Cosmology and Religion...

[SiriMurthy]

This is bugging me for several years. Are Cosmology (I believe the term actually encompasses astronomy, astrophysics such - topics related to cosmos. Please correct me if I am wrong.) and religion (I don't want to isolate any one single religion) are really parallels? Or, are they mutually exclusive?

I have been following some posts on this board under "Against the Mainstream" topics and I have seen some conflicting responses and I am confused.

Thanks for your views on this.

[ToSeek]

I would consider cosmology a science within astronomy that focuses on the nature and origin of the universe as a whole, without worrying about trivia like stars, planets, and asteroids.

As for the relationship with religion, I think that depends on the religion. Depending on what beliefs are a part of it, cosmology could be compatible, in conflict, or irrelevant.

[SiriMurthy]

On 2002-08-22 15:01, ToSeek wrote:
I would consider cosmology a science within astronomy that focuses on the nature and origin of the universe as a whole, without worrying about trivia like stars, planets, and asteroids.

Yes, probably it makes more sense in viewing the cosmos as a whole in cosmology.

As for the relationship with religion, I think that depends on the religion. Depending on what beliefs are a part of it, cosmology could be compatible, in conflict, or irrelevant.

But different religion believe in different viewpoints. So would you just consider some points in some religion that are compatible with cosmological theories and discard the rest?

Just for instance, Hinduism mentions about oscillating Universe - Shiva's Cosmic Dance. I belive Carl Sagan has made some significant studies on this.

[Argos]

Cosmology is a science. It works with facts. It may look like religion in account of the huge amount of philosophy it holds within.

[overrated]

Cosmology, because it deals with the origins of the universe, and thus, everything in it, definitely has a lot of philosophical overtones.

It is a science. But I don't think any science, let alone cosmology, is mutually exclusive with religion. It certainly can't disprove religious beliefs.

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-22 18:16, overrated wrote:
Cosmology, because it deals with the origins of the universe, and thus, everything in it, definitely has a lot of philosophical overtones.

It is a science. But I don't think any science, let alone cosmology, is mutually exclusive with religion. It certainly can't disprove religious beliefs.

As far as absolute proofs go, science disproves very little if anything. As far as relative disproof goes, I can cite a preponderence of evidence disproving 'gods' but the vast majority choose to ignore the evidence. Believers will never be convinced but even people who aren't real believers just can't get over the 'what if you're wrong' superstition so the statement you can't disprove god is repeated like a mantra.

Oh boy, I'm going to get the "not on an astronomy board" condemnations for that statement. But I didn't bring it up. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[Silas]

On 2002-08-22 18:32, beskeptical wrote:
. . . I can cite a preponderence of evidence disproving 'gods' . . .

The only gods I feel comfortable "disproving" are the ones that I know were made up by people who don't believe in them. For instance, Tolkien's Iluvatar, or Lovecraft's Cthulhu, or Howard's Crom, etc.

I don't know whether or not to include Thor and Odin, because I don't know if the tale-spinners of Germany and Iceland believed in them or not.

I do feel comfortable including Zeus, Hermes, Apollo, etc., as it is pretty clear that the Greek myth-makers knew they were telling tall tales. Let's face it, there's a lot in common between Zeus and Paul Bunyan!

Sigh... And yet I have met people who believe in Iluvatar, claiming that Tolkien "revealed" an "immanent truth."

So, who ya gonna call?

Silas

[overrated]

Beskeptical,

There ISN'T a preponderance of evidence disproving gods, as Silas said, that people haven't consciously made up. In simplest terms, saying, for instance "Science shows that lightning is caused by an electrical imbalance between the cloud and the ground" explains lightning, but doesn't say anything about a god (or gods) who may have a) created these physical processes and b) set them in motion.

You just can't disprove God (or gods), because belief exists, or can exist, independent of proof. Hence, people speak of their religious beliefs in terms of "faith."

[Wiley]

On 2002-08-22 19:28, Silas wrote:
The only gods I feel comfortable "disproving" are the ones that I know were made up by people who don't believe in them. For instance, Tolkien's Iluvatar, or Lovecraft's Cthulhu, or Howard's Crom, etc.

How do you know Lovecraft did not believe in Cthulhu and the ancient ones? I personally believe in the elder gods, thank you. It explains Lovecraft's suspicious death and these ancient maps.

