At what point does a religious claim become a scientific one?

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I'm curious as to what people think the point that a religious claim can no longer be hidden behind the curtain of faith, but is instead a scientific claim that is within the bounds of science to prove true or false.

Probably the best example I can think of is the fundimentalist version of Noah's Flood. The claim that in the recent past there was a global flood is something that we would have geologic evidence for if true thus, is not a simple claim of faith like heaven, hell, God, or souls.

I would like to see some religious people respond to this as well as atheists and agnostics.

[brodski]

I'm curious as to what people think the point that a religious claim can no longer be hidden behind the curtain of faith, but is instead a scientific claim that is within the bounds of science to prove true or false.

Probably the best example I can think of is the fundimentalist version of Noah's Flood. The claim that in the recent past there was a global flood is something that we would have geologic evidence for if true thus, is not a simple claim of faith like heaven, hell, God, or souls.

I would like to see some religious people respond to this as well as atheists and agnostics.
Simple, if the claim is abbout soemthing which acts on physical reality, then it is testable by science (at least in theory), if it is a claim abbout something other than physical reality, then it is without the scope of science.

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm curious as to what people think the point that a religious claim can no longer be hidden behind the curtain of faith, but is instead a scientific claim that is within the bounds of science to prove true or false.

Probably the best example I can think of is the fundimentalist version of Noah's Flood. The claim that in the recent past there was a global flood is something that we would have geologic evidence for if true thus, is not a simple claim of faith like heaven, hell, God, or souls.

I would like to see some religious people respond to this as well as atheists and agnostics.Well we have shown the global flood claim to be false..

It's real easy. Not enough water.. And there are other problems.

Either all the salt water fish would have died, or the fresh water varieties.. We still have both, and no evidence that either suffered a temporary catastrophic demise.

I'm hardly a scientist, yet it is so easy ..

[drkitten]

I'm curious as to what people think the point that a religious claim can no longer be hidden behind the curtain of faith, but is instead a scientific claim that is within the bounds of science to prove true or false.

More or less as brodski says. When a religious claim becomes testable, science can test it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Same goes for any "paranormal" claim. If you don't want your favorite idea tested, don't make no physical claims.

~~ Paul

[Tormac]

If one really believes in miracles, then no, Science can not be used to test or measure religion.

The global flood is a good example. One can show that there is no physical evidence for a global flood, but if one accepts the supernatural nature of miracles, the lack of evidence is not evidence of the lack of a flood.

If there is a god that could cause a global flood, presumably he did it by magical means. Once accepts that God conjured a flood covering all of the earth, one can certainly accept that God also conjured extra water to cover everything, and that he changed the nature of fresh water fish, so that they could live in salt water. Shoot, if a god could do all that, it would be a snap to remove the extra water and cover up any other evidence. If god can use magic to change the laws of nature, then the scientific method can not be used to measure or test him. There is no standard of evidence that can not be circumvented by saying "God used magic to make it so".

Of course, once one evokes a miracle to explain something, it certainly is not "scientific" by any definition.

I've always wondered why some religious people try to use science to explain how miracles could have happened. If one finds natural reasons why the waters parted for the Israelites, for example, it undercuts the divinity of God. It seems like a catch-22 situation for Theists, for them to get their cosmology taken seriously by a secular world, they may try to explain it using scientific means, but the more they are successful at doing this, the less room there is for God's divinity.

The very nature of God as supernatural means that he can not be limited, measured, or tested by science. Of course, by the same token, it is ridiculous to try and use science to "prove" the validity of a religious cosmology. Once miracles can be scientifically proved and explained, they cease to be miraculous.

[Skeptical Greg]

Well said Tormac,

If one believes in miracles, why bother with science?

[drkitten]

If one really believes in miracles, then no, Science can not be used to test or measure religion.

The global flood is a good example. One can show that there is no physical evidence for a global flood, but if one accepts the supernatural nature of miracles, the lack of evidence is not evidence of the lack of a flood.

Well, part of the problem with this is that few theists "really believe in miracles" to the extent that you describe.

What you're really saying is that an omnipotent God who isn't above lying to us is capable of telling lies that we believe. Which is sort of tautological, innit? But more to the point, the sort of God that most people believe in wouldn't lie to us.

