deny it?