|
Post by Areopagite on Feb 3, 2005 9:13:08 GMT -5
As far as I know it's only recorded in the Gospels which, to the best of our knowledge, have their root in a single document. If we want to talk about matters of faith, your assumption that a Quelle, or "Q", document exists is one more rooted in faith than fact. No such document has ever been found, nor has anyone from the first and second centuries even mention its existence. The theory of "Q" is merely disbelief in actual evidence because of the inevitable and logical consequences that accepting that evidence would bring.
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 3, 2005 11:30:04 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Feb 3, 2005 11:30:04 GMT -5
If we want to talk about matters of faith, your assumption that a Quelle, or "Q", document exists is one more rooted in faith than fact. No such document has ever been found, nor has anyone from the first and second centuries even mention its existence. Not arguing with you there. I don't assume that any 'Q' document did exist as such. It doesn't matter, it's just a reference to the fact that the Gospels appear to have their root in one common source. That may be an oral tradition or it may be some document. 'Q' is just a handy way to label it for me. What I was asking was for some evidence that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead in documents outside of the Gospels. I just don't know of any. The theory of 'Q' simply represents what prevailing linguistic and historical analysis of the Gospels suggests. It's got nothing to do with 'disbelief in actual evidence' in my opinion - it's just analysis. Can't see how it would affect a Christian's beliefs either way. Does it matter if they come from one common source or not?
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 3, 2005 11:47:01 GMT -5
Post by Areopagite on Feb 3, 2005 11:47:01 GMT -5
No, I'll be honest, I can't think of any. The gospels are reliable sources of information, however.
Even without the story of Lazurus' resurrection, though, the resurrection of Jesus demonstrates the supernatural in the same way. There is more than just the gospels that confirm that. So the point about the supernatural be demonstrated still stands.
They do come from one common source: the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, the Holy Spirit hardly counts as the "Q".
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 3, 2005 15:30:30 GMT -5
Post by bobarian on Feb 3, 2005 15:30:30 GMT -5
Electron -
You're still beating around the bush. Science is the explanation of all natural causes (any scientist would agree.) Supernatural means above or beyond nature. Now you can state that you are a naturalist and that all that there is is what is observable by the five senses (the common definition of science.) However, that is all you can really do with science. The scientist cannot explain, as I said ealier, why in the world we have the force of gravity and why its a constant at such and such a level of attraction.
It is not that religious views are irrefutable, far from it. I assume that you are reffering to circular logic (I'm right because I'm logical I'm logical because I'm right.) Within religious views there is some circular reasoning, like the Qu'ran, which is evidence for Mohammed's correctness, and the evidence for the Qu'ran is the Qu'ran. That has nothing to do with the Qu'ran being supernatural - that merely has to do with bad logic. You test religious claims the same you test anything - using logic and sound reasoning. You can't use your five senses to figure out the Bible, but you can use your brain (aided by the Holy Spirit.)
If natural causes explain everything, then why hasn't social science replaced religion by now? Surely people would merely want good psychology instead of a good God, right? I mean God can't explain anything (he's a mere figment of our social imagination), right?
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God... the Word became flesh and dwelt among us ... We have seen and testify of His glory, the glory of the one and only"
Peace in Christ. -Bob
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 3, 2005 17:03:32 GMT -5
Post by Electron on Feb 3, 2005 17:03:32 GMT -5
Electron - You're still beating around the bush. I'm trying to be as polite as I can in the circumstances. Amen. Cute. Define supernatural as "something that can never be tested by any means" and you and I can debate about it's exitence for an eternity. I know some string theorists that would like to disagree with you. Besides, it never ceases to amaze me how often temporary gaps in our present knowledge are seized upon in support of there being a supernatual component to the cosmos. No, I'm referring to the fact that it is impossible to refute untestable statements of the "there is an invisble lepricorn sitting on my shoulder" kind. Because religion offers extremely generous rewards (rewards that of course only come in heaven - when we are too dead to blow the gaff!) How about - In the beginning were some smart thinkers who realised the power of using a certain tricks of logic to make an appealing story that by its very nature could not be disproved - so lending it an apparent authenticity. Promises of an afterlife in heaven for the believers and eternal damnation in hell for the rest of us is the coup de grace that gets the masses to accept the story. "Surely ten billion satisfied customers can't be wrong?". Right. Does it never occur to anyone that all this threatening behaviour and the way it plays on fear and other human emotions is a little too redolent of the nastier side of mankind at work?
