Resurrections and Apologetics

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Peter, I suggest you create an "Apologetics" sub-forum for this type of post. It is not directly related to the Christian Bible. For those interested in Science which I assume is the primary intent of this Forum (at least at the highest level) Metacrock's interest in Theology is a waste of time.

From a scientific standpoint, resurrections are impossible, no discussion is necessary. The only significance of impossible claims by a text or author is that it impeaches their credibility regarding possible claims.


Joseph

The New Porphyry Blog

[Roger Pearse]

From a scientific standpoint, resurrections are impossible...

Those of us with hard science degrees would like to point out that real science has no opinion on this question. This is a religious statement not a scientific one.

[JoeWallack]

From a scientific standpoint, resurrections are impossible...

Those of us with hard science degrees would like to point out that real science has no opinion on this question. This is a religious statement not a scientific one.

JW:
Case in point Peter. The relevant Science here is the Medical Profession which assures us there is no such thing as resurrections. Roger has now impeached his credibility regarding possible Bible claims.

While we are on the subject, this is the biggest problem with so-called Bible scholars. You can not be officially neutral regarding supernatural claims and be a real scholar. If you are than your credibility is impeached. The related hypocrisy is a side issue. These "scholars" claim neutrality on the supernatural because of Roger Pearse type uncertainty but than make "certain/almost certain/very probable/probable/very likely/likely" conclusions with exponentially (not an exaggeration) more doubt.

Regarding Pearse:

1) He claims we should not assume the supernatural is impossible because of uncertainty.

Versus

2) We should assume that Christian writings from 2,000 years ago are true because there is insufficient uncertainty.

Again Peter, what is in this Thread so far, does it sound like Bible Criticism or Apologetics?


Joseph

The New Porphyry Blog

[iskander]

Is it reasonable to doubt the bodily resurrection of the dead? yes.
It is impossible to resurrect the dead, medical science does not consider this is possible and ignores this religious belief.

Only the resurrected one can provide evidence.
John 20:24ff
Doubting Thomas
24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

[Adam]

Anything is possible. Joe has impeached himself with his certainty.

[Peter Kirby]

JW:
Peter, I suggest you create an "Apologetics" sub-forum for this type of post. It is not directly related to the Christian Bible. For those interested in Science which I assume is the primary intent of this Forum (at least at the highest level) Metacrock's interest in Theology is a waste of time.

From a scientific standpoint, resurrections are impossible, no discussion is necessary. The only significance of impossible claims by a text or author is that it impeaches their credibility regarding possible claims.


Joseph

The New Porphyry Blog

I'd imagine that this kind of request technically belongs in Forum Business.

I might not actually object (...or maybe I do), but I also do not think we need new categories at all, regardless of the purpose, without more activity in the categories that we already do have, unless perhaps there is some category of discussion that we would like to encourage that doesn't fit whatsoever in any of the existing categories.

(I do not consider this subforum to be too active either.)

The thread in which this was originally posted had nothing to say about 'resurrections' or indeed even 'apologetics', so this is now a new thread.

[Roger Pearse]

From a scientific standpoint, resurrections are impossible...

Those of us with hard science degrees would like to point out that real science has no opinion on this question. This is a religious statement not a scientific one.

The relevant Science here is the Medical Profession which assures us there is no such thing as resurrections.

If "the medical profession" does make that claim, ex cathedra, then it is not science.

You confuse rationalism with science. Scientists are not rationalists.

Regarding Pearse:
1) He claims we should not assume the supernatural is impossible because of uncertainty.

Please don't pretend to speak for me.

[Roger Pearse]

Anything is possible. Joe has impeached himself with his certainty.

I think that he is merely parrotting a 19th century rationalist religious opinion, which was probably stated better by its original authors. But scientists are not rationalists. Nobody today believes in the fixed "laws of science" of the rationalists; scientists know what they can demonstrate by sticking it in a testtube and boiling it (etc). Science has nothing to say to things like "can miracles happen", or "is there such a thing as true love" or "is Obama honest", because these things fall outside the realm of scientific method. That's why we have the humanities.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[spin]

Anything is possible.

Prove it: look at the back of your head without props; stick your head in your anus; say something intelligent.

Joe has impeached himself with his certainty.

One of the things science tells us is that you can say some things with certainty. Remember, "an object in motion will stay in motion and an object at rest will stay at rest, unless acted on by an external force"? Or "the sum of energy in a system cannot increase of itself"? Galileo noted that if you dropped different sized objects (from the tower of Pisa) they fall at the same rate. (And many other examples.) You've impeached yourself with your facile assertions.

Then, as if responding to Pavlov's bell, Roger chimes in:

Anything is possible. Joe has impeached himself with his certainty.

I think that he is merely parrotting a 19th century rationalist religious opinion, which was probably stated better by its original authors. But scientists are not rationalists. Nobody today believes in the fixed "laws of science" of the rationalists; scientists know what they can demonstrate by sticking it in a testtube and boiling it (etc). Science has nothing to say to things like "can miracles happen", or "is there such a thing as true love" or "is Obama honest", because these things fall outside the realm of scientific method. That's why we have the humanities.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger has this habit of venting his spleen on this forum, then relocating his sense of decorum leading to the erasure of the traces of that spleen. I wish he'd done so this time.

Scientists happily acknowledge what they can and cannot meaningfully talk about. I wish sloppy religionists would do the same.

Scientists can talk about any entity in the world. However, reified ideas imported from primitive religions are not evidence for any entity in the world. Souls are such reified ideas. Given what we know through medical science, the brain is where memories and personality reside. This fact was not available to the primitive religionists who developed christianity and needed a notion of the soul to explain what gives people their individuality.

Scientists can talk about processes that involve entities in the real world, but primitive religious concepts such as resurrection, though still believed in, have no basis in real world phenomena. Medical science has come to understand that a brain without oxygen for sufficient time stops being viable and nothing you can do can change the lack of viability. We hear of doctors taking the sad step of letting brain dead patients finish the process of death of the body. That's because there is no longer a self to keep alive. It only takes 15 minutes without oxygen for a cerebrum to become irrecoverable. The brain is the centre of your existence and brain damage can affect the personality, change you. Drugs can affect your brain chemistry and thus who you are. When your brain stops for long enough, that which is you stops. You can believe in any airy-fairy nonsense your heart desires, but nothing will bring you back, because you are in those synaptic wirings, those electro-chemical reactions, ie that brain, and if someone could reconstruct it all again in the brain of a functional being, it still wouldn't be you. These days we tend to trust medical science in its understanding of the workings of the human body, not the traditions of semi-literate religionists of 2000 years ago.

Some christians will cling to notions such as the soul and resurrection with a certainty that belies reason and science. They have no way to demonstrate these notions, so they can't distinguish their validity from fairies and reincarnation or in fact any nonsense. They just choose to believe, as do the reincarnationists. There is no sense in the notions as can be seen in the defence of them. Yet, like proselytes who cannot help but jabber about these things when this forum principally deals with biblical criticism and history, they will still inject such notions at every opportunity.

[iskander]

Nice post, spin. I love it. Perfect!