Survey: Churches Losing Youths Long Before College

PhysicistDave »

Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

u4eeeahhh wrote:
>Virgin birth story makes Mary the Queen of bs excuse givers.
>She gets knocked up playing around behind Joe's back and when caught she says, GOD DID IT.

In fairness to Mary and ol' Joe, we should point out that the Virgin Birth story was almost assuredly not due to either of them.

Think about it: suppose that she had told this story to her dear little boy, and, when Jesus grew up, he passed it on to his pals.

How would the pals have reacted?

Do you yourself know any adult male, who, when told by a pal that his mother had conceived him out of wedlock, but -- wait! it wasn't what you think! it was a Virgin Birth! -- could avoid laughing?

I really, really doubt that Mary and Joe were dumb enough to have tried to palm off that story on young Jesus. I am extremely doubtful that an adult Jesus would have been naive enough to try to sell that to his pals.

And, if he had, it is impossible for me to believe that a bunch of adult guys -- remember, these were ordinary working guys, fishermen, etc. -- would have swallowed a whopper like that.

No, the Virgin Birth story was not peddled by Mary, Joe, or Jesus himself. It was invented long after his death, when an aura of sanctity had come to surround him, and when he didn't have to tell the story himself and watch his pals snicker.

Most likely, some Greek-speaking gentile convert misunderstood the term "Son of God" to refer to a literal biological son of God, combined this misunderstanding with the pagan myths about Zeus begetting children via mortals, and -- voila! -- produced the Virgin Birth story.

This scenario is backed up by the fact that Paul's letters, the earliest Christian documents we have, make no mention of the Virgin Birth; neither do two of the four Gospels nor any other New Testament books besides Matthew and Luke. And we also know there were early Christians (e.g., the Ebionites) who did not believe in a Virgin Birth.

No, Mary may not have been the "Mother of God," but there is no reason to foist this lie on her. There is no reason to doubt that she married her husband and conceived her son after the marriage, so that everything about Jesus' birth was completely, um, kosher.

Dave

Survey: Churches Losing Youths Long Before College

PhysicistDave »

Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

u4eeeahhh wrote:
>Virgin birth story makes Mary the Queen of bs excuse givers.
>She gets knocked up playing around behind Joe's back and when caught she says, GOD DID IT.

In fairness to Mary and ol' Joe, we should point out that the Virgin Birth story was almost assuredly not due to either of them.

Think about it: suppose that she had told this story to her dear little boy, and, when Jesus grew up, he passed it on to his pals.

How would the pals have reacted?

Do you yourself know any adult male, who, when told by a pal that his mother had conceived him out of wedlock, but -- wait! it wasnâ

Survey: Churches Losing Youths Long Before College

PhysicistDave »

Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Rachel777 wrote to me:
>>[Dave] ''A similar point applies to the Virgin Birth, if taken literally.''
>[Rachel]Why can we not take the virgin birth literally?
>Are you saying that Almighty God can not perform this?

Rachel, I think that "Almighty God" (by whom I presume you mean the Yahweh of the Old Testament) is a myth just like other "gods" invented in roughly the same time period -- Zeus, Wotan, etc.

However, the broader issue, even if we consider it an open question whether or not Yahweh exists, is: shall we apply the same standard to judging the miracles of Yahweh that we apply to judging the miracles of, say, Zeus.

As the old saying goes, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

If Zeus really existed, he could have fathered Heracles of a mortal woman, and his doing so would prove his existence. Same is true of Yahweh.

But the reason you and I and most people do not accept the claim about Zeus and Heracles is that this is (and is meant to be!) an extraordinarily unusual claim: we therefore require extraordinarily strong evidence, which we do not have.

Again, the same applies to Yahweh: we do not have strong evidence for the Virgin Birth (Matthew and Luke contradict each other on various points, and no other New Testament book addresses the issue at all).

So, since science explains that human virgin females cannot give birth to male young, and since we lack evidence that this happened with Mary and Jesus, that is just as much proof that it never happened as the proof that Zeus did not father Heracles.

I'm just applying the same standards of judgment to both issues. Fair is fair.