Kenneth Miller -- the same Miller who testified for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial, and whose biology textbook to which all other high school biology texts are compared -- has discussed this issue at length in his book Finding Darwin's God. Dr. Miller is himself an ardent theist, who nevertheless believes in evolution. He discusses the sort of God that it would be necessary to have in order to get the traditional Young Earth Creationist view to be true -- planting fossils in rocks, artificially aging isotopes to give the right ratio, creating light in vacant space that just happens to appear to be coming from distant stars, and making all the geological evidence of a global flood disappear leaving untouched and uneroded rock in its place. His point is that that kind of a God is not the one described by Christianity and the Bible.

In order to believe in miracles to that extent, you not only have to disbelieve in science, but also in the Bible. And that's a hard line to hold to -- which is part of why only lunatics tend to hold to it.

[BJQ87]

Well we have shown the global flood claim to be false..

It's real easy. Not enough water.. And there are other problems.

Either all the salt water fish would have died, or the fresh water varieties.. We still have both, and no evidence that either suffered a temporary catastrophic demise.

I'm hardly a scientist, yet it is so easy ..


I doubt these criticisms have shown it to be false.

However I'm not a scientist either and I don't have the time to do my research myself at the moment, I will when I get back from class though.

I'm sure you could find a more biblically accurate, thorough research on the flood, which would probably answer all of your criticisms, here-

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

[Skeptical Greg]

Biblically Accurate ?

Jumbo shrimp anyone ?

[Tormac]

Well, part of the problem with this is that few theists "really believe in miracles" to the extent that you describe.

What you're really saying is that an omnipotent God who isn't above lying to us is capable of telling lies that we believe. Which is sort of tautological, innit? But more to the point, the sort of God that most people believe in wouldn't lie to us.

Kenneth Miller -- the same Miller who testified for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial, and whose biology textbook to which all other high school biology texts are compared -- has discussed this issue at length in his book Finding Darwin's God. Dr. Miller is himself an ardent theist, who nevertheless believes in evolution. He discusses the sort of God that it would be necessary to have in order to get the traditional Young Earth Creationist view to be true -- planting fossils in rocks, artificially aging isotopes to give the right ratio, creating light in vacant space that just happens to appear to be coming from distant stars, and making all the geological evidence of a global flood disappear leaving untouched and uneroded rock in its place. His point is that that kind of a God is not the one described by Christianity and the Bible.

In order to believe in miracles to that extent, you not only have to disbelieve in science, but also in the Bible. And that's a hard line to hold to -- which is part of why only lunatics tend to hold to it.

While I've never read Dr. Miller's work, I find it difficult to swallow that the God of the Bible is not the sort who could allow people to be deceived to test their faith. This same deity allowed Satan to heap all kinds of pain onto Job, to prove a point between the two of them. I can see some people hold that this deity allows others to be confused, when their faith should be strong enough.

The God of the bible is just as fickle as any Greek god, and it is easy to find passages in the bible that outright contradict each other in both attitude, and literal meaning.

There is really no such thing as the united "Christianity" that I understand Miller to claim existing. From personal experience the gulf between many Protestants and Catholics in the USA is still so wide that practically they are two separate religions.

The same is true as far as the meaning of the bible goes. It is a huge body of writing, spanning centuries of time and scores of authors. It is easy to find conflicting attitudes and values in the Bible, how strange would it be if it was not?

The God of the Bible and the Bible itself is many differing things to many differing churches. Some do hold that faith and miracles are far more valuable than philosophical arguments about theodicy. If, as I understand from your post, Mr. Miller claims to have the one true version of God, faith, and the meaning or the Bible, well his is one voice in a multitude, that are all arguing about what the elephant they have really is.

[drkitten]

While I've never read Dr. Miller's work, I find it difficult to swallow that the God of the Bible is not the sort who could allow people to be deceived to test their faith.

Well, that's certainly your opinion.

On matters of God, all we have to go with is opinion, supported by argument.

I'd advise you to read Dr. Miller's book, though. He's an extremely articulate writer, and does a good job of martialing some of the classic arguments about the nature of God.

I also think that you're allowing your own biases to creep into your evaluation of the theological and philosophical unity of Christianity as a movement. If it's really so diverse, then why the remarkable similarity in creeds? I think you would find it hard to find any substantial number of Christians today -- including Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox -- that disagree with the following statement of faith, for example.


I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried;
and the third day he rose again
according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
and he shall come again, with glory,
to judge both the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Live,
who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son];
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshipped and glorified;
who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

[Pauliesonne]

This guy is a poet.

