Alleluia.
You have made him little less than the angels,
and crowned him with glory and honor.
You have given him rule over the works of your hands, putting all things under his feet.
O Lord, our God, how wonderful your name in all the earth!

Alleluia.
All sheep and oxen,
yes, and the beasts of the field,
The birds of the air, the fishes of the sea,
and whatever swims the paths of the seas.
O Lord, our God, how wonderful your name in all the earth!

No, my objective is to show there is more than one way to establish truth. That is, eyewitness testimony may establish truth that science could not possibly establish.>

We actually don't disagree regarding your stated objective. We disagree regarding its relevance to the religion vs. natural science battle.

~~~~~~

<OhioChessFan: <YouRang: Of course, you know that I regard this analogy as having nothing at all to do with the religion vs. science battle.>

I think it has everything to do with it.>

Again, here is your analogy: <If the CSI team concludes with 51% certainty that Suspect A commited a crime, while 100 eyewitnesses affirm Suspect B commited the crime, should Science conclude Suspect A committed the crime?>

I am willing to give my reasons for why I think this analogy is irrelevant to the religion vs. natural science battle:

1. Your "51%" appears to be a number you pulled out of a hat.

2. There are NO eyewitnesses to attest to matters of natural science, let alone 100 (another number from the hat?).

3. Natural science is not like a criminal case where a final verdict is ever reached, let alone within a the scope of an investigation and trial.

4. The religion vs. science debate isn't really a dichotomy (i.e. Suspect A or Suspect B). On the religion side, there are many religions, and various interpretations within any one religion. On the science side, there is no firm commitment to any one idea. For example, if scientists were ever to conclude that evolution were false, they would seek a different natural explanation.

So, what are your reasons for thinking this analogy "has everything to do" with religion vs. natural science?

~~~~~~~

I notice that you didn't respond to my claim that your position is inconsistent (here: OhioChessFan chessforum)

You've dropped in on the debate rather a long way in. It has not been suggested that one cannot be a religious scientist. On the contrary, it has been acknowledged multiple times that there are religious scientists, and there is nothing wrong with such a stance - science doesn't attempt to answer questions such as 'Why did the Universe begin', or 'Is there a God?'.

I'm afraid you are coming in late. I've made the point numerous times that there are many scientists who are religious, and this itself is not the source of conflict.

However, there are instances where religion promotes a position that is firmly opposed to the prevailing view of natural science. That opposition is what refer to as the "religion vs. science battle".

<Evolution is as much of a religion and requires as much faith (I would argue more) to believe in as any (or most) religions.>

And I wouldn't even bother arguing with you about that because my own purpose in this debate is not really to argue specifically about evolution (or the "young universe" idea for that matter).

My purpose is to argue that Christians are wrong when they accuse the vast majority of scientists of being dishonest.

That accusation is a continuation of similar battles religion has lost to science in the past. As with those past battles, it amounts to an entirely unjust and false accusation that does great damage to the reputation of Christianity and even the Bible.

BTW, I consider <OhioChessFan> to be a friend here at cg.com. He has been very gracious about hosting this debate and maintaining a civil atmosphere. I wouldn't be involved in this debate except that I think his position against science is unjust and harmful (although injustice and harm are not his intentions).

Sad to say, I would guess the % is pretty low for professing Christians. The point is you suggested scientists have reviewed the evidence of the Bible, this being a representative example: <whatthefat: Any scientist reviewing that evidence would conclude that B is the most likely suspect> You raise a valid point per the other religious texts and I can't give a clear delineation of exactly what a person should be able to cite in their knowledge of such.

<John makes it clear that the last supper and crucifixion was the day before the passover - see John 13:1, 13:29, 18:28, and 19:14. The others (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) say these events were on the first day of passover. It's a clear contradiction. You're not actually intending to defend the position that there are no contradictions in the Bible are you?>

Yes.

<Until now, you've not directly addressed the fact that other mythologies are of as much scientific relevance as Christianity.>

To a major degree, all written records have a very limited relevance to scientific examination. They might fill in a major knowledge gap science is completely unable to address, in particular in the field of history.

<One book of the Bible predicting something in another book of the Bible is not what I would consider a useful prediction. Where is the scientific value in that? >

1. Your "51%" appears to be a number you pulled out of a hat.>

It was an extreme, the mere sliver over 50%, used to make the hypothetical hone in on the key issue.

<2. There are NO eyewitnesses to attest to matters of natural science, let alone 100 (another number from the hat?). >

The witnesses who attest to the accuracy/truthfulness of the Bible in part attest to the accuracy/truthfulness in whole.