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 3, 2005 18:07:13 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Feb 3, 2005 18:07:13 GMT -5
No, I'll be honest, I can't think of any. The gospels are reliable sources of information, however. Even without the story of Lazurus' resurrection, though, the resurrection of Jesus demonstrates the supernatural in the same way. There is more than just the gospels that confirm that. So the point about the supernatural be demonstrated still stands. I can't think off-hand of any non-Biblical document that describes Jesus' ressurection. There are a few that describe his existence, elements of his life and his death (gnostic gospels, Josepheus' stuff, Dead Sea Scrolls and whatever), but I can't remember if the actual resurrection is covered. I'm prepared to be wrong there (I vaguely remember something, but I've read so much about religion during and since university that I can't be sure where I read it now). If you know of any, please point me in the right direction. LOL, we've just gone reductio ad absurdum with that historical discussion then!
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 3, 2005 18:12:04 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Feb 3, 2005 18:12:04 GMT -5
It is not that religious views are irrefutable, far from it. I assume that you are reffering to circular logic (I'm right because I'm logical I'm logical because I'm right.) Within religious views there is some circular reasoning, like the Qu'ran, which is evidence for Mohammed's correctness, and the evidence for the Qu'ran is the Qu'ran. That has nothing to do with the Qu'ran being supernatural - that merely has to do with bad logic. I think you'd have few Muslims on your case there Bob!
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 3, 2005 23:26:26 GMT -5
Post by Areopagite on Feb 3, 2005 23:26:26 GMT -5
I can't think off-hand of any non-Biblical document that describes Jesus' ressurection. There are a few that describe his existence, elements of his life and his death (gnostic gospels, Josepheus' stuff, Dead Sea Scrolls and whatever), but I can't remember if the actual resurrection is covered. I'm prepared to be wrong there (I vaguely remember something, but I've read so much about religion during and since university that I can't be sure where I read it now). If you know of any, please point me in the right direction. I can't think of any that describe the resurrection of Jesus like the Bible does. I will note the fact that, again, nothing more is needed in the way of evidence since the Bible still checks out as a reliable historical document. Cornelius Tacitus alludes to it in the Annals. Then there are the early Church Fathers (see the Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians and Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians for good examples) wrote extensively about Jesus' resurrection. Then, of course, there are the many creeds and hymns of the Church of the 1st Century which also speak about Christ's resurrection.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Feb 4, 2005 3:39:15 GMT -5
If natural causes explain everything, then why hasn't social science replaced religion by now? Surely people would merely want good psychology instead of a good God, right? I mean God can't explain anything (he's a mere figment of our social imagination), right? I would argue that social science certainly IS in the process of replacing religion. There are certainly far less Christians in western society today than formerly, due to people's increasing ability to think freely without social pressure from the church as was the case hundreds of years ago. At least here in Australia, I'm pretty sure that non-christians outnumber Christians. This social change IS happening.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Feb 4, 2005 5:49:00 GMT -5