[Tormac]

Well, that's certainly your opinion.

On matters of God, all we have to go with is opinion, supported by argument.

I'd advise you to read Dr. Miller's book, though. He's an extremely articulate writer, and does a good job of martialing some of the classic arguments about the nature of God.

I also think that you're allowing your own biases to creep into your evaluation of the theological and philosophical unity of Christianity as a movement. If it's really so diverse, then why the remarkable similarity in creeds? I think you would find it hard to find any substantial number of Christians today -- including Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox -- that disagree with the following statement of faith, for example.

(sorry about the topic drift CACTUSJACKmankin)

Thanks for the tip drkitten, I will go out of my way to read some of Dr. Miller.

I suppose I am letting my own personal experiences shape my view of Christian Unity. To be sure I write with only my own voice and opinion. I hope I do not sound like I am attacking one branch of Christianity in favor of another, or sound like I think I am speaking the TRUTH with a capital “T”.

At the same time, my experiences as a member of both a Lutheran church member, and then an Evangelical church member has lead me to hold that there are still a lot of protestants that have not forgiven the Catholic Church its history. I’ve seen differing segments of Christianity unite against a common foe, at the same time I’ve heard in a relatively mild mannered Lutheran church, the Catholic Church denounced as the Whore of Babylon, and a bed of idolatry.

Speaking with Christians about evolution, I’ve noticed the conversations tend to flow towards one of three different directions, either scientists are self-deluded, and out right lying (some seriously do still claim the evils of materialist-humanists), others take the tack that the scientists are wrong, and are mistaken about the nature of things, and faith is a better path to knowledge than science, and the third is an attempt to reconcile science and religion, with a modification to old religious dogma.

I know that not all Christian churches hold faith as higher that science, but I do know that many do. I also question the notion that there is a single orthodoxy in the views of Christianity. The swords and prisons of the Catholic Church could not enforce orthodoxy historically, and there is no compelling force centering religion today.

But I am interested in continuing this conversation drkitten (if you care to). Duty calls me away from my computer for a bit, but I’ll head back in about an hour.

edited-cuz I spell gud

[Meadmaker]

Same goes for any "paranormal" claim. If you don't want your favorite idea tested, don't make no physical claims.

~~ Paul

What about theories that make what might be called "negative predictions?"

Example, when I was growing up, you used to here the term "missing link" a lot. The "missing link" was the then unfound common ancestor between humans and apes. Creationists predicted that the "missing link" would never be found.

So, there they were, making a physical, testable, falsifiable, claim. Their claim was that no fossil would ever be found that fit the "missing link" criteria. So was their claim a scientific one?

And if you assert it was not, compare it to the claim that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is extinct. That sure sounds like a scientific claim to me. But the only evidence for it is that there is no conclusive evidence of the existence of a live Ivory Billed Woodpecker.


(Reports of a live sighting last year are controversial. I've seen the tape, and it is by no means certain that the bird is an Ivory Billed Woodpecker, unfortunately.)

[Tormac]

If I may drkitten, what are the theological troubles about the notion of a jealous, wrathful God, who would allow some to be deceived by the processes of science? I’ve always been fascinated by the debates over theodicy. It seems to me that the trouble with an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent God, is the omni-benevolent part, more so than the omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient parts.

I’ve read discussions trying to reconcile an all powerful, all loving, all knowing god with the pain of this world that is often heaped upon the innocent. Usually, in my experience, these discussions end up putting a limit on God’s omnipotence and omniscience, so that the troubles of predestination are side stepped, and the fact that bad things do happen to good people through no fault of their own is not laid on God’s door. Thus God could be loving, can as powerful as he can be (but not unlimited in power), but it is impossible for him to save every stray human heart, because he is confined to work within a limited sphere. But that seems to me to not be the God of the OT.

It seems to me that it would be more accurate to limit the notion of an all-loving God. God the father of the OT was clearly a vengeful, wrathful god, who had no problem with letting Satan heap pains on Job’s family, to prove a point to Satan. Its been a while since I read it, bit iirc, Job got nothing for his trouble, God just assumed that Job would be happy to be used as a pawn to prove his faith.

God certainly had no love for the Sodomites. Even if the Sodomites were the meanest, most foul tempered folks that lived, I’m willing to bet that if God took them all in hand, and showed them the gates of hell, and explained to them what was going to happen if they did not shape up, they would shape up quick!