[xriso]

On 2002-08-22 14:41, SiriMurthy wrote:
This is bugging me for several years. Are Cosmology (I believe the term actually encompasses astronomy, astrophysics such - topics related to cosmos. Please correct me if I am wrong.) and religion (I don't want to isolate any one single religion) are really parallels? Or, are they mutually exclusive?

I have been following some posts on this board under "Against the Mainstream" topics and I have seen some conflicting responses and I am confused.

I think that historical and scientific pursuits can definitely help narrow down the possible interpretations of a religious text. It is rare that they will completely oppose eachother -- but it could happen if, say, a religion claims that people live on the sun and moon just like on Earth.

Some religions are just "mystical" and really don't have a care for science.

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-22 19:44, overrated wrote:
Beskeptical,

There ISN'T a preponderance of evidence disproving gods, as Silas said, that people haven't consciously made up. In simplest terms, saying, for instance "Science shows that lightning is caused by an electrical imbalance between the cloud and the ground" explains lightning, but doesn't say anything about a god (or gods) who may have a) created these physical processes and b) set them in motion.

But does it say you no longer accept Zeus is throwing those bolts at the Earth?

You just can't disprove God (or gods), because belief exists, or can exist, independent of proof. Hence, people speak of their religious beliefs in terms of "faith."

'Belief' and 'faith' that a god exists is not the same as 'god actually exists'. Of course people believe independent of proof, that's my point.

First let me reiterate, I am not talking about absolute disproof. When you try to do that the discussion breaks down into a semantics argument. Can we disprove fire breathing dragons existed? Can we disprove any fantasy? If you are talking about reasonable disproof it's possible.

The whole concept of a 'god' comes from ancient superstitions and beliefs. Many people are willing to accept that for every religion but their own. When the evidence shows 'god' is a myth, people fall back on all sorts of rationalizations as to why the evidence doesn't matter.

Put aside whether or not one believes 'god' has been disproved for the moment. Just look at the statement 'god cannot be disproved'. I think we can reasonbly say some myths have been reasonably disproved. So why wouldn't that apply to 'god' as well, assuming 'god' is a myth?

Your example above is not the approach to disprove god that I would use. There is more direct evidence.

I better stop here or I'll get started on the evidence and I'm trying not to do that. If I have time tomorrow or this weekend I'll give you some examples via a private message.

_________________
For the record, that's Beskeptigal.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beskeptical on 2002-08-23 03:44 ]</font>

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-22 21:06, xriso wrote:
I think that historical and scientific pursuits can definitely help narrow down the possible interpretations of a religious text. It is rare that they will completely oppose eachother -- but it could happen if, say, a religion claims that people live on the sun and moon just like on Earth.

Or that there was a world wide flood when the geological evidence clearly refutes such an occurrence. Or that the world was created in 6 days. Or that women are to be punished for the 'original sin' by having pain with childbirth and now anesthesia is available.

How about the goddess Pele? Are volcanic eruptions on Hawaii punishment for something?

Certainly some religious texts have been confirmed to correlate with historical events. But correlating what is written with scientific discoveries involves considerable distortion of the texts in many if not most cases.

[xriso]

On 2002-08-23 03:57, beskeptical wrote:

On 2002-08-22 21:06, xriso wrote:
I think that historical and scientific pursuits can definitely help narrow down the possible interpretations of a religious text. It is rare that they will completely oppose eachother -- but it could happen if, say, a religion claims that people live on the sun and moon just like on Earth.

Or that there was a world wide flood when the geological evidence clearly refutes such an occurrence. Or that the world was created in 6 days. Or that women are to be punished for the 'original sin' by having pain with childbirth and now anesthesia is available.

Indeed, those interpretations are some examples of things that should be abandoned. There are many alternatives that must be "knocked down" of course, but every exclusion helps the readers zero in on the correct interpretations. (I presume your interpretation is that Genesis is myth.)

Another theological consequence from current science that applies to Christianity is that animals have been dying long before humans were around. This knocks down the popular-among-Christians idea that animal death only started happening after the "fall of man".

[nebularain]

On 2002-08-22 14:41, SiriMurthy wrote:
Are Cosmology and religion really parallels? Or, are they mutually exclusive?

I have been following some posts on this board under "Against the Mainstream" topics and I have seen some conflicting responses and I am confused.

