|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evolution of an atheist. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
quote:There is some. We have a disputed passage in Josephus, and we have a passage in Tacitus: quote:I think that most scholars think this is genuine, though there are obviously some who say otherwise.... Then there is more tenuous reference in Mara's letter quote:Is the 'wise king' Jesus? Dunno.... quote:Bust away. No, I'm not convinced of that. I have no doubt at all that if he did exist he didn't rise from the dead or perform the supernatural acts credited to him. Nor do I think the gospels are anything other than later PR. But I still think there is sufficient grounds for thinking that someone of that name existed...on the balance of probabilities.... There are other snippets here and there which could be said to add some support...Lucian, Calcius, Justin Martyr etcHistoricity of Jesus - Wikipedia Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given. Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It doesn't deal with the philosophical or theological questions. Because those questions are intellectual masturbation with no material effect on life. Where they do have material effect, they become open to scientific investigation.
In the reading that I've done it does occur to me that every time science makes a new discovery it brings up more unanswered questions. Asking new questions doesn't mean you know less, it means you know more. The more we learn about cancer, for instance, the harder it seems to cure; but the answer to that isn't less hospitals, it's more schools.
(I wish I could even have the trailing edge in sight. What do you think stops you? It's not your brains, for which you clearly don't lack. Unlike religious revelation, scientific knowledge is accessible and free to all. Even at this very forum there are scientific minds desperate to try to teach you something about science. Why not ask them some questions?
I would also suggest that Christian scientists are just as devoted to that as are atheistic scientists. Well, that's certainly true in my experience, but there are some prominent exceptions such as Francis Collins, who believes that scientists should not even attempt to scientifically address questions like the origin of moral behavior. For many Christianity is an obstacle to the full pursuit of scientific knowledge, and they pull back for fear of overturning a cherished dogma. Ultimately science and religion can no more be reconciled than marriage and infidelity. The fact that some married people manage to be unfaithful hardly obviates the inherent contradiction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
quote:But Penrose is talking about the human perception of time flowing. This is a different question to the one of cause-effect. It would take some time to explain in detail - basically Penrose is a mathematical realist who thinks Relativity is a good model. If you extend the model then all spacetime events are fixed - past, present, future - they are all simply a matter of perspective. That is what he means by no flow of time. I think he is wrong on this, but regardless, it doesn't have any bearing on the 'first cause'. If you want to know what Penrose thinks about that then you need to read up his hypothesis on cyclic time - Sites-whsmith-Site
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There is some. Well, again, we're back to how there's a difference between evidence that someone said something happened, and evidence that it did happen. Tacitus is referring to the claims of the Christians, not corroborating them. A newspaper reporting "Dick Cheney says 'Saddam has weapons of mass destruction'" isn't reporting the same thing as one that says "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction", and the one can't be used to support the other. Obviously early Christians believed Romans had killed Christ. What's the evidence that they did?
But I still think there is sufficient grounds for thinking that someone of that name existed...on the balance of probabilities.... So far the balance has nothing in the pans, as near as I can tell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
Tacitus is hardly nothing. He is telling it from a Roman perspective and the Romans had no vested interest in manufacturing events. It cannot be said to be Christian reportage - he is damning about them...It is quite likely that the source is Roman, not Christian and it could be from since lost documents like The Acts of Pilate...
PS - not that Tacitus' account doesn't have its problems - it does. Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Bikerman writes: No King of the Jews entering Jerusalem or claiming to be son of God in Josephus then, but a mention of many others...Remember Jesus is different from other messianic movements - he is SEEN by hundreds of witnesses, after being crucified. That makes this a whole different level of story - the biggest story you can imagine. No mention of a resurrection. Isn't that strange? You would think it worthy of at least a couple of lines.Of course there is a reasonable consensus that this is not what was written and that it was later added to/edited by Christian sources. Even more strange, then, that there is no mention of that central dogma of the Christians.... I own "Josephus - The Complete Works" as transcribed by William Whiston, in 1732 from the Greek. The following is from Josephus- The Antiquities of the Jews Chap 18
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Back in college around 1975, I wanted to see just what Josephus had written, so I looked up a compilation of the Greek manuscripts. I went to that page and right there in the original Greek I found ... nothing. That text was not there.
No, wait, there's a footnote! In the footnote, the author noted that that text does not appear anywhere in the original Greek. And that the earliest that it does appear is much later in an Old Church Slavonic translation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
Yes, the bits about the resurrection are widely accepted to be later forgery by Tektonics.