I agree with you that, if not taken literally, there is not much point to the Virgin Birth story. However, there are some people who, for some reason that escapes me, choose to call themselves Christians and who disagree with you and me on that.

Dave

Survey: Churches Losing Youths Long Before College

PhysicistDave »

Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:33 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

abhodim wrote:
> Science is at best neutral in areas of religion. It has no apparatus to detect the supernatural or miraculous.

I'm afraid that that statement is obviously and unequivocally false.

Quite a few religions over the centuries have made very firm pronouncements about a whole slew of matters, a few of which you and I have just discussed, upon which science emphatically differs quite dramatically with religion.

Again, to take the obvious: everyone knows that some people's religion demands that Genesis 1 be literally true. Everyone knows that established, mainstream science disagrees.

Perhaps, *your* religious beliefs do not require a literalist view of Genesis 1. But some people's do, and science differs with them. On this matter, science is most assuredly not "neutral."

And, indeed, no one can ever show that science "has no apparatus to detect the supernatural or miraculous" unless they so restrict the content of religion as to make it effectively pointless.

For example, if Jesus really did physically rise from the dead, then surely common scientific instruments such as EEGs, EKGs, even the common stethoscope, would have been able to detect this. Perhaps not so coincidentally, his supposed Resurrection happened before such instruments existed!

If religion has anything to do with the real world, then some of its claims will inevitably be detectable in principle with scientific apparatus.

In only one sense can you be right: if religion has no contact with reality whatsoever, if it is stripped of any doctrines that relate to the real world, then indeed science will never succeed in confirming or denying its claims. Very few religions have been willing to be so self-limiting.

You also wrote:
> There. We both have made our Pascalian wagers. Let us depart in peace and live and let live.

Sorry, but that too is in error: I have never been inclined to engage in any sort of Pascalian wager. I do not hold beliefs on the basis of some pragmatic calculation of what I think will benefit me.

Rather, I adhere to Clifford's principle:
> It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
William Kingdon Clifford, The Ethics of Belief (http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm#ethics)

In accord with Clifford's principle, I have concluded that there is more than sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion, based on science, as to the truth of traditional Nicene Christianity: traditional Nicene Christianity is demonstrably and certainly, on the basis of firmly established science, beyond any reasonable doubt, false.

That really is one of the reasons you folks are losing so many intelligent young people. Ken Ham, for all his faults (and they are many!), is perceptive enough to grasp this.

Dave

Survey: Churches Losing Youths Long Before College

PhysicistDave »

Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:20 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

abhodim wrote to me:
> Your Mt. Olympus reference sounds much like the early Russian cosmonauts declaring not seeing God during their voyages.

Yes, and the Russian cosmonauts did indeed refute that version of Christianity that envisions God and Heaven as being up in the sky just a bit above the earth -- I have actually known people who did believe that.

Although, to tell the truth, I am pretty sure the cosmonauts were simply making a joke.

And my Mt. Olympus reference similarly does show that naive Greek paganism was false -- of course, intelligent Greeks knew that anyway.

The point is that at least *some* religious beliefs are indeed demonstrably false.

Similarly, modern physics, biology, astronomy, and geology prove that the first chapter of Genesis, if taken literally, is false.

I realize that that does not refute the beliefs of all Christians, some of whom take Genesis metaphorically.

But it does refute the beliefs of *some* Christians, and quite decisively so.

A similar point applies to the Virgin Birth, if taken literally.

You also wrote:
> Are you acquainted with C.S. Lewis' book of essays Christian Reflections? In his last essay, the Seeing Eye, he addresses such scientific expressions of atheism, questioning their validity.
" climb to the top of Mt. Olympus and you will find no Gods up there." Dandy, St. Paul climbed to the top of the Areopagus (Acts 17: 16ff) and made the same point, clearing the arena for the One true God.

I've read a lot of Lewis: I don't recall if I've read that specific essay, though it may well be that that is indeed where I got my point about Mt. Olympus.

Dave

Survey: Churches Losing Youths Long Before College

PhysicistDave »

Sat Jul 04, 2009 2:27 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Believer wrote to me:
>phydave, based on your worldview I wondered what is your view of theistic evolutionists?