I do not know if I am properly following your train of thought, but I believe the confusion with what you are reading comes from the views of the individual posters. A person who beleives in a "god" or God who created the universe of course will incorperate that view of a diety into their perspective on cosmology. Likewise someone who does not believe in any form of diety will not incorperate such a perspective. Then a person who believes there "may be something out there greater than ourselves" may fluctuate a bit on incorperating a diety into their perspective of cosmology. Things really get fired up when one person is determined to prove that a diety exists, while another is out to prove that no diety exists or that you have no business acknowledging a diety in scientific investigations.

That is my take on the issue.

[Silas]

On 2002-08-23 03:40, beskeptical wrote:
If I have time tomorrow or this weekend I'll give you some examples via a private message.

If it isn't too much to ask, can I be on the distribution list for that?

Silas

[traztx]

I think cosmology clashes with doctrines proposing that phenomina are caused by the direct and arbitrary intervention of God.
Would doctrines proposing that "phenomina are caused through the workings of the physical laws created in the beginning by God" clash with cosmology?

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-08-22 19:51, Wiley wrote:
How do you know Lovecraft did not believe in Cthulhu and the ancient ones? I personally believe in the elder gods, thank you.

But, but, Wiley, I believed in you.

[DStahl]

A couple of things gleaned from various places:

I've read statements from a philosopher that one cannot scientifically prove the existence of a deity which resides outside time, space, and the universe, because all our evidence necessarily comes from within the universe. And a Christian apologist mirrored the claim by saying that one cannot disprove the existence of God for the same reason.

The other thing is that cosmology is predicated on mathematical physics--the rate of production of the isotopes of hydrogen and helium in the first minutes after the big bang, the specific magnitude of irregularities in the early universe which would give rise to large-scale structures today, and so forth. Even currently untestable hypotheses like Hawking and Hartles' no-boundary hypothesis are based on mathematical physics.

By contrast, no religion of which I know deals in mathematical, verifiable descriptions of its gods. I've never read a description based on mathematical physics of how, for instance, the Catholic God liquifies the blood of a martyr--ie, a set of equations describing the forces and energies God uses to sense and manipulate matter.

To me it seems that theology and the physics of cosmology are not really speaking the same language at all. I suspect any parallels are therefore coincidental.

But that's just my opinion, of course.

[Cloudy]

Many of the posts here seem to put all knowledge in two categories.

1. Scientific knowledge that is, knowledge that could be disproved by observations (since nothing can ever be 'absolutly' proved in science, science is defined by what is falsifiable).

2. Myths, folklore, old stories, etc. that are culturaly bound and inherently non-factual. What the inventors of such knowledge believe about it is seen as irrelevant - it didn't come from theories about observations so who cares?

This categorization is in itself culturaly bound, it is a conceit of a few, mostly western, intellectuals. Most great thinkers in other cultures and times have recognized that there are many forms of knowledge about this world and the next - and most cannot be neatly divided into "Scientific" and "Unscientific" categories. Just because something is not subject to hard and fast observational disproof does not in itself make that kind of knowledge purely a matter of taste or belief.

If one must insist on categorizing forms of knowledge - I would not use a straight categorization but a continuum. At the top would be things empirically provable, at the bottom would be matters of pure taste. maybe like this....

1. Observational Science - things that are directly disprovable by observation. Chemestry, Physics and the like belong here
2. Historical Science - historical knowledge derived from observational science. Cosmology, most geology, etc. belong here.
3. Cultural studies - generalizations derived from studies of current human behavior. This would include psychology, literary criticism, sociology, and the like
4. History - historical science based on cultural studies.
5. Cultural participation/decision making - ie the creation(as opposed to commenting on) art, literature, political institutions, life decisions, etc.
6. Pure matters of taste - what kind of ice cream you like, etc.

Religious claims(in cross-cultural religions such as Christianity, Buhdism, etc) involve the idea that the physical world is created by and/or influenced from another world that is not normaly observable. IMHO these claims can often be logically evaluated, just not usually by means of pure observational science. Most attacks or defenses of specific religious beliefs come from categories 2-5(as listed above). They are not pure empirical science, nor are they mere matters of taste.

Once you have recieved knowledge of God and communicate with him(through prayer, Bible readings, etc.) you receive different kind of knowledge altogether. This is relational knowledge. You know about God because he communicates with you. One religious character in the movie "Contact" refered to this kind of knowledge -

"Did your Father Love you, Ellie"

"Yes"-says Ellie

"Prove it." replies our religious character.

There is more to life than direct proof and disproof. There is more to knowledge than science.