Really, who in their right mind would argue with their creator? It seems to me that if God really wanted everyone to follow a particular religion, or even just have people be generally well behaved and not downright vicious to each other, all it would take would be a personal visit to the gates of hell.

But God does seem to be caught up on this faith thing. If there is one thing that is a common theme throughout the Bible, it is the importance of faith. God does seem like the kind of deity who would purposefully make things to test people’s faith.

Maybe I may have to read Dr. Miller. Even though I’ve left the Christian church (and I know I sound a little flip in my posts on the nature of God) I take the topic seriously, and would love to hear your insight, or others, on why God is not the kind of deity that would mess with people’s heads, just to test their faith.

[BJQ87]

Well we have shown the global flood claim to be false..

It's real easy. Not enough water..

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp
-
Either all the salt water fish would have died, or the fresh water varieties.. We still have both, and no evidence that either suffered a temporary catastrophic demise.

-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/fish14.asp

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Answers in Genesis is not exactly a scientific website. Also, how do you explain the absence of geologic evidence for a global flood? Did God erase the evidence? And no, scientists aren't misinterpereting the fossil record. The fossil record is not organized in a flood distributed pattern, it's distributed in a chronological pattern, I think geologists would have noticed that.

[Tormac]

Answers in Genesis is not exactly a scientific website. Also, how do you explain the absence of geologic evidence for a global flood? Did God erase the evidence? And no, scientists aren't misinterpereting the fossil record. The fossil record is not organized in a flood distributed pattern, it's distributed in a chronological pattern, I think geologists would have noticed that.

/TV evangalist voice on

It is clear, the fact that there is no evidence IS the evidence.

God used holy magic!

Just like when he raised Jesus from the dead, or turned the waters of Egypt to blood.

Lets see your mamby pampy science explain holy magic CactusJack!

/TV evangalist voice off

[Gavan]

Linking to the AiG site as a way to validate irrational thought does nothing to show us that you are someone who thinks rationally yourself.

[drkitten]

FOrum wierdness -- ignore.

[drkitten]

If I may drkitten, what are the theological troubles about the notion of a jealous, wrathful God, who would allow some to be deceived by the processes of science?

The fact that one of God's self-described defining attributes is that of being the "Truth."

"I am the way, the truth, and the life." -- John 14:6 (KJV)

Similarly, one of Satan's defining attributes is that of Father of Lies.

The point is not that God would not allow people to be deceived -- but the God who puts fossils in rocks and ages them chemically is not merely "allowing" people to be deceived, but taking an active role in deceiving them.

We are supposed to be intelligent in our following of Christ -- "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16 (KJV). Why would a loving God who commands us to use our intelligence damn us by setting traps for us that we can avoid only by disobeying his commands?


I’ve always been fascinated by the debates over theodicy. It seems to me that the trouble with an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent God, is the omni-benevolent part, more so than the omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient parts.

Oh, yes. God's contradictory attributes have been an immense puzzlement to theologians and source of merriment to atheists for centuries. And the Problem of Evil (or as Lewis described it, the Problem of Pain) has never been satisfactorially solved.

However, although it's perfectly acceptable for atheists to "resolve" the problem by simply disbelieving in God (or by disbelieving in some of His attributes), that option is not typically open to the theists. If you buy into the whole God idea, which of course you don't have to, then the basic cable package includes the Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent channels. Dancing Angels on Heads of Pins is an add-on that you can buy or not, at your discretion.

The Catholic Church has never been able to enforce orthodoxy -- but that's partly because it defines orthodoxy in such a narrow way, and there are so many peripheral beliefs that have been found to be heretical. If you focus only on the heresy trials, the various Christian sects appear to be a twisting, writhing mass of contradictory arguments -- but that's a function of what you focus on. I cited the Nicene Creed as an example of an article of faith universally accepted among the Christian churches --- and it's never seriously been challenged in the nearly 2000 years since it was written. No one seriously denies either the divinity or humanity of Christ anymore without drifting into outright apostacy. I doubt anyone would "deny," for example, the Beatitudes and suggest that the peacemakers aren't really "blessed" or an ideal for which we should strive.

A question to Tormac -- political denunciations aside (since those are really irrelevant), how much do you genuinely know about the doctrines of the Catholic church? Or, to put the same question in a different direction -- what do you consider to be some of the articles of Lutheran faith with which Catholics would disagree? And how central are they really to the practice of Lutheran Christianity?