I can't think of any that describe the resurrection of Jesus like the Bible does. I will note the fact that, again, nothing more is needed in the way of evidence since the Bible still checks out as a reliable historical document. Well that's open to opinion. The best I can gather is that the Gospels are supposedly a fairly reliable record of what Jesus said, but there is much doubt about the record of what Jesus actually did. A lot of his recorded activities may be allegorical. Yes, but most of the sources you mention might have a vested interest in promoting the resurrection idea. Then again, one could equally argue that things like the Gnostic Gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls have a vested interest in not promoting the resurrection idea, although that may be less likely as these documents are often (although not always) pro-Jesus or, at least, merely indifferent. It is difficult, I admit, to either condemn or approve the Bible as an accurate historical reference. In such a vast-reaching document that has been translated and edited over time, I'd say it's most likely that there will be a mixure of historical truth, allegory and downright fiction. It is interesting to note that the life of Jesus followed the 'dying and rising god' pattern that was popular at the time. It could be that this was attributed to the Jesus story just to give it credibility, or perhaps Jesus set out to emulate this pattern himself. What is worrying is that the Church often immediately rejects any analysis of the Bible that doesn't fit their fancy. They seem unwilling to accept that science, research and analysis can actually find out more about the Bible's origins than they already know. Some scientific discoveries about it will be wrong, of course, but some will be right - it's a slow, iterative process of discovery that gets better as we learn more. I think it's fear that makes the Church like that. They fear that something will come to light that casts doubt on some elements of the Bible and that the authority they've built up over the years will be undermimed. I find this odd as, whatever is discovered about the Bible's origins, there will never be a way to prove or disprove that Christ was the Son of God, that He died for our sins, the he arose from death and most of the other central tenets of Christianity. If they fear that people will abandon those beliefs because, say, Christ didn't die on the cross but died somehow and somewhere else (just an example) then they must not have much respect for the faith of their followers. The Church effectively kept a lid on the Dead Sea Scrolls for 40 years, simply because some of them tell a different story to the Gospels. The Dead Sea Scrolls are some of the only documents we have that are in original form from a time close to Jesus. An enlightened Church should relish the chance to get a more accurate picture of things from them. Anyway, I digress!
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 4, 2005 11:21:29 GMT -5
Post by Electron on Feb 4, 2005 11:21:29 GMT -5
So returning to the topic, let me underline the point I am considering:
The beauty and scope of the universe as revealed through modern science (e.g. the deep field image and the principles of quantum mechanics) is far more wonderful than man could ever have imagined. Indeed, it reminds me of the old expression about fact being stranger than fiction.
Little wonder then that I find the creation stories of ancient texts to be so unsatisfying. They have so much more to explain to our modern minds. The validty of testimony arising from the untestable assertions found in creation stories is also questionable.
Because of these things I feel the only discipline sufficiently qualified to justice to the real universe is indeed science. I suggest that the idea that god could have made such a universe especially for us is the ultimate act of hubris. Indeed, as a fully paid-up member of the human race I feel ashamed that we could promote such an idea.
I hope it never gets out to the other inhabitants of the universe.
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 4, 2005 12:35:53 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Feb 4, 2005 12:35:53 GMT -5
Because of these things I feel the only discipline sufficiently qualified to justice to the real universe is indeed science. Quite possibly, but will it tell us how to end personal suffering? Not global suffering - such as starvation and disease - which science can help with, but personal suffering based on our cravings. 'Faith' won't help personal suffering either of course, not in the long run, but science objectifies things. The elements are within science - no soul, impermanence, the singular reality of the moment etc. - but maybe its objective approach doesn't lend itself well to the subjective human viewpoint.