[Silas]

There is more to knowledge than science.

Prove it... (Wink and grin!)

I don't think anyone would disagree with this. You mentioned matters of personal taste. I like vanilla; others like chocolate.

Science can... poll a representative sample of a given populace and find out how many prefer vanilla to chocolate... study the effects of flavors on the brain... study the effects of flavors on health and longevity... study variants on flavors to see if they can be improved...

Science is very specifically limited to exploring questions that *can* be answered.

Everything else is outside that circle. It's a simple exercise in Venn diagrams.

Silas

[Espritch]

Things really get fired up when one person is determined to prove that a diety exists, while another is out to prove that no diety exists or that you have no business acknowledging a diety in scientific investigations.

I would have to agree that you have no business invoking a diety in scientific investigations. God is by definition, supernatural. Science deals only with the natural world. It can only address those ideas that are testible. How do you test the existence of God? How do you disprove the existence of God? Would you accept such a disproof? A legitimate scientific theory must be falsifiable. The moment you must invoke a miraculous explenation, science stops. If you can explain a miracle through natural forces, it ceases to be miraculous.

One plus one is two whether you are a Christian, a Hindu or an atheist. A Bhuddist may declare this world to be a veil of tears, but if you drop a hammer on his toe, it still accelerates at 32 feet per second squared.

This categorization is in itself culturaly bound, it is a conceit of a few, mostly western, intellectuals.

Just because an idea originated mainly with a few, mostly western, intellectuals, doesn't make it a conciet or wronge. Our modern concepts of inclusive democracy and individual liberty had there origin mainly with a few, mostly western, intellectuals. They still seem like pretty good ideas to me.

Once you have recieved knowledge of God and communicate with him(through prayer, Bible readings, etc.) you receive different kind of knowledge altogether.

I spent years praying to God when I was younger and never got a reply. I find it interesting that if someone claims God talks to him and tells him to whear rubber pants on his head, we think he's nuts. But if a person spends a lifetime talking to a God that never responds at all, he is considered perfectly sane.

[nebularain]

On 2002-08-23 21:16, Silas wrote:
Science can... poll a representative sample of a given populace and find out how many prefer vanilla to chocolate... study the effects of flavors on the brain... study the effects of flavors on health and longevity... study variants on flavors to see if they can be improved...

take all the fun out of eating ice cream...

[beskeptical]

Silas, I will be happy to post to you as well. Hopefully later tonight.

I did want to add to this discussion a reminder that not all science is math, hard evidence and proofs. The behavioral, social, psychological, and, sometimes medical sciences require a different kind of evidence evaluation in order to be useful.

For example, if you see the same patterns in cultural evidence you can begin to formulate hypotheses and set about testing them. At times it can be very exact and at other times not so but it's the closest you can get for the moment. You recognize your limitations but you may need to use the hypotheses until something better comes along.

I wouldn't describe these sciences as quite as vague as Cloudy put it. You still use evidence. You still use the scientific process for collecting and evaluating the evidence. You still have peer review. It's not just some discussion groups getting together to interpret the world around them.

But 'proofs' are not the same as in math or physics. Instead the evidence is usually described on a continuum such as

no evidence or not enough evidence to draw any conclusion
evidence favors hypothesis
evidence doesn't favor hypothesis
evidence supports hypothesis
evidence doesn't support hypothesis
evidence rules in hypothesis
evidence rules out hypothesis

At some point you might have a pretty strong case so it's time to call it. It's not useful to get into the semantics of what is 'proven'.

[Cloudy]

Espritch

Ideas such as democracy, human liberty, etc
are exactly what I am talking about when I say that not all that is knowledge is science. Can you show me, strictly through the scientific method, that capitalist democracy is superior to communism? Can you reduce that to mathematics?

Science requires you to control for everything - only examine one variable at a time. This can't be done in interpersonal relations, politics, etc. in the same way it can be done in physics. Those who make good contributions in these fields are people who know how to work with allot of things at once, and how to get a good "feel" for what they are studying. These skills are the opposite of science - which prefers objectivity, mathematical objectivity if possible. In science ya better keep things simple - only look at one thing at a time, control for everything else. The reason we call political science a "science" is because its practitioners want to add to their credibility, not because it is a real science in the same sense that chemestry is.