C.S. Lewis, one of my favorite theological authors, wrote an entire book about the unified aspects of Christianity, and had it vetted prior to publication by a number of different priestly types. You might want to check it out for a more detailed analysis -- it's called Mere Christianity and it's a fairly light read.


But God does seem to be caught up on this faith thing. If there is one thing that is a common theme throughout the Bible, it is the importance of faith. God does seem like the kind of deity who would purposefully make things to test people’s faith.

Well, that God is not adverse to testing faith is canonical. Job is the textbook example. But the point is that there are some kinds of tests that He would find acceptable, and some that He would not, on the basis of what kind of being He is. A being who defines Himself as "the Truth" is not going to be lying to people.

[slingblade]

A religious clam can only become a scientific one by--

Huh? Claim?

Oh.

[Ladewig]

I doubt these criticisms have shown it to be false.

However I'm not a scientist either and I don't have the time to do my research myself at the moment, I will when I get back from class though.

I'm sure you could find a more biblically accurate, thorough research on the flood, which would probably answer all of your criticisms, here-

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

You're joking, right? The site says things like:

Those who accept the eons of time with its fossil accumulation also, perhaps unwittingly, rob the Fall of its serious consequences. They put the fossils, which testify of disease, suffering and death before mankind appeared; before Adam and Eve sinned and brought death and suffering into the world.* In doing this they also undermine the meaning of the death and resurrection of Christ.* Such a scenario also robs God’s description of His finished creation as ‘very good’ of all meaning.

[Tormac]

The fact that one of God's self-described defining attributes is that of being the "Truth."

"I am the way, the truth, and the life." -- John 14:6 (KJV)

Similarly, one of Satan's defining attributes is that of Father of Lies.

The point is not that God would not allow people to be deceived -- but the God who puts fossils in rocks and ages them chemically is not merely "allowing" people to be deceived, but taking an active role in deceiving them.

We are supposed to be intelligent in our following of Christ -- "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16 (KJV). Why would a loving God who commands us to use our intelligence damn us by setting traps for us that we can avoid only by disobeying his commands?




Oh, yes. God's contradictory attributes have been an immense puzzlement to theologians and source of merriment to atheists for centuries. And the Problem of Evil (or as Lewis described it, the Problem of Pain) has never been satisfactorially solved.

However, although it's perfectly acceptable for atheists to "resolve" the problem by simply disbelieving in God (or by disbelieving in some of His attributes), that option is not typically open to the theists. If you buy into the whole God idea, which of course you don't have to, then the basic cable package includes the Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent channels. Dancing Angels on Heads of Pins is an add-on that you can buy or not, at your discretion. . .


Hi drkitten,

Sorry it took a bit to get back to you, my pesky cat tripped my comp’s power strip, and I hade to retype this.

You’ve got some good quotes, and given me a hard question. I hope I can make this an interesting conversation. I’ll take this in bits if you don’t mind drkitten.

I’ll start with John 14:6. Iirc the usual quote of this passage includes the next sentence. Jesus said,

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

Jesus is saying that the need for the forgiveness of sins through the sacrifice of animals was now no longer valid, and the only path to the throne of God the Father (i.e. entrance into heaven) was through his personal sacrifice on the cross. Jesus was not claiming to be truth incarnate in this passage, but claiming to be the true way to eternal life in the here after. I think that you are placing far more importance on the single word truth than the author intended.

As far as the notion of Satan as the Father of Lies, that I agree, that is a common attribute of Satan throughout the text. But that leads one the hard chestnut of who Satan is. While there is the argument that the people in the text were not truly monotheistic early on in the OT, I think it is safe to assume that the orthodox reading is that there is only one God the creator at this point, and that all other supernatural entities are his creation (as opposed to rival Gods, only maybe a little weaker that God the Father).

Much of our view of Satan in the western church, that of the Arch rival of God, a fallen angel just beneath god, who lead a rebellion against the throne of heaven, is more the literary license of Milton than a biblical account. But it is clear that role of tempter is Satan’s. He constantly tries to deceive man into wickedness, through tricks, lies, and troubles. But if Satan is the deceiver, it is only because God has created him and set him up for this role. Satan is God’s cat’spaw throughout the Bible. As I mentioned the book of Job earlier, I will stick with that. God set Satan up to be Job’s tormentor, then allowed Satan to do so. While it was not God that personally tormented Job, it was a being created by God, set up to do so by God, and allowed to do so, again by God.