<3. Natural science is not like a criminal case where a final verdict is ever reached, let alone within a the scope of an investigation and trial.>

Natural science in certain circumstances should be considerant of historical writings, in partiuclar those areas they can't reproduce the events under consideration. I raised the 51% issue to at least draw SOME baseline for you admitting that the observation of unbiased observers does have SOME value to the scientist, particularly in an area where there's some issue of doubt. Until today, I did not see any suggestion whatsoever you would agree.

<4. The religion vs. science debate isn't really a dichotomy (i.e. Suspect A or Suspect B). On the religion side, there are many religions, and various interpretations within any one religion. On the science side, there is no firm commitment to any one idea. For example, if scientists were ever to conclude that evolution were false, they would seek a different natural explanation.>

I don't agree with the last statment for the most part.

<So, what are your reasons for thinking this analogy "has everything to do" with religion vs. natural science? >

Does that mean 'no comment'?>

<You're not actually intending to defend the position that there are no contradictions in the Bible are you?

Yes.>

Wow. Okay then, you can start with John getting the day of Jesus's crucifixion wrong.

<To a major degree, all written records have a very limited relevance to scientific examination. They might fill in a major knowledge gap science is completely unable to address, in particular in the field of history.>

This being the case, I really fail to see how you can then accuse scientists of being dishonest in not using the word of the Bible as scientific evidence.

<What would you consider "useful"? I will note you once more changed the terms of discussion since you didn't insist on "useful" before. Really, you asked for <one example of a Biblical prediction that has come to pass since it was written.> and now that I have, you add "useful" and apparently "both of which are recorded outside the pages of the Bible".>

I could just as well replace "useful" with "meaningful". It is hardly surprising for a 'prophecy' to be fulfilled by people who may have read it. It obviously can no longer be considered a prediction if the very act of making the prediction influences the later event. Besides, it was not even falsifiable. If I say, "The great man David shall rule the world", I need only wait until a US president named David is elected, and bingo - with 20:20 hindsight, I made a great prediction.

<Please set forth all evidence that life comes from non-life.>

Well, for one who insists on making comparisons to the fields of History and Law, you are certainly making a colossal leap of logic that would flunk History 101 or get laughed out of any courtroom. :-\

But perhaps I'm at least able grasp your train of thought:

I take it that your "100 eyewitnesses" refers to any of the Bible writers (e.g. Moses, Samuel, Luke), and the "historical evidence" refers to any events that they saw.

And somehow, the testimony of these eyewitnesses about those events also constitutes testimony confirming events that they did not see, and did not even say they saw, such as the creation.

Even Moses, who did write about creation, did not see it. And yet, not only should his account be accepted, but your specific interpretation of his account should be accepted as the correct one (even though it's unconfirmable by science, and you didn't see it either).

Above all, you seem to think it is reasonable to expect scientists to accept not only that the stated testimony of these witnesses is credible, but also that your interpretation of their 'implied' testimony (that which they didn't see or state) is also credible.

Beyond this, you think it is reasonable that scientists should not reject it even though it describes miracles, and science does not accept miracles.

I think you would state it something like this:

You think there are good reasons to believe the Bible is true, for example on the historical testimony concerning Jesus and prophetic evidence. Also, you believe in God, and that the Bible is his unified product. You see that later books of the Bible refer to older books, and older books are in harmony with newer ones. Therefore, you have accepted the whole of the Bible as true -- parts by reason, and the rest by faith.

Since you accept the truthfulness of the Bible, you are willing to accept even the miraculous claims within it, and have no trouble accepting such miracles because they are not beyond God's power.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with any of this.

But I do have a problem with your expectations that science should respect the accounts of the Bible.

Believing in God & the Bible is a personal matter, and it really has nothing to do with whether or not the person is a scientist.

If a person doesn't respect the Bible, it is absurd to expect him or her to come to the same conclusions about it that you do, and it's absurd to assume that his/her dismissal of your conclusions implies some dishonesty. If you do make those assumptions, it's not about the person disrespecting the Bible, it's about you disrespecting the person.

Your accusations against scientists are particularly indefensible since you have essentially issued a 'no comment' reply for two of the foundational issues on which you base your case:

(1) The undue confidence you place on your *interpretation* of Genesis (here: OhioChessFan chessforum)

Alleluia.
The stone which the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone.
By the LORD has this been done;
it is wonderful in our eyes.
This is the day the LORD has made;
let us be glad and rejoice in it.
The stone rejected by the builders has become the cornerstone.

Alleluia.
O LORD, grant salvation! <live long> O LORD, grant prosperity! <and prosper> Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD;
we bless you from the house of the LORD.
The LORD is God, and he has given us light.
The stone rejected by the builders has become the cornerstone.

You'll have to be more specific.

<This being the case, I really fail to see how you can then accuse scientists of being dishonest in not using the word of the Bible as <<scientific>> evidence. >

I have never said they should. Repeat 1000 times. You keep adding the word "scientific" to the equation. Please stop.