I don't mean to say that since the strict science/nonscience distinction is modern and western, that it is neccesarily wrong. I am merely pointing out that the idea is one that appears to crop up only in very few narrow cultural circles. If this is indeed a universal philosophical truth common to all cultures I would expect it to have a wider following in the non-western world. In matters of pure philosophy like this - we western intelectuals have no real advantage over our predecessors in time and our fellow humans of other cultures. The vast majority of humanity, even educated humanity, has come to different conclusions than we. This should at least give us reason for further thought. It is common in our society for people to come up with an idea in a very subjective field like say psychology, slap some numbers onto it, publish it in a journal(or worse, go on TV), and call it "science". This is misleading and dishonest unless you define carefully just what is falsifiable and to what degree it is falsifiable.

I dont claim that religious ideas can all be scientifically falsifiable, some are to some degree, some are not. Religion itself is not science in this purest sense. But neither are many ideas in fields that are commonly thought of as science. Is Freudian psychology falsifiable? My own religion is falsifiable in at least one sense - show me really, really good evidence that Jesus Christ never rose from the dead and yes I would have to at least reconsider my beliefs. There was a novel once written about the discovery of Christ's body - it was called "A skeleton in God's closet".

We should also be careful to distinguish the scientific method from logical thought - just because you can think about something logically doesnt mean its scientific. I can give you many legitimate, fact-based reasons to vote for Bush rather than Gore...and most agree that Richard Hoagland would be a poor choice, for perfectly logical reasons. But the choice of who ya vote for is not scientific.

It is true, BeSkeptical, that not all "science" is mathematical and purely objective. You can have roughly falsifiable ideas without mathematical rigor. But the less rigor = less falsifiablity = less science, even if the idea in question can indeed be logically debated. My point is that we ought to acknowledge the continuum.

Great point about the taste of ice cream, by the way. Even if realm of knowledge isnt science by any definition, controlled experiments can give helpful guidance. Provided we realize their limitations.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Cloudy on 2002-08-26 02:57 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Cloudy on 2002-08-26 03:17 ]</font>

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-26 02:17, Cloudy wrote:
It is true, BeSkeptical, that not all "science" is mathematical and purely objective. You can have roughly falsifiable ideas without mathematical rigor. But the less rigor = less falsifiablity = less science, even if the idea in question can indeed be logically debated. My point is that we ought to acknowledge the continuum.

.....

This should at least give us reason for further thought. It is common in our society for people to come up with an idea in a very subjective field like say psychology, slap some numbers onto it, publish it in a journal(or worse, go on TV), and call it "science".

Oh good, you included me so I don't feel I'm butting in to your reply to Espritch. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

I'm not sure you understood what I meant. I was talking about a continuum of certainty of results, not a continuum of science vs nonscience.

I wonder if you might think about what you are saying from a different perspective. Pure science does not mean reducing problems to pure math. Math is just a tool. Math is useful to measure and to describe data.

We use lots of math in medical science. It usually takes the form of statistical analysis.

Science requires you to control for everything - only examine one variable at a time. This can't be done in interpersonal relations, politics, etc. in the same way it can be done in physics.

There are lots of ways to study problems with multiple variables.

Interpersonal relations, politics, etc. can most certainly be approached scientifically. Methods of research may differ from physics but the scientific process doesn't. Read a few studies from professional journals in all these fields you think aren't amenable to scientific analysis. You might be surprised.

Can you show me, strictly through the scientific method, that capitalist democracy is superior to communism? Can you reduce that to mathematics?

Yes, this is actually an easy task. You define what you want to measure as success. Satisfaction of the most people, economic success, stability of government, or whatever. Then you design or choose tools to measure the data, validate the tools so you can show they measure what you say you want, collect and analyze the data, and draw your conclusions.

Those who make good contributions in these fields are people who know how to work with allot of things at once, and how to get a good "feel" for what they are studying. These skills are the opposite of science - which prefers objectivity, mathematical objectivity if possible.

Some folks have natural abilities to succeed in the fields you are talking about. That doesn't mean their skills cannot be identified and learned. They can. Psycholgy and sociology can be addressed very scientifically and objectivly.

The reason we call political science a "science" is because its practitioners want to add to their credibility, not because it is a real science in the same sense that chemestry is.

Politics are scientific in two directions. One direction would be the science of all the things that make a successful government and successful leaders. Economics and economic theory are pretty clearly sciences. But so is the psychology of the economy. The psychology of international relations is a science our government should probably invest in a few more research dollars in.

