"Before attending the forum, I had thought that Christianity could not be proven correct or incorrect. Afterward, I realized that although the existence of God may not be provable, the essential [historical] statements of Christianity could at least have been proven false... Although science cannot disprove the resurrection (or more generally the existence of God), the tools we use to validate history could. In this way, Christianity could have been proven false, and has not. In fact, historical evidence for the existence of the person Jesus and his claim to be God is strong.

Is it correct to draw a parallel between the possibility of unveiling future scientific knowledge and the possibility of unveiling previous historical knowledge in invalidating scientific faith or Christian faith?"

You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that something didn't happen, only that it did. Historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is weak (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus). As for his claim to be God, well, there are any number of people who claim that in every era.

Scientific faith is a contradiction in terms. Science takes nothing on faith, which is why it is the natural antagonist of any world view that does. Meanwhile, nothing can invalidate faith which, by definition, is a belief or trust in something for which there is no proof that would be acceptable to science. In religion, faith is inseparable from the SUPERnatural, something which is not subject to explanation by natural laws (i.e., those that science is concerned with).

If religion were not such a scourge of humanity, it would still be guilty of directing our attention away from the here and now. In the likely event our brief here and now is all there is (and we have not one whit of evidence it isn't--and wishing won't make it so), to be distracted from it, especially in favor of an illusory afterlife, is beyond unfortunate. It is immoral and it ought to be criminal.

Actually, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus quite a bit stronger than that for the existence of most, if not all, figures from Late Antiquity. The four canonical Gospels and the subsequent manuscript tradition are a powerful testament at least to the existence of a person named Jesus, not to mention his divinity. Josephus, a Jewish historian, mentions him as well, not to mention all the accounts of Jesus that are not included in the canon. There do seem to have been some arguments about whether Jesus was raised from the dead. Matthew recounts that some Jews spread the story that the disciples stole the body. But other than that, it's remarkable how much agreement there is among the early texts about the fact that Jesus was divine.

As for science and faith, I'd probably tell the story a bit differently. Science, like mathematics, rests upon assumptions, but proceeds from there upon empirical evidence. So "scientific faith" probably refers to the bedrock assumptions, such as that the universe is intelligible and yields its secrets to empirical inquiry.

Faith is about relationships, which is not exactly supernatural. This is why people can lose their faith when they feel distant from God. "Good faith" agreements aren't about lack of proof, per se, but about a progressive "entering into" a relationship. If one insisted on empirical proof for every relationship, one wouldn't have many friends!

Science and faith represent different ways of moving forward with knowledge, and I wouldn't assign the one to the "natural world" and the other to the "supernatural world." We all have to move forward in faith, if only because the kinds of questions science can address are insufficient to enable one to live a productive life. The reason Christians talk so much about faith in relation to God is that we believe God is a person who knows us and whom we can know.

DGC says "If religion were not such a scourge of humanity, it would still be guilty of directing our attention away from the here and now. In the likely event our brief here and now is all there is (and we have not one whit of evidence it isn't--and wishing won't make it so), to be distracted from it, especially in favor of an illusory afterlife, is beyond unfortunate. It is immoral and it ought to be criminal."

The notion that religion is a scourge, while popularized in recent militant atheist texts has little credibility. I am not in the least interested in defending everything that has been done in the name of Christianity. A lot of foolish and wicked things have been done. But also, a lot of beautiful and caring things have been done. If we are to evaluate overall the social value of Christianity, the question has to be, compared to what? The twentieth century has shown us the face of the alternative. Atheist regimes have executed their citizens (to take just one metric) in numbers that far exceed those of the whole of Christian history. The militant atheists argue ``Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism. ... Religious wars really are fought in the name of religion, and they have been horribly frequent in history. I cannot think of any war that has been fought in the name of atheism.'' (Dawkins 2006). But this is doublethink. No war has ever been fought in the name of generic `religion' or `theism'. Wars have been fought in the name of specific religious beliefs and groups. Similarly no war has ever been fought in the name of a generic `areligion' or `atheism'. But many have been fought in the name of specific atheistic beliefs and groups. It is simply not credible to attribute to religion some claimed monopoly on human evil, or even to argue that religious people are more evil than irreligious. On balance, if I were to choose, I'd prefer to be in a society of people who believe in a loving God who calls them to love their enemy, rather than people who think there is no moral authority beyond that of their own intellect. Wouldn't you?

Ian Hutchinson says "The notion that religion is a scourge, while popularized in recent militant atheist texts has little credibility. I am not in the least interested in defending everything that has been done in the name of Christianity. A lot of foolish and wicked things have been done."