<I could just as well replace "useful" with "meaningful". It is hardly surprising for a 'prophecy' to be fulfilled by people who may have read it. It obviously can no longer be considered a prediction if the very act of making the prediction influences the later event. Besides, it was not even falsifiable. If I say, "The great man David shall rule the world", I need only wait until a US president named David is elected, and bingo - with 20:20 hindsight, I made a great prediction.>

You'd be wrong so far. If you included the fact that "United States President" David would oversee the overthrow of the Palestinians, and oversee the building of a temple in Jerusalem, then you'd have a great prophecy on your hands.

<There is no direct evidence to support any particular theory of how life evolved from non-life. What can be inferred is that there was a time when there was no life, and now there is life. What happened in between remains a topic of scientific debate, and no particular theory has been accepted.>

And somehow, the testimony of these eyewitnesses about those events also constitutes testimony confirming events that they did not see, and did not even say they saw, such as the creation.

<Even Moses, who did write about creation, did not see it. And yet, not only should his account be accepted, but your specific interpretation of his account should be accepted as the correct one (even though it's unconfirmable by science, and you didn't see it either).>

Yes.

<Above all, you seem to think it is reasonable to expect scientists to accept not only that the stated testimony of these witnesses is credible, but also that your interpretation of their 'implied' testimony (that which they didn't see or state) is also credible. >

No, but I'd be happy if they gave it some consideration, and at a bare minimum wouldn't run as far as possible from it.

<Beyond this, you think it is reasonable that scientists should not reject it even though it describes miracles, and science does not accept miracles.>

Non sequitir. I guess anyone else but scientists should be okay with the Bible.

<And if scientists don't fall in line with your expectations, then you think you have justifiable cause to accuse them of dishonesty. >

I can take it.

<But I'm trying to get you to see your arguments from the standpoint of the scientists that you accuse. I think you would state it something like this:

You think there are good reasons to believe the Bible is true, for example on the historical testimony concerning Jesus and prophetic evidence. Also, you believe in God, and that the Bible is his unified product. You see that later books of the Bible refer to older books, and older books are in harmony with newer ones. Therefore, you have accepted the whole of the Bible as true -- parts by reason, and the rest by faith. >

All by reason, but that's pretty well stated otherwise.

<Since you accept the truthfulness of the Bible, you are willing to accept even the miraculous claims within it, and have no trouble accepting such miracles because they are not beyond God's power.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with any of this. >

Okay.

<But I do have a problem with your expectations that science should respect the accounts of the Bible.>

I think they should consider them. They don't do that.

<Believing in God & the Bible is a personal matter, and it really has nothing to do with whether or not the person is a scientist.>

I agree.

<If a person doesn't respect the Bible, it is absurd to expect him or her to come to the same conclusions about it that you do, and it's absurd to assume that his/her dismissal of your conclusions implies some dishonesty.>

Rejecting truth ipso facto implies dishonesty.

<If you do make those assumptions, it's not about the person disrespecting the Bible, it's about you disrespecting the person. >

It's about disrepecting their position.

<Your accusations against scientists are particularly indefensible since you have essentially issued a 'no comment' reply for two of the foundational issues on which you base your case:

(1) The undue confidence you place on your *interpretation* of Genesis (here: OhioChessFan chessforum)

(2) The inconsistency in your position (here: OhioChessFan chessforum)>

John makes it very clear that the last supper and crucifixion occurred the day before passover.

<John 19:14> - And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour.

None of the other gospels agree with John on this. Compare:

<Matthew 26:17-19> - Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?" He said, "Go into the city to a certain man and say to him, 'The Teacher says, My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.'" And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover.

<Mark 14:12-16> - And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?" And he sent two of his disciples and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says, Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us." And the disciples set out and went to the city and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.

<Luke 22:7-8> - Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it."

<I have never said they should. Repeat 1000 times. You keep adding the word "scientific" to the equation. Please stop.>

Then what are they doing that is dishonest? I'm as puzzled as <YouRang> with regard to your position. You seem to have accepted that scientists should not appeal miracles in their theories, nor should they use the evidence presented in the Bible. So ... ??

<You'd be wrong so far. If you included the fact that "United States President" David would oversee the overthrow of the Palestinians, and oversee the building of a temple in Jerusalem, then you'd have a great prophecy on your hands.>

Can you show me where that was said clearly and unambiguously, and what evidence there is to suggest that:

(a) Cyrus himself was not aware of this prophecy.

(b) That book of the Bible was actually written prior to the life of Cyrus.

<And this is exactly the kind of claim I have a problem with. Here's how I see it: "We have no evidence that life came from non-life. We can't show any experiement that even suggests it is possible. Instead of admitting that our position might be fundamentally and fatally flawed by that, we simply assume it in, and accuse those who oppose us of not being as educated as us.">