See the Book of Job, particularly v 7-12

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Job+1&version=9

This relationship between God and Satan is the basic problem with an anthropomorphized monotheism. When it comes down to it, there is only one principal character on the stage, and any drama there in must be played out within that one character. In this case the drama may seem to be between God and Satan, played out for the hearts of man. Only there is no real drama in the script, only a forced melodrama for God between parts of his creation (Satan) combating another part of his creation (mortal man). It is clear from Job that Satan only has the power that God wants him to have (see Job ch1 v 12).

It makes little matter whether Satan is the active deceiver, or God is the active deceiver, because Satan is a creation of God, whose sphere of action is directly controlled by God.

It is rather like those who try to define the mircles of the bible in scientific terms. If they are successful, they may give credence to the posible reality of the bible, but by doing so destroy the mythical significance of the miracle. One can try to force God to be all love, and all truth, and shift the burden of lies and evil onto Satan-he is the obvious vessel for it-but he is also moraly only God's cat'spaw, and so one destroys the mythical value of God.

[Ladewig]

As for the original question, exempla gratis:

This is the burial shroud of Jesus Christ.

[Tormac]

Well I’ll try to get to the rest of your post drkitten ,

You noted that


. . .
The Catholic Church has never been able to enforce orthodoxy -- but that's partly because it defines orthodoxy in such a narrow way, and there are so many peripheral beliefs that have been found to be heretical. If you focus only on the heresy trials, the various Christian sects appear to be a twisting, writhing mass of contradictory arguments -- but that's a function of what you focus on. I cited the Nicene Creed as an example of an article of faith universally accepted among the Christian churches --- and it's never seriously been challenged in the nearly 2000 years since it was written. No one seriously denies either the divinity or humanity of Christ anymore without drifting into outright apostacy. I doubt anyone would "deny," for example, the Beatitudes and suggest that the peacemakers aren't really "blessed" or an ideal for which we should strive.

A question to Tormac -- political denunciations aside (since those are really irrelevant), how much do you genuinely know about the doctrines of the Catholic church? Or, to put the same question in a different direction -- what do you consider to be some of the articles of Lutheran faith with which Catholics would disagree? And how central are they really to the practice of Lutheran Christianity?

C.S. Lewis, one of my favorite theological authors, wrote an entire book about the unified aspects of Christianity, and had it vetted prior to publication by a number of different priestly types. You might want to check it out for a more detailed analysis -- it's called Mere Christianity and it's a fairly light read.

Well, that God is not adverse to testing faith is canonical. Job is the textbook example. But the point is that there are some kinds of tests that He would find acceptable, and some that He would not, on the basis of what kind of being He is. A being who defines Himself as "the Truth" is not going to be lying to people.

Well I suppose the breadth and significance of the conflicts over orthodoxy within the branches of Christianity does depend on how one defines orthodoxy. I agree that the differing branches of Christianity do not go so far as to deny the human, and yet divine quality of Jesus. The branch that grew from Judaic tradition that did that, of course is not Christian by definition, but Islam.

But still the struggles within just the Western Christian Church were certainly serious enough to be ones of outright terror, brutality, and death within its own dissenting members.

I’ll admit that I find it difficult to talk about the differences within the Western Christian church without discussing politics, since the Church was, in essence, a political body, more than a spiritual one at that time. It was the only over arching political body in a divided Europe, and indeed. I will also say that I know more of the Catholic Churches history, than I do its doctrines.

But then the troubles that lead to a score of attempts by reformers, both mystics from without and bishops from within, were more problems with politics than with dissatisfaction with doctrine.

In my lay opinion, the schism of the church in the 14th century, and then the inability of both sides to come to any means of resolution beyond force, doomed the unity of the Catholic Church, and ensured that eventually there would be a successful split. The schism had its roots in politics, bad blood between the French Kings, and the popes who had become beholding to them, and the Roman cardinals who wanted to retake the seat of the church to Rome, and away from Avignon.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this topic, as you want to talk about church doctrines, and I want to talk about political maneuverings and mercenary captains. The problems of the Catholic Church had their roots, not in church doctrine, but in the Churches actions, primarily its attempt to hold onto the political and economic power that it had previously enjoyed.