The message of religion as a scourge is not a recent development. It has existed as long as people have been subjugated by those claiming religious affiliation. Blaming only those whom you call "militant atheists" is an attempt to segregate the opinions of many as being the opinions of only a few and is a misrepresentation of reality. Leonardo DaVinci had this to say: "Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"

Religion subjugates mostly not by way of overt warfare, but by restricting it's followers to believe only that faith's interpretation what has been written in a finite finite number of pages. Any finite text must necessarily be without certain information as we clearly do not have answers to many questions that plague our species. Therefore any belief system that causes people to ignore new information as counter to their preexisting concepts/biases/beliefs/etc. is inherently flawed because it assumes that all information that could or needed to be known was already known.

nas says "Therefore any belief system that causes people to ignore new information as counter to their preexisting concepts/biases/beliefs/etc. is inherently flawed because it assumes that all information that could or needed to be known was already known. "

Do not all belief systems function in this way? It seems to me that the alternative is irrationalism, which accepts all information equally. For instance, it is because of this healthy feature of all belief systems that rational people don't fall for Neil Postman's trick of claiming, on the basis of an authority of the New York Times, that for weight loss "a normal diet supplemented by chocolate eclairs, eaten six times a day, is the best approach. It seems that there's some special nutrient in the eclairs - encomial dioxin - that actually uses up calories at an
incredible rate." (http://w2.eff.org/Net_culture/Criticisms/informing_ourselves_to_death.paper)

nas, do you claim that supernatural views are more narrow than materialistic views? If I may, I'll pass on a thought from G.K. Chesterton about the limits of belief systems:

"There is a very special sense in which materialism has more restrictions than spiritualism. Mr. McCabe thinks me a slave because I am not allowed to believe in determinism. I think Mr. McCabe a slave because he is not allowed to believe in fairies. But if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel" (G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy).

No, I did not say that one must accept all new information equally, that is putting words in my mouth. In fact, quite the opposite. I espouse that one evaluates all information before accepting anything. But to do that, one must understand that there is new information to evaluate. To say that THE alternative to what I presented is irrationalism is a bad argument because it presents a false dichotomy: that one must either believe what has already been written or believe else everything equally.

No, supernatural views are not necessarily more narrow. You are drawing a link that I did not draw. I did not say anything necessarily about the supernatural. I was talking about a scripture based world view. If you tie together the supernatural and scripture, then perhaps you could have a limited supernatural view.

Also, I am interested in knowing what you define as supernatural. Do you think of spirituality as supernatural?

It seems the argument is that religion is more evil than other (e.g. atheistic) systems because of some particular attributes that religion possesses. What might those attributes be? nas seems to be saying the particular evil attribute is that it is based on a finite testimony, and can't accommodate new information. Some religions may well be like that. I don't think Christianity is one of them. Christianity does focus on the person of Jesus and sees the Bible as the major source for our knowledge of him and of his teachings. But it is a remarkable fact that a large fraction of the people responsible for the scientific revolution were Christians. Not just nominally by virtue of their culture, but serious believers. If their faith prevented them from accommodating new information, I don't see how that could possibly have happened. So it seems to me that the historic evidence is against the argument that Christianity (at least) prevents people accommodating new information.

Also, I would add nas, that you're claim fails to take account of the diversity of Christian denominations. Some dominations, it is true, hold that all their religious beliefs must be derived from scripture alone. I would leave to those who hold that view to explain whether or not their religious beliefs cannot take account of new information. But in fact there are other denominations that believe there to be living sources of authoritative belief- like church councils etc- that can and do apply the faith to new situations, and develop doctrines in light of new information.

What you have both said about religious diversity is fair. I will not argue that point, because it is natural that people disagree even within a structure of similar values. That being said, I feel that it is also fair that you concede that you have done the same generalizing by saying that only recent militant atheists have a problem with religion. Also, I see that you seem to think of your views as being representative of Christianity as a whole. My own experience having grown up in Christianity and having been exposed to many other varieties of Christianity when I was in the military, tells me quite differently. Don't you think that it is fair to not overstate the popularity of your own views and which down plays the prevalence of those Christians who are more narrow minded than yourselves? By understating their impact on Christianity, it feels like you are defending them.

Marcelo Gleiser asked an extremely relevant question: with so many religious views (such as so many creation myths), why should we think that our myths are any better? Can our religious views be proved or disproved? If they can't be proved, what is our basis of belief? That is the question that this post is attempting to address.

Why am I a Christian? The first reason, the one that initially attracted me to Jesus was aesthetic. I found the idea of Jesus suffering and dying for us and the vision of sacrificial love that he has for us, so beautiful as to be irresistible.

The second reason is the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. The question "where is Jesus' body?" is still as relevant today as it was in the first century. I also think that the lives of Jesus's followers after his death is powerful evidence. They, if anyone, should have known if the resurrection was a hoax; why would they undergo persecution for the sake of a lie? Coupled with the character and wisdom of Jesus, I think this is a significant argument. Nevertheless, as Marcelo and Ian both seemed to recognize, it would be hard to prove or disprove the resurrection scientifically. Marcelo said "He's safe" when Ian discussed this.