Well, a couple points. First, my view of them is that they are human beings and entitled to form their own opinions.

Of course, I know that's not what you really meant to ask, but I do want to emphasize that while I do think that some *ideas* are idiotic, I do not therefore automatically hate the people who hold those ideas (for example I admire Benedict XVI in many ways, although I strongly disagree with his theological views).

As to the idea of theistic evolution, I think it depends on exactly how that is meant.

If the theistic evolutionist is trying in general to defend the God of the Old and New Testaments with theistic evolution being part of that defense, I think that we know on many other grounds that the God of the Old and New Testaments is mythical. So, I consider that a waste of time.

If a theistic evolutionist is not tying his views on evolution to any particular religion, I would simply say that there seems to be no evidence for some supernatural influence in evolution, and therefore I doubt it exists. Evolution, as far as we can tell, works fine without any help: the attempts to show otherwise, such as "Intelligent Design," simply make numerous errors scientifically.

The broader question, I think, is: has science proven that any sort of God does not exist?

Well, science can and has proven that particular sorts of Gods do not exist: climb to the top of Mt. Olympus and you will find no Gods up there. Try to wander out to the edge of the world and find the Midgard Serpent, and you'll find he does not exist.

I think the same is true of the Christian God, because, e.g., of the scientific impossibility of the Virgin Birth.

But a completely generic God, without any specific attributes, is so vague that it is hard to disprove his existence.

The phenomenon of consciousness is complicated: no one can (yet) explain it in physical terms. Speaking as a physicist, I myself think that physics as we now know it is not up to the task: the (atheist) philosopher Colin McGinn has explained why in terms I broadly agree with in his book "The Mysterious Flame."

So, is it possible that there is some grand floating super-consciousness that one might call God that somehow plays a key role in the universe?

I see no evidence for that, but we know so little about consciousness that the only honest answer is: who knows?

Incidentally, a large numbers of atheists, perhaps a majority, hold a similar opinion.

Even Richard Dawkins, often considered the most fiery of the "New Atheists" has only a plausible argument that no God of any sort can exist: I do not think even he considers it conclusive proof.

All the best,

Dave

Survey: Churches Losing Youths Long Before College

PhysicistDave »

Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:22 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

abhodim wrote to me:
>Have you ever done a vertical curriculum study? I am not talking about gathering this year's editions of science texts and examining them on how well they cover the material to be taught. I am speaking of a study on how the educational approach to some subject had changed over the decades. There is nothing as revealing as examining a text from the '50's, 60's, 70's ... today to understand how instructional strategies change as content changes.

Well... actually, I'm old enough that I myself actually *used* the science texts from the '50s, '60s, and '70s!

So, yes, in effect I have done the study you refer to.

I lived through the changes in science you describe.

And, no, the conclusion of my study is not what you suggest.

I take it you are not a scientist?

The mass media take a gee-whiz approach to science that suggests that we are constantly proving accepted, established science wrong all over the place.

Like most reporting in the mass media (do "journalists" ever get anything right?), that is wrong.

The best established facts of science -- the heliocentric theory, the gene theory of inheritance, the great antiquity of the earth, the atomic theory, the theory of evolution, etc. -- have not been and will not be overthrown. That is simply a myth.

We gain new knowledge, we extend past knowledge. Yes.

But science is not as changeable or as vulnerable as the mass media suggest.

I know that non-scientists, thanks to the mass media and our abysmally poor education system, do not understand this.

Again, this is one more reason that I strongly urge everyone to get your kids out of the public schools and homeschool them.

You also wrote:
>But let's visit you side of the fence. I have found scientists less engaging and more intolerant of alternate theories.

Absolutely, and we are proud of it!

Again, it is a myth that science is some tolerant, liberal system that takes all ideas seriously. On the contrary, since its inception, the purpose of science has been to demolish alternative idea systems as quickly and as decisively as possible.

Science is a bulldozer that runs roughshod over alternative belief systems such as astrology, religion, homeopathy, etc.