The evidence is quite compelling - this passage is mentioned in two later documents - including Origen's Against Celcus: quote:No mention, as you see. I think there is a large measure of consensus behind the forgery theory, because of other records and because of work on the textual analysis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2996 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
quote: While it's true that our Lord Jesus came first to the Jews, Paul got it right when he declares this in Rom 1:16, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to EVERYONE who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." Blessings
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Tacitus is hardly nothing. He is telling it from a Roman perspective and the Romans had no vested interest in manufacturing events. I'm not saying Tacitus made it up. But it's clear that he's merely reporting the claims of early Christians, not corroborating them. Repeating a claim doesn't corroborate it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
crashfrog writes: Because those questions are intellectual masturbation with no material effect on life. Where they do have material effect, they become open to scientific investigation. I don't see that. Say for exampleassume for a minute that I am correct and that evolution is a designed and guided process. How would a biologist determine the difference between that and one that is not designed or guided. Scientific study is agnostic.
crashfrog writes: Asking new questions doesn't mean you know less, it means you know more. The more we learn about cancer, for instance, the harder it seems to cure; but the answer to that isn't less hospitals, it's more schools. Absolutely, but it just seems to me that with the establishment of relativity and QM as solid theories that it opened up a multitude of new horizons to explore.
crashfrog writes: Unlike religious revelation, scientific knowledge is accessible and free to all. Even at this very forum there are scientific minds desperate to try to teach you something about science. Why not ask them some questions? I've read numerous good books. (I even own Penrose's "The Road to Reality" of which the vast majority goes over my head but I find his theories fascinating. I've enjoyed reading Greene, Hawking, Schroeder, McGrath, Sagan and others. I have asked questions about science a number of times on this forum and I often read through threads where others have asked or answered questions I had in mid. There are some very clever people on this forum and our friend Bikerman here certainly fits into that category. As an enthusiastic Christian however I sometimes can't resist threads like this. Interesting that Bikerman is having to argue the existence of Jesus with you while at the same time argue against what He did with Me.
crashfrog writes: Well, that's certainly true in my experience, but there are some prominent exceptions such as Francis Collins, who believes that scientists should not even attempt to scientifically address questions like the origin of moral behavior. For many Christianity is an obstacle to the full pursuit of scientific knowledge, and they pull back for fear of overturning a cherished dogma. I've read Collins and yes he does believe that a moral law, or the Chinese Tao that Lewis writes about exists as something that is beyond the physical. That doesn't mean that he is opposed to science trying to find natural explanations. I would agree with him, but from my point of view if a natural explanation for how morality evolved was found, it still wouldn't answer the question of whether or not it was designed by an external designer. It would only describe how it was done, if indeed the external designer actually existed.
crashfrog writes: Ultimately science and religion can no more be reconciled than marriage and infidelity. With the limited understanding I have of both fields I can't see that there should be any real need to reconcile them. I find them complimentary just as they are. Science answers questions concerning the physical and religion attempts to answer questions that are beyond the physical, with the belief that it actually exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
How would a biologist determine the difference between that and one that is not designed or guided. Evolution is a guided process, and the guide is environment. Species are guided to become adapted to their environment or become extinct.
Absolutely, but it just seems to me that with the establishment of relativity and QM as solid theories that it opened up a multitude of new horizons to explore. Yes. Do you think that's an opening or closing of "the gaps"?
I've read numerous good books. Awesome! Why not get to the real meat, then, and read a few textbooks?
That doesn't mean that he is opposed to science trying to find natural explanations. He thinks its impossible. Tell me - thinking that such research couldn't possibly produce knowledge, do you think he's likely to approve funding for such research in his role as director of the NIH?
With the limited understanding I have of both fields I can't see that there should be any real need to reconcile them. If you say, but I can't understand someone who thinks science is just something to do in the lab, between the hours of 9 am and 5 pm. I can't understand the mindset of someone who insists on a rigorous standard of evidence to arrive at conclusions at work, and then comes home and says "I'm going to insist on much less rigor in my knowledge, now." The idea of having a rigorous standard of evidence, in science, is to protect scientists against false ideas, spurious data, and even purposeful deceit and manipulation. Someone who is considering adopting a less rigorous standard for the evidence they're prepared to accept needs to think long and hard about what they're opening themselves up to. What could a scientist possibly have to gain by consciously deciding to become easier to fool outside of business hours?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Bikerman writes: Yes, the bits about the resurrection are widely accepted to be later forgery by Tektonics.The evidence is quite compelling - this passage is mentioned in two later documents - including Origen's Against Celcus: There seems to be a good case made by both sides. The version I am using was a translation from the Greek as I mentioned. (Whiston)
Josephus on Jesus Josephus did write on Jesus though and also on His brother James. The court is out on whether or not he wrote about the crucifixion, but we can't definitively say that he didn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 802 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
How would a biologist determine the difference between that and one that is not designed or guided. Scientific study is agnostic. Until you have evidence for either the design process or the designer, why would you assume the nature of such a force? Why would you assume such a force exists? Saying it "looks" designed is not sufficient. That still seems an awful lot like the god of the gaps. Thus far, every unknown discovery in science has ended up with a natural explanation. Every time design was inferred (Galileo, Newton for example), new knowledge was acquired and the designer was relegated to the natural force pile.
Absolutely, but it just seems to me that with the establishment of relativity and QM as solid theories that it opened up a multitude of new horizons to explore. This is a problem, why? Isn't it "neat" or "fun" to learn about the world we live in? What fun would it be to know all of the ins and outs and workings of the universe? There would be nothing left to discover.
With the limited understanding I have of both fields I can't see that there should be any real need to reconcile them. I find them complimentary just as they are. Science answers questions concerning the physical and religion attempts to answer questions that are beyond the physical, with the belief that it actually exists. That is one of the most honest things a I have ever heard come out of a creationist's mouth (keyboard?). Kudos to you. Now, just keep religion out of science and all is well. "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 802 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
double post
Edited by hooah212002, : double post "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024