My third reason for belief involves modern day experience. I well know (talking mostly to my Christian friends) that such experiences are not the foundation of Christian belief. Furthermore there is a lot of bad information out there, stories that have been retold with inaccuracy. So I'm very cautious about being sure about stories of miracles. Nevertheless, I've seen and heard enough to convince me that God is real.

Quantum mechanics has stripped us of the ability of definitely determining whether an event is a miracle or not. Religious belief then involves something of a step of faith. But if there is a religious event that is incredibly unlikely, or if there are many such events that are unlikely, it can be a basis of belief. Some of my Christian friends would quibble with my saying this, but I don't think I know anything with 100% certainty. In this sense I am like Marcelo, an agnostic. But my confidence in the truth of Christianity is extremely high, so that it makes me happy to commit my life to Jesus.

I have my ideas about why it makes sense theologically that we can’t know with certainty. When Jesus did the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand (John 6), the people wanted to make him king, and Jesus went away. He didn't want them to come to him because of brute power, but because of love. Ian stressed this point when he said that prayer could not be automatic or it would be magic or science; prayer is based on relationship.

Philosopher J. P. Moreland in "The Kingdom Triangle" gives a good description of knowledge and sources of knowledge. (J.P.’s book stresses good scholarship, holy living, and God’s real work in the world as cornerstones of Christian experience.) J.P. states that we can know something, and even though we may not know exactly why we know it, that doesn't mean that we don't know it. For instance, he says that he knows (and I hope that most of us know) that torturing babies is wrong. I don't know this scientifically, but I think that I know it a lot better than I know that the universe had a beginning, something I know scientifically.

Ian Hutchinson argued that there can be knowledge outside of science and that Christian faith is not blind faith. He made the analogy of biology and physics, stating that biology is not simply physics, but is biology. And he said that there are things that we can learn from other fields such as music or literature. Ian also pointed out that religious evidence is not scientific in the sense of being repeatedly verifiable, but rather it is historical. We have to look at our sources and the stories they tell.

Here’s one that came from my friend Dick Gardener who used to live in the Upper Valley. Dick had multiple sclerosis. This disease involves nerve damage to the central nervous system. Dick was having progressively worse problems, to the point that half of his face was paralyzed and he could only speak with difficulty. All the people in our church were fervently praying for him. One day of the week (I think he said a Wednesday), and he was praying and he "heard" the Lord tell him that he would be healed that Friday. He went to his wife Phyllis and told her, and she said that the Lord also told her that he would be healed that Friday. He was healed that Friday, completely. I knew him later. We attended a small Christian group that he led, and I considered them a wise and kind adviser, something like a father. In fact my wife and I went to him and Phyllis for marriage counseling. I am totally confident in his character. When you hear stuff like this over and over again from people that you trust, it makes you wonder.

We can miss the global picture of what God is doing in the world if we focus on the United States or Europe. The largest churches in the world are now in Korea. For a modern day Mother Theresa story with a mind boggling description of God's miraculous work, read "Always Enough: God's Miraculous Provision among the Poorest Children on Earth" by Rolland and Heidi Baker. The Bakers set out to serve Jesus among the poorest of the poor in Mozambique; their ministry (www.irismin.org) feeds 10,000 children per day. Explosive church growth has led to a network of 10,000 associated churches. Heidi Baker, talking about the poverty of the children in their orphanage, says that their kids are rich spiritually, that it is the empty materialistic people of the west who are truly poor.

I was pleased and connected with Marcelo when he said that love was the greatest moral value. I would claim that Jesus is the greatest teacher and example of what love means. To my way of thinking, it is the rooting of Christian experience in this love that makes it compelling.

I can share more about these things if people are interested, and would also be glad to meet personally with people.

Richard Denton quotes Marcelo as asking, "with so many religious views (such as so many creation myths), why should we think that our myths are any better? Can our religious views be proved or disproved? If they can't be proved, what is our basis of belief? "

So how then do we evaluate a faith? Is it on a sense of proof (argument, evidence) or virtue (excellence, flexibility)? Or both? What are the most useful metrics for navigating through worldviews, or even—as nas points out—within a group that claims to believe the same thing? Are these metrics strong enough to sustain real, longterm faith?

Richard Denton brings out several strains that together contribute to his commitment as a Christian. What do other people think?

And, for a humorous take on this question, check out a new clip from The Veritas Forum at Williams last year, featuring Ian Hutchinson and atheist professor of mathematics Colin Adams. As Ian Hutchinson points out, "personal miracles" don't seem to be enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTEjveJ6RAo