The second direction of political science is one we really need to be sure our kids understand. That is the science of persuasion and marketing. If you don't know ad agencies invest billions in market research you may not realize all the ways research has made manipulating people so easy.

["Many of the people who were members of the White House staff and CREEP (The Committee to Re-elect the President) came out of advertising." From, 'The Selling Out of the President 1973', by 'the Watergate 7', (a parody of the book, 'The Selling of the President').

I don't mean to say that since the strict science/nonscience distinction is modern and western, that it is neccesarily wrong. I am merely pointing out that the idea is one that appears to crop up only in very few narrow cultural circles. If this is indeed a universal philosophical truth common to all cultures I would expect it to have a wider following in the non-western world. In matters of pure philosophy like this - we western intelectuals have no real advantage over our predecessors in time and our fellow humans of other cultures. The vast majority of humanity, even educated humanity, has come to different conclusions than we.

No offense. These statements are common viewpoints of many people, but the ideas are naieve. Too much TV and not enough travel. And it's a tad predjudiced of you to think Western culture has a monopoly on science and Eastern culture has a monopoly on philosophy or spirituality or whatever you think it is.

I recommend a year or two on the road with a backpack and a few travelers' checks. Wouldn't that be nice? Short of that, maybe read a bit more from books other travelers have written. (I hope this doesn't sound condescending because I don't mean it that way.)

...Religion itself is not science in this purest sense. But neither are many ideas in fields that are commonly thought of as science. Is Freudian psychology falsifiable?

I'd say so. I think Freudian psychology is mostly junk science. He didn't do a lot of careful research. He's known for introducing the concept that unconscious thought processes might underlie behavior and whatnot. I don't think his conclusions are mainstream psychology anymore.

My own religion is falsifiable in at least one sense - show me really, really good evidence that Jesus Christ never rose from the dead and yes I would have to at least reconsider my beliefs.

I don't suppose evidence showing it is possible to mistake death in persons who aren't really dead even to this day, and, that it was certainly more common to do so before the advent of the stethescope and later the EKG machine, would be good enough for you?

We should also be careful to distinguish the scientific method from logical thought - just because you can think about something logically doesnt mean its scientific. I can give you many legitimate, fact-based reasons to vote for Bush rather than Gore...and most agree that Richard Hoagland would be a poor choice, for perfectly logical reasons. But the choice of who ya vote for is not scientific.

I'd better add here that I'm not saying everything is 'science', even if everything can be studied scientifically. I can vote without examining all the reason's why I chose a certain candidate. But nothing precludes doing a scientific analysis of why I should choose a candidate nor an analysis of why I did choose a certain one.

BTW, I voted for the more intelligent guy. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[nebularain]

On 2002-08-26 05:29, beskeptical wrote:

My own religion is falsifiable in at least one sense - show me really, really good evidence that Jesus Christ never rose from the dead and yes I would have to at least reconsider my beliefs.

I don't suppose evidence showing it is possible to mistake death in persons who aren't really dead even to this day, and, that it was certainly more common to do so before the advent of the stethescope and later the EKG machine, would be good enough for you?

How could it? Your "evidence" is to claim that Jesus Christ wasn't dead. OK, let's see. A man is beaten nearly to death with a Roman whip (these whips had several leather straps, each with bits of sharp objects on the end to tear into the flesh even more). He's so weak that he cannot carry a plank of wood (his cross) up the hill. Three nails are driven into him, and he is crucified. Crucifiction is actually death by suffocation, because hanging from your wrists like that inhibits your ability to breath; you have to push yourself up to take breaths of air. Eventually, you become too weak to lift yourself up, and you cannot breath anymore. If it is decided your death needs to be speeded up, your legs are broken, so you can't push yourself up anymore. So, it is noticed that Jesus is dead by the guards. If He had mearly passed out, well, his body would not be able to breath anymore for the above mentioned reason, and He'd die anyway. If He faked it, well, the same argument goes. Plus, a Roman guard stuck a spear in His side, and "blood and water" flowed out. Do you really and truly believe a person can survive all of that?

Now you have to consider the claim made by the disciples that He rose from the dead. One possibility is that He somehow, after all that, managed to unwrap Himself from the burial cloths (the people back then wrapped up their dead) and in a severely weakened state still be able to roll away the stone over His tomb, and then get past the Roman guards who were stationed there (note: Roman guards don't sleep at their posts; it was punishable by death).