The selling of indulgences, the persecution of heretics, the attempt to silence the advancement of science when it disagreed with Church doctrine, the Crusades to try to destroy the branch of the Judaic tradition that did denounce the divinity of Christ, all were political failings more so than doctrinal ones. The church could not give up its political power in Europe, even when the slow rise of Kings and Nations were undercutting the feudal system that depended on the Church as a unifying orthodoxy. It is these political failures that lead to split between East and West churches, and then the split again in the West, and the fragmenting of enumerable protestant denominations.

And, while I've read a fair bit of C S Lewis, ranging from his Narnia tales, to his sci fi, to the Screwtape letters, I've not "Mere Christianity", after I'm done plowing through Behe, and George Martin's lates novel, I may have to give it a look.

[c4ts]

I'm curious as to what people think the point that a religious claim can no longer be hidden behind the curtain of faith, but is instead a scientific claim that is within the bounds of science to prove true or false.

Probably the best example I can think of is the fundimentalist version of Noah's Flood. The claim that in the recent past there was a global flood is something that we would have geologic evidence for if true thus, is not a simple claim of faith like heaven, hell, God, or souls.

I would like to see some religious people respond to this as well as atheists and agnostics.

At the point when religion stops being something accepted on a basis of faith, ceases to make unfalsifiable claims, establishes a rigorous method of observation, testing, prediction, peer review (etc)... by then, the very structure and goals of the organization would be very different and you could no longer recognize it a religion.

The Noah's flood claim doesn't exactly follow that format. It's what you call pseudoscience, and it is actually founded in the claims of OT mythology. Creationists don't just claim that there is geological evidence supporting a global flood, they claim that the entire story is true and you have to accept that before you can can accept the evidence of the flood (part of the reason why fundamentalists claim science is atheistic, because it won't accept these things beforehand), which would make it a statement of faith, and in some screwy way, you have to accept the evidence of the flood in order to accept the truth of the Bible. It's not just a flood, it is THE exact flood which Noah encountered, and it can't be anything else. A scientific claim would begin with available evidence and derive the flood idea from what is available, and it wouldn't have to definite it as the exact biblical flood.

[drkitten]

I’ll start with John 14:6. Iirc the usual quote of this passage includes the next sentence. Jesus said,

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

Jesus is saying that the need for the forgiveness of sins through the sacrifice of animals was now no longer valid, and the only path to the throne of God the Father (i.e. entrance into heaven) was through his personal sacrifice on the cross. Jesus was not claiming to be truth incarnate in this passage, but claiming to be the true way to eternal life in the here after. I think that you are placing far more importance on the single word truth than the author intended.

The simplest answer to this is that contemporary theological thought -- in fact, theological thought since the Middle Ages at least -- disagrees with you. Partly because there are other relevant pa5ssages declaring God to be a God of Truth. See, for example, Exodus 34:6, "The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth." Deuteronomy 32:4, " He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of
truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." Joshua 24:14, "Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth," Psalms 25:5 " Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day.", Psalms 25:10 "All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.", Psalms 31:5 "Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth."

From the New Testament, we have John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth", John 14:16-17 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." John 18:37 "Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth."

From the Paulineletters : Romans 1:25 "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Ephesisans 1:13 "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise"

I'm sorry, I'm getting bored with cutting and pasting. May I stop now?

Suffice it to say that the presentation of God as a God of Truth is fairly universal throughout Scripture and it takes a certain amount of heretical testicular fortitude to reject that notion out of hand; given the way that "truth" and "sin" are opposed at so many turns, it's fairly clear that the idea of a lying God borders on Manichaeism.

Which is not to say that people haven't done it -- after all, the Bogomils were near-Manichaests in the 12th century. But they were also bonkers, and far out of the mainstream of Christian thought.




Much of our view of Satan in the western church, that of the Arch rival of God, a fallen angel just beneath god, who lead a rebellion against the throne of heaven, is more the literary license of Milton than a biblical account.

More Miltonian than Biblical, definitely. But Milton didn't write his poem in a vacuum and create the new doctrine of Satan as God's adversary out of whole cloth. The theological position of Satan the created and fallen angel had been hammered out well before that (read Dante, for example, who lived nearly 400 years prior to Milton and expresses these ideas quite clearly in the Comedy). The role of Satan, even mentioned by name, as an opponent of God is well established even in the Gospels (e.g. Mark 3:23-24 "And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand." Revelation is very explicit that Satan is actively involved in battle against God, not merely fulfilling the role of tempter under God's instructions.



But if Satan is the deceiver, it is only because God has created him and set him up for this role.

The problem of evil again -- why did a good God create evil?

