Could you list the books of the Bible you've read?

<In fact, most just take the easy route and stick with what they're indoctrinated with as a child, Christians included.>

Sure, in the Old Testament I've read most of Genesis, and bits here and there of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Kings. In the New Testament I've read bits of all of the books, but all of none of them.

<Yes, although the scientists tend to be indoctrinated later in life.>

I just disagree. I would be much more inclined (and obligated) to believe a miracle that I witnessed myself than a miracle witnessed and reported to me by someone else. That is particularly true if the witness reported the miracle centuries ago and every other potential witness is dead and no evidence of it remains. There are reports of miracles all the time. Personally, I have strong doubts about all of them.

But again, I think you've got the cart before the horse. I think people accept the divinity of Christ *before* they accept the miracles, not the other way around and you propose.

<OCF: I've had the discussion [about how to interpret] and it is about as long as the Isner-Mahut match. The factors themselves tend to be self serving, which is just human nature.>

Why not evaluate the factors based on their own merits, rather than make assumptions about the self serving motives of its proponents?

<OCF: What passage would plainly indicate the sun orbits the earth?>

I don't think any of them do. But this is only thanks to understanding obtained by science, and my willingness to include scientific understanding into the reasoning process of Biblical interpretation.

Thus, I accept that if a passage, when interpreted literally, appears to disagree with science, I may have reason to question the validity of the literal interpretation.

However, there are those who insist on literal interpretations, and among them are geocentrists who cite Joshua 10:12-13:

<12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon." 13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.>

They argue: "The Lord plainly gave a command to what? The sun and the moon! What was that command? To stop moving! What plainly obeyed? The sun and the moon!"

<OCF: What Hebrew scholars recognize that chronology?>

Not sure "chronology" is the right word, but never mind.

I think your question is irrelevant, since the point was that many people once held geocentric beliefs due to a too-literal interpretation of the Bible. However, out of interest, I googled and an answer in Wikipedia:

<Of the various Jewish denominations, only a small minority of Orthodox Jews, particularly some followers of the Lubavitcher Rebbe maintain a geocentric model of the universe, based on the aforementioned Biblical verses [*] and their interpretation of Maimonides to the effect that he ruled that the earth is orbited by the sun>

[*] Here are a couple of the "aforementioned" verses:

I Chronicles 16:30 - "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

What happens at the judgment is not our concern. Our obligation to unbelievers is to treat them as we would like to be treated ourselves. I would think this includes kindness, justice, respect, and mercy. Instead, you give them accusations and you make assumptions about their motives (e.g. <I think that accounts for 90% plus of those who don't believe.>). What business is it of yours to judge those outside the church?

1 Christians are money-grubbing:
2. Christians are corrupt hypocrites:
3. Christians are gullible:
4. Christians are ignorant:
5. Christians are hostile:
6. The impression that the Bible is incompatible with science:

No, those were points about Christians judging those *inside* the church. That is, Christians may judge another Christian (or at least one who claims to be) when he/she acts in a manner that brings disgrace to Christianity.

<OCF: You asked a question, I honestly answered it, and now you have a problem with me and judge me. Not a bad day's work.>>

What -- just because you honestly answer a question means that your answer is immune to criticism?

1) Source please. Earlier I heard 85% from <playground player>.

2) Is it atheist or agnostic? The two clearly have different implications, and in the past you have lumped them together.

3) Even within the category of "atheist" you'll find a broad range of opinions on what that means. Many scientists who declare themselves atheist remain agnostic on the creation of the universe and its physical laws, or even consider 'God' the embodiment of those laws. They just don't believe that there's some higher purpose / afterlife. This is the problem with lumping people into such narrow categories. But then you'd know that if you spent any time at all actually talking to scientists rather than just reading sensationalist reports of what they supposedly think. Now, do you care to fess up to *your* occupation so I can start pillorying it with meaningless statistics and insulting generalizations?

<Switching: What would be enough to change your mind on <that> issue? After all, we're never going to get 100% guaranteed authentic videotape from the vicinity of Jesus' grave ~2000 years ago. (Unless time machines that take you back two millennia are actually possible, which I doubt.)>

I am not sure why that last 5%, 85 or 90, is important enough for you to cite, but that's fine.

2. <OCF: And yet over 90% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences identify themselves as atheist <<or>> agnostic. But, we've been through this>

<whatthefat: Is it atheist <<or>> agnostic? The two clearly have different implications, and in the past you have lumped them together.>

If you want to suggest I don't understand the difference....

3. <whatthefat: Even within the category of "atheist" you'll find a broad range of opinions on what that means. Many scientists who declare themselves atheist remain agnostic on the creation of the universe and its physical laws, or even consider 'God' the embodiment of those laws. They just don't believe that there's some higher purpose / afterlife. This is the problem with lumping people into such narrow categories. But then you'd know that if you spent any time at all actually talking to scientists rather than just reading sensationalist reports of what they supposedly think.>

I knew all that. Really. But it's fine to inform others who don't know but are reading this forum. I guess your anecdotal evidence trumps anything else. Maybe you could write up a peer reviewed journal article along the lines of "Whatthefat's Personal Experiences with Scientists and Their Religious Beliefs" I work for the Postal Service. Might find a few more shootings than average.

Interesting.

With an implication meaning that those with a wider horizon should go to heaven(s).

I am not sure why that last 5%, 85 or 90, is important enough for you to cite, but that's fine.>

That link shows that 7% of scientists believe in a God, 21% are agnostic, and <72%> don't believe in a God. Moreover I would question whether "existence of a personal God" has the same meaning as "existence of a God".