That ruthlessness towards all alternative systems of understanding reality is, quite frankly, what attracted many of us to science in the first place. We wish to see a world utterly bereft of superstition, of any comforting faith, of all the lies that give "meaning" to life.

I think we have already largely succeeded at that. In the new integrated global culture that is emerging, there is no chance that the globe will be united be Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc.

The one system of thought that is accepted in India as well as Denmark, in China as well as Brazil, is science.

Science uber alles.

All the best,

Dave

Survey: Churches Losing Youths Long Before College

PhysicistDave »

Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:14 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

RevShnorrRocks wrote to me:
>The unbridgeable gap is between Biblical inerrancy and science. The existence of Christian scientists (with a small "s") indicates that the gap you describe is bridgeable.

No, not really. I was pretty careful to indicate that I was referring to Christians who accept the traditional doctrines as presented in, say, the Nicene creed. In that sense of "Christian," the issue is not simply Biblical inerrancy. Anyone who accepts the Nicene creed is committed, for example, to belief in the Virgin Birth, whether or not they accept full Biblical inerrancy. The Virgin Birth does contradict modern science.

Now, of course, I know that there are people who call themselves Christians (Reverend Jack Good, for example, the author and retired United Church of Christ pastor) whose views are, in some ways, more militantly atheistic and materialistic than my own. That's why I was careful to specify that by "Christian" I meant Nicene Christians.

That is, after all, the traditional use of the word: I think that it is fair for me to stipulate that I am using the word in that way, even if others choose to use it differently.

As to whether the existence of Christian scientists shows that this gap is bridgeable, I'm afraid I disagree. As you know, repeated studies have shown that very few scientists at the highest level believe in God at all (only 7 % of members of the NAS, for example).

On this issue, I frankly agree with Ken Ham: mainstream scientists who claim to believe in traditional Nicene Christianity are being inconsistent if not intentionally dishonest: again, the Virgin Birth is an obvious touchstone.

You also wrote:
>God is the only possible judge of a "true Christian"

Well, since God does not exist, I suppose that sort of leaves it up to us humans, eh?

At any rate, I will leave the "Who is a true Christian?" question to you Christians. I truly do not care.

I do care about the fact that traditional Christian doctrines as enunciated in the Nicene creed are obviously inconsistent with modern, established science.

I am greatly cheered to see that the "mainstream" or "liberal" denominations that wish to waffle on this issue are dying out, more rapidly than I would have hoped forty years ago when I was a kid. I think it can only be healthy for both believers and non-believers to honestly face the contradictions between traditional Christian teachings and modern science.

(As it happens, I frankly rather like fundamentalists and evangelicals personally, too! I generally find "mainstream" liberal Christians to be less open, engaging people than evangelicals. Indeed, I have often seen much more real tolerance among evangelicals than among "liberal" Christians.)

Dave

Largest Christian Groups Report Membership Decline

PhysicistDave »

Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

pvariel,

The software on this site does not seem to accept "smart" quotes and "smart" apostrophes. I think this is what is messing up your posts.

If you did a cut-and-paste from MSWord, for example, it brings in smart quotes and apostrophes.

Hope that helps.

Dave

Survey: Churches Losing Youths Long Before College

PhysicistDave »

Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show As a militant "New Atheist," I take great heart from this article. There is indeed an unbridgeable gap between Christianity and modern, established science. By all means, let us have the churches teach "science" that disagrees with the proven conclusions of the established scientific community. Let everyone understand that you truly do have to choose between Christ and established, mainstream science. If it comes to that, I think most people will, rightly, dump Christ. But, by all means, let us make clear to everyone what the real choice is: Darwin and Einstein vs. Christ. Let them freely decide. In a strange way, New Atheists and true Christians are on the same side here: we all want people to realize that waffling does not cut it, that they really must make a choice. Old-fashioned agnostics/atheists (such as Stephen Jay Gould) and old-line "mainstream" Christians are being deceptive in pretending that modern established science and traditional Christianity are consistent. Incidentally, I am homeschooling my kids to see to it that they get a strong scientific, atheistic, Christ-free education. I urge everyone to take their kids out of the public schools and take responsibility for their own children's education. David H. Miller, Ph.D. in Sacramento hide