Christianity chatter

[yyy]

I’m not here to ridicule anyone’s religion. I just have a problem with science proves X if science doesn’t even come close to proving it.

@Andrew0409

You’re accusing me of using faith as reason. But what I’m saying I used reason to reach faith. Two very different things.

I’m seeing this as a continuation of The Pope and China.

@Andrew0409

@tando

but you reject other religions based on science…

Yeah, if a religion is true, it shouldn’t conflict with science. And I don’t just reject a religion based on science. I can reject it based on a variety of ways to test its validity.

Christianity with a literal Resurrection conflicts with science in obvious ways. The fact that the Gospels were written in this or that year doesn’t prove the Resurrection literally happened; it proves that by a certain year, enough people believed it had happened for it to be worth writing down more than once.

As for using science to reach faith, that can be taken two different ways.

1. Science proves certain historical facts on which a certain religious belief is based, ergo that religious belief must be objectively correct.

2. Science proves certain facts relevant to a certain religious belief, ergo that religious belief makes sense.

As I said,

@yyy

I tend to think philosophical ideas don’t really get proven or disproven, just proven relevant or proven not-so-relevant.

Change philosophical to religious, if you like. So how do we decide whether or not a belief is worth having?

@yyy

When you say valid, in the context of a religious belief, it sounds like right as in right vs. wrong , not relevant as in this belief helps me understand things better and ultimately achieve a superior result in my life/work.

Perhaps you’ve determined by reading scientific studies about the health effects of prayer, fasting, and so on, that it’s better to be religious than not to be. Perhaps you’ve determined by examining your own life that believing in your particular version of Christianity helps you to be a better person, because it makes the world easier for you to understand, and it gives you a moral compass, a sense of purpose, and so on. If so, that’s great, and (if you like) you can say you used science to reach faith. But…

What’s not great? Telling people it’s a scientific fact that your version of your religion is objectively correct, because the flip side of that is, if they don’t agree with you, they’re too stupid to understand science.

Also, when you say someone else’s religion is wrong because it’s scientifically incorrect, if your definition of use science to reach faith involves looking for “proof” of certain historical facts, then as a literal Resurrection believer you’re going to come across as a major hypocrite.

@Andrew0409

I never once use “because bible said so, therefore god is real” type of argument. You won’t see that from me.

Your whole argument for the Resurrection is coming across as people wrote it down in what came to be known as the Bible. So how are you not using that argument?

Or do you mean a biblical story becomes scientific evidence as soon as you speculate about how difficult it would have been to David Blaine the whole thing?

@Andrew0409

But for me, looking at everything. I think it’s the highest probability. No different than be believing in Caesar or evolution.

The documentation for Caesar is extensive and written by supporters and detractors near and far, and the same type of phenomenon – a leader who’s powerful yet has no supernatural powers – is still found in the modern world. It’s not the same thing at all.