<If you want to suggest I don't understand the difference....>

Well, I at least think that you don't understand why the distinction is important if you consider it appropriate to lump them together for the purposes of arguing against my point that <Science is not a moral code, nor does it say anything about the existence of God>.

<I knew all that. Really.>

Great. Then it should be patently obvious to you that the above study is insensitive to any such nuances.

<I guess a statistician would have a pretty high confidence level in numbers like this.>

You're missing my point altogether - statistical confidence has nothing to do with causation, as anyone with a STAT101 background ought to know. Fat people almost all snore - therefore snoring causes obesity? You posted that ~90% of scientists are agnostics/atheists in response to my comment that <Science is not a moral code, nor does it say anything about the existence of God>. You're essentially arguing that:

(a) Scientists are largely non-believers.
(b) Therefore science has replaced religion.
(c) Therefore science is a moral code and is in contradiction with the existence of God.

But it is not allowed to stop there. Since the 18th century all kinds of villains have tried to use "Science"--note the quotes, and the upper case--as a substitute for God: French revolutionaries, Marxist-Leninists, humanists, Nazis, and so on. For them--or, more accurately, for their audience--Science is obviously something much, much more than a means of investigating nature.

An idol is something created by human hands, which human beings then worship. It's their way of putting themselves in place of God: whoever controls the idol worshipped by everybody else is, for practical purposes, a god. This kind of "Science" is a human creation which is held up to the masses as the way to earthly paradise. "Just give us the power, all the power--we're the experts, we know what we're doing--and we'll make life sooo good for you..."

Please note that I am not accusing you, or <YouRang>, or anybody else here of promoting that vision of science. Nevertheless, that vision has had a lot to do with shaping the history of the last 150 years or so.

That may reflect badly on the people who do that, but it imputes no evil upon the thing they idolize, does it?

As <whatthefat> says, science itself (apart from what good or bad things people might do with it) is a means of investigation. It has proven to be very successful at helping us understand nature. As such, it has earned a generally favorable reputation which naturally caused it to gain credibility to many people.

<Nevertheless, that vision [of science] has had a lot to do with shaping the history of the last 150 years or so.>

So has "that vision" of economics, politics, and religion (to name a few). There is nothing special about science, or even about the last 150 years for that matter.

<BTW... When did this whole discussion start? How did it get started?>

With this post:

<Feb-26-10 OhioChessFan: Apparently the old primordial soup theory of life has been given up as a lost cause. So to review, for 80 years, the evolutionists were wrong, and the creationists were right. I'm not holding my breath waiting for the <<Exalted Scientists to apologize for lying>> to generations of school children. On the bright side, <<this site is full of the brainwashed students>> they managed to confuse. >

With this, we observe a Christian casting insults upon the majority of scientists, as well as a great many of us here at chessgames.com. I gather that he still stands by these insults.

BTW, the type of views exhibited by <OhioChessFan> in that post and throughout this debate contribute heavily to the generally UNfavorable reputation of Christianity, which naturally causes it to LOSE credibility for many people.

Yes, although none that I know of who had been given a death penalty, had it imposed, conducted by Roman soldiers, and witnessed by their enemies.

<plenty of cases of people presumed dead turning out to be alive,>

I realize you're making a list of sort of analogous points, but this one isn't close. I think you could have skipped this and the list would have lost no weight.

<plenty of cases of people actually dying and somebody else claiming their identity,>

Not when the person died in full view of many witnesses, a military contingent conducting the death sentence, and a number of enemies watching the proceedings.

<plenty of cases of religious figures making up stories about other religious figures (or themselves) and successfully deceiving the public,>

Yes, that happens far too often. I think a resurrection is in a class of its own and on that basis, this point isn't really analgous. And let one of those religious figures start giving sight to the blind, etc, and I'll pay a whole lot of attention to them.

<and zero confirmed cases of actual resurrection >

The purpose of miraculous events was to prove to man that certain people were sent by God, spoke for God, etc. I am at a loss how someone could prove that short of doing something beyond the natural capabilities of man and proving their divinely given powers.

<unless you're willing to count some of the better achievements of modern medical science). >

Some stuff we take for granted today is amazing. I know this is just another point in a list and don't think you meant it to be taken as contextually relevant as the other points.

<The actual supposed act of a dead Jesus suddenly coming to life had - as I'm sure you know - a grand total of zero eyewitnesses; nobody even <claims> to have seen it happen. >

I would be shocked to discover one person who made that their objection to the resurrection account. What are we to think. Joe says, "You know, I read about Jesus, believe he performed miracles, was put to death, and many of his apostles who could likewise perform miracles, including raising the dead, claimed to have seen Jesus repeatedly after he rose from the dead. But they never said they saw the moment of resurrection itself. I guess I don't believe it happened because of that."

<Yet somehow you, two thousand years later, are able to say this particular case was a genuine resurrection and not any of the other possibilities, with enough confidence to call it an established fact.>

If a person who denies the God described in the Bible, but says the existential karma of the pine trees on the solstice is their God, should they be labelled an atheist? I think people understand how the words are used and you're drawing a line out of touch with reality.

<You're missing my point altogether - statistical confidence has nothing to do with causation, as anyone with a STAT101 background ought to know. Fat people almost all snore - therefore snoring causes obesity? You posted that ~90% of scientists are agnostics/atheists in response to my comment that <Science is not a moral code, nor does it say anything about the existence of God>. You're essentially arguing that:

(a) Scientists are largely non-believers.
(b) Therefore science has replaced religion.
(c) Therefore science is a moral code and is in contradiction with the existence of God.>