The other possibility is that the disciples got past these same guards and stole the body away. Then they made false claims that Jesus rose from the dead. Keep in mind that these very people ran in fright to save their lives just a few days earlier. Now they are risking their lives to get the body out, and then later risking and losing their lives for a lie they fabricated. Why would all these people be willing to be tortured, imprisoned, and put to death (some in horrible ways) for something they knew was a lie?

If you want to challenge this point that was brought up, Beskeptigal, you will need to present better evidence. You know that.

_________________
"All that is gold does not glitter / Not all those who wander are lost..."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-08-26 08:02 ]</font>

[DoctorDon]

Okay,

I know this is completely off-topic; I promise I won't keep this thread going any more than this, but there were a couple things I needed to say. First of all, I think one needs to be a little more cautious about the historical details of the crucifiction. While I certainly would not go so far as to say it didn't happen, the four accounts we have are filtered through extremely strong theological agendas/understandings by the authors, and they shaped details to support what they thought was going on. There are myriad examples, but I will just mention one: did Jesus carry his own cross? The synoptics say no, but the fourth gospel makes a point of saying that he did. My sense is that this is part and parcel of the whole point of the fourth gospel. The Jesus portrayed in that gospel is almost docetic. He teleports across lakes, he never doubts (no gethsemane "let this cup pass" scene here), or feels pain. He carries his own cross. He says "It is accomplished" and sets his own spirit free, rather than saying "my god, why have you forsaken me?" (which is itself a quote from the psalms, showing again how the authors of the gospels shaped their material according to their theological understanding). What I conclude from this is you have to be aware of the authors' theology when looking at the text, and you have to be especially careful when extracting details from multiple gospels.

Secondly, I hear this "why would they die for something they know is a lie?" reasoning a lot, and it baffles me. People have died for all kinds of crazy things in the past, and undoubtedly will continue to do so. This strikes me as a false dichotomy, like Lewis's "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument. By this argument, should we believe that there is an alien ship behind the Hale-Bopp comet? (My gosh, I got astronomy into this after all! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]) Why would the Heaven's Gate people kill themselves over something they knew was a lie? Why would the Jonestown people die over a lie? My point is that being willing to risk your life, endure torture, and even die for a belief says absolutely nothing (from a logic standpoint) about the validity of that belief. They are completely independent variables.
Finally, lest someone mistake my intent, I am not trying to attack or undermine Christianity or religious faith. For the record, I consider myself a Christian. But I also dislike bad logic. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Fiat lux,

Don

[Silas]

On 2002-08-26 10:06, DoctorDon wrote:
But I also dislike bad logic. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I still say we should pitch "Bad Logic" as a book in the "Bad Science" series...

Silas

[nebularain]

On 2002-08-26 10:06, DoctorDon wrote:
Okay,

I know this is completely off-topic; I promise I won't keep this thread going any more than this, but there were a couple things I needed to say. First of all, I think one needs to be a little more cautious about the historical details of the crucifiction.

I don't want to belabor the point either, and I can understand your point. However, to say that deaths can be faked is evidence that the resurrection never happened sounds like an I-don't-believe-it-happened-therefore-I-will-argue-an-explanation-of-how-it-could-have-been-faked-and-claim-that-is-what-really-happened type of answer. It's obvious to most people on this Board when Planet Xers and Creationist, and geocentrists and what-nots make those kind of claims (I-believe-therefore-I-will-make-up-the-evidence-I-need); why should it be OK to do that here with this?

[xriso]

Secondly, I hear this "why would they die for something they know is a lie?" reasoning a lot, and it baffles me. People have died for all kinds of crazy things in the past, and undoubtedly will continue to do so. This strikes me as a false dichotomy, like Lewis's "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument. By this argument, should we believe that there is an alien ship behind the Hale-Bopp comet? (My gosh, I got astronomy into this after all! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]) Why would the Heaven's Gate people kill themselves over something they knew was a lie? Why would the Jonestown people die over a lie? My point is that being willing to risk your life, endure torture, and even die for a belief says absolutely nothing (from a logic standpoint) about the validity of that belief. They are completely independent variables.

Umm... I think that those might just go under the Lunatic category in that "false dichotomy". [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

If anyone wants to read a big long thing on the reliability of the gospels, take a look at this and prepare to have your eyes tire out:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mqx.html

AND NOW BACK TO THE COSMOLOGY, right?