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 4, 2005 15:01:04 GMT -5
Post by Electron on Feb 4, 2005 15:01:04 GMT -5
Quite possibly, but will it tell us how to end personal suffering? Not global suffering - such as starvation and disease - which science can help with, but personal suffering based on our cravings. A resounding YES is in order here! Please allow me to explain why I am so enthusiastic about this approach: For me many a mystery that bothered me in my youth has been solved by the application of scientific principles learned in later life. The principles I most frequently and succesfully apply are none other than those of natural selection. For instance, naughty feelings like sex drive are put into a managble context once you appreciate that we are all descended from a long line of sex-maniacs (if anyone is puzzled by this I'd be glad to provide the explanation - but I think it is one of the more obvious aspects of natural selection). It doesn't spoil the fun any to realise this, but it does provide a perspective that allows you to understand many helpful things (like girls really do like sex despite the impression they may give at discos - I only wish I knew that one when I was in my early twenties!) Such understandings of the processes that lead to ourselves can relieve much unnecessary bagage to do with the various conditions and afflictions we suffer. As for less trivial issues such as when contemplating ones mortality, once again all the major scientific principles play there part in providing an understanding - my body is a vehicle that carrys my genes for but a brief journey and passes them on into the future through my beloved son. This grand journey of my genes into the future is not without risk of course, but I am utterly content in the knowledge that my life does not neccessarily end with me. The localised decrease in entropy that characterises my existance also leads me to have an affinity with other complex systems that have also managed to beat chaos - a kinship that leads me to revere all forms of life as well as art, music and design etc. If people worry where morals will come from in the absence of adherence to religious doctrine I could point to a catalogue of horrible crimes commited against humanity in the name of a supposedly suprerior being. The one-size fits all approach of missionary expedition has no parallel in the arena of scientific inquirery. This, by stark contrast, is particularly interested in differences and distributions - leading to respect and minimal interference. My subjective viewpoint is informed by the objective reality provided by science. My logic allows me to formulate my viewpoints from this carefully sifted information so providing certainties when I need them. But like an avoidance of the over-use of anti-biotics, I ration my demands for certainty as much as possible.
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 4, 2005 17:59:38 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Feb 4, 2005 17:59:38 GMT -5
A resounding YES is in order here! Please allow me to explain why I am so enthusiastic about this approach: For me many a mystery that bothered me in my youth has been solved by the application of scientific principles learned in later life. The principles I most frequently and succesfully apply are none other than those of natural selection. For instance, naughty feelings like sex drive are put into a managble context once you appreciate that we are all descended from a long line of sex-maniacs (if anyone is puzzled by this I'd be glad to provide the explanation - but I think it is one of the more obvious aspects of natural selection). It doesn't spoil the fun any to realise this, but it does provide a perspective that allows you to understand many helpful things (like girls really do like sex despite the impression they may give at discos - I only wish I knew that one when I was in my early twenties!) Such understandings of the processes that lead to ourselves can relieve much unnecessary bagage to do with the various conditions and afflictions we suffer. Okay, that's fair enough - if it works for you it works. What about material desires such as money, property etc.? Without getting too wrapped up in terminology, what is ' your life'? You don't really give ' your' genes to your son, just a pattern upon which his genes are based. You are correct though (IMHO) that you do continue after physical death. Energy is neither created nor destroyed and your atoms will be reused in a different format after your death. Your karma outlives your physical body too of course, since the the effects of your actions can often still be felt long after your death. Can't argue with that. I don't! Morals come from a need to survive in society. If we bucked the moral trends of the society we live in too much, we'd end up in prison or dead. Granted religion has had a lot of influence on this 'moral consensus' in the past, but it's not essential to it. A refreshing viewpoint. You'd make a good Buddhist!
|
|
|
Post by Electron on Feb 5, 2005 5:36:32 GMT -5
Okay, that's fair enough - if it works for you it works. What about material desires such as money, property etc.? Material things are hardly even worth considering - when your house catches fire you instinctively gather your family and pets first, next might come those other irreplacable things like photos and letters. But you'd feel stupid risking your life dragging a grand piano from the flames! Money is neutral. Some see it as evil but it all balances out in the end - if you get richer, it doesn't have to make me poorer. Quite so. But I also see clearly some of my father in me, and some of me in my son. That's far more valuable to me than a dubious promise of life eternal. As it happens, I'm not ruling out the possibility the atoms of my DNA literally existing in my son right now - according to some recent quantum theory. I expect you're aware of the principles of quantum cloning. A branch of mathematics known as "Game theory" can prove that best way to leave a bathroom is the way in which you would wish to find it. It doesn't have to get much deeper than that! I'll take that as a compliment - thanks!
|
|