It's not, however, justified that Satan is actualy God's catspaw. Check Revelations, if you must. His actions are clearly not controlled by God in the broader Christian theology. He is an active opponent, not an agent.

What you really see here is a fundamental fragility of Christianity -- close analysis of this kind of question can very easily cause a person to abandon Christianity and drift into apostacy if not active atheism. Many do. Alternatively, you can take the standard "it's a mystery" non-resolution and simply believe, as many others do.

A more intellectually viable approach that still preserves theism is to start looking at the passage interpretations as "parables" and to infer what's really going on. This is the reason that most theologians dismiss a literal interpretation of Job, in particular. It's too "obviously" a parable to be taken literally, which in turn means that the implication that Satan is literally a servant, not an opponent, of God is somewhat metaphorical in this particular book. As near as I can tell, you're trying to interpret the rest of the Bible against the portrayal of Satan in Job -- modern theology does the opposite and interprets Job against the background of the rest of the Bible. I think this is both more intellectually honest and textually validated -- but, as the car commercials say, "your mileage may vary."

[drkitten]

Well I suppose the breadth and significance of the conflicts over orthodoxy within the branches of Christianity does depend on how one defines orthodoxy. I agree that the differing branches of Christianity do not go so far as to deny the human, and yet divine quality of Jesus. The branch that grew from Judaic tradition that did that, of course is not Christian by definition, but Islam.


That's my central point, though. The various divisions and schisms are not theological, but political. Their severity -- the fact that people were tortured to death for being on the wrong side -- does not point to the centrality of the disputed beliefs, but instead merely to the importance that the torturers placed on that particular issue at that time.

There's a good modern example in the schism (1845?) between the Northern and Southern Baptist Conventions, which was basically all about slavery. Slavery, of course, was a critical political issue in the United States of 1845, enough to keep the Baptists from being able to operate as a single organized denomination -- but even the schismatics recognized (and spoke publically, at the time), that the split was political, not theological, and that everyone recognized that they still believed in the same version of Christianity.

The disputed aspects were political, not theological. They were important to society, but not to God or an understanding of God.

Going back to an earlier statement of yours, you wrote:

I find it difficult to swallow that the God of the Bible is not the sort who could allow people to be deceived to test their faith. [...]

There is really no such thing as the united "Christianity" that I understand Miller to claim existing. From personal experience the gulf between many Protestants and Catholics in the USA is still so wide that practically they are two separate religions.

... my central point is that we're discussing an inherently theological question : "what kind of being is God?" This question, and the context in which we are asking it, should make it clear that the question is one of our understanding of God.

With regard to theological questions, almost every practicing Christian would have the same, agreed upon answer. Where things break down is where the theology turns into politics -- "Given that God is of this nature, how does that command me -- or society -- to behave?" But the question "Would God lie to His creation?" does not, in and of itself, have any implications about human society or personal behavior.

Do you see the difference I'm trying to draw?

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

The Noah's flood claim doesn't exactly follow that format. It's what you call pseudoscience, and it is actually founded in the claims of OT mythology. Creationists don't just claim that there is geological evidence supporting a global flood, they claim that the entire story is true and you have to accept that before you can can accept the evidence of the flood (part of the reason why fundamentalists claim science is atheistic, because it won't accept these things beforehand), which would make it a statement of faith, and in some screwy way, you have to accept the evidence of the flood in order to accept the truth of the Bible. It's not just a flood, it is THE exact flood which Noah encountered, and it can't be anything else. A scientific claim would begin with available evidence and derive the flood idea from what is available, and it wouldn't have to definite it as the exact biblical flood.

However, the claim that a global flood occurred in the last few thousand years is falsifiable because if it happened we would have a distinct global and uniform geologic layer. Whether or not they are willing to accept that evidence or lack thereof is a different matter but the claim itself is falsifiable. Astrology is falsifiable too and has been falsified numerous times but the fact that it still has believers despite this, that doesn't erase the fact that it is falsifiable.

Interestingly the shroud is a bit of a different matter, even if you could prove that it was a 2000 year old traditional Jewish burial shroud belonging to a crucified man named Jesus, that doesn't necessarily mean that it belonged to THE Jesus. The name Jesus wasn't THAT uncommon back then, and neither btw was crucifixion. However, the fact that the shroud has been proven to be neither 2000 years old nor consistent with Jewish burial practices of the time does disqualify it as even a potential proof of Jesus.