March 25, 2016

Can a scientist believe in the resurrection? Three hypotheses.

Ian Hutchinson
MIT

Jump To Comments

I’m a professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT, and I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. So do dozens of my colleagues. How can this be?

Hypothesis one:…

Share This Talk

Topics

What to Read Next:

Is There Evidence for Easter? A Scientist’s List.

Doug

Everything in the physical world disproves resurrection myths, being born of a virgin, turning water into wine, walking on water, walking through walls, living to be 900, dividing a sea, etc. How can you say otherwise?
- Kevin
  
  Point 2 answers your question.
- Larry
  
  I think he already covered that. Re-read with eyes and brain open please.
  - Trevor Lowell
    
    Having an open mind and brain is fine, the problem is having the mind so uncritically open that the brains fall out.
- Jon Dekkers
  
  Doug, just think about the origins of the universe, something developing from nothing. Kind of seems impossible, yet here we are! What a miracle!
- James
  
  Doug, the entire purpose of miracles as recorded in the Bible was to verify that the people doing them we’re from God. by their very definition they had to be something impossible to serve their very purpose. That’s why in John 10 when the pharisee’s questioned Jesus saying “tell us plainly, are you the Messiah?” Jesus replied “My good works testify about who I am…..”
  
  The resurrection is the ultimate embodiment of this, Jesus rose again from the grave to conquer death so that there could be no doubt that he was who he claimed to be. So when we say “that’s impossible” we’re really missing the point.
  
  The fact is if Christ hadn’t risen from the grave, you would have never heard of him…….
  - FTJ
    
    And if Merlin hadn’t really been magical, you would never have heard of him. If Hercules hadn’t really ascended into heaven, you would never have heard of him. If Mohammed hadn’t really ridden a flying horse, you would never have heard of him. Right?
    - http://nexgencodecamp.com.au Peter Januarius
      
      FTJ – I don’t think your comments are really helping your case! 😉
      - FTJ
        
        I’m not sure what you mean. I simply illustrated the ridiculous nature of James’ closing comment above.
      - cook4668
        
        The flying Horse was a legend started long after Mohammed’s death to claim Jerusalem for the Muslims as a holy site (a reason to invade it). Hercules was a myth based on astrology…(stories people made up about the stars)….Jesus was a historical person… Read Josephus and the Wars of the Jews… The Jews do not deny that Jesus was real or that he died on a cross or that they don’t have his body. The Muslim’s do not deny the miracles of Jesus or that he ascended into Heaven. The Christians were eyewitnesses to the whole story and they were all Jewish to start with.
      - cook4668
        
        Josh McDow was an atheist that started off to prove that the story of Jesus was a fiction. He ended up writing “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” … A thesis for the historical evidence that Jesus was the Messiah.
    - Harry
      
      Not the same. Jesus miraculous acts and claims are historically verifiable, while the examples you gave are not. That is the whole point.
    - Harry
      
      Not saying you don’t have good reasons for unbelief. Not saying you aren’t intelligent, not saying you don’t have any good arguments. But I notice you have still failed to rebut the historical evidence for the resurrection that is the whole subject of this article. So in the interest of staying on subject, can you please explain how the Christian Church got started if the resurrection didn’t happen? Here’s the argument I’m referring to in a nutshell:
      
      1Corinthians15:3-8
      
      3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b]and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
      
      Historians agree 1 corinthians was written about 56 A.D. and Jesus was crucified about 33 A.D.:
      
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
      
      So Paul is saying that the above things happened publicly in a public document and it is being read aloud just 23 years after the events actually took place. Which means most of the eye witnesses who observed the events took place are still alive and able to support or not support Pauls claims. This makes sense because he says “most of whom [the people who actually saw Jesus walking around after he was crucified] are still living.”
      
      If Jesus did not rise from the dead, if all of this is a lie, then why didn’t all of those eye witnesses squash the rumor? Paul says, “Hey, if you don’t believe me, here are 500 people in your community who actually saw and spoke with Jesus after he was killed and then resurrected. They were there, go ask them don’t take my word for it.” How could the Christian movement have gotten started without the supporting testimony of all those witnesses? And why would all of those witnesses collectively say yes Jesus rose from the dead if he didn’t?
      
      23 years ago Bill Clinton was president. What if I wrote a book and in the book I said that he did something he didn’t do. What if I said that Bill Clinton was a Republican. Do you think that interpretation of history would gain any traction? No. Of course not. Why? Because everyone who was alive when Bill Clinton was president is STILL alive. They would say, “uh, no. I was there. I heard him speak. He was not a republican he was a democrat”. Exact same thing here. If Paul said “Jesus rose from the dead ask everyone in your community” and it was a lie the people would say “no he did not I was there that never happened” and the movement would never get off the ground. But it did. Christianity exploded. How do you explain that if don’t believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead?
      
      This is one way Christianity is completely different from every other religion- It is not just a philosophy or abstract idea. It is based on a historical person and a historical event that historically VERIFIABLE. Please read the below article it does a good job of explaining some of this.
      
      http://credohouse.org/blog/christianity-the-worlds-most-falsifiable-religion
      
      In fact, this argument for the historical validity of the New Testament text can be applied to the ENTIRE new testament because even the OLDEST New Testament books were written only 60 years after Jesus death. Some people hold the position that the events surrounding Christianity and the person of Jesus Christ was just a “legend” or “myth”. But the recency of the documentation makes that impossible. 60 years is not enough time for a “legend” to develop and 20 years definitely isn’t. It would be like me trying to make up a president that didn’t exist and tell everyone he was in office in 1960, or more recently 1993. It’s just silly.
      
      Here’s what it comes down to. If you don’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead, that’s fine. But if you’re going to maintain your intellectual integrity, you then have to explain how Christianity got started in the first place. And good luck doing that because the only way any of it makes sense is if this actually happened.
    - Trevor Lowell
      
      Exactly lol.
- cook4668
  
  Not everything in the physical world has an explanation. Life, the code of life, the harmony of the physical laws.
  There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
  Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
  – Hamlet (1.5.167-8)
FTJ

Do you believe in the miracles attributed to Buddha and Mohammed too? Do you believe in alien abduction simply because many people claim to have witnessed and experienced it?

Anyhow, two points: 1) religions that you don’t believe in have inspired plenty of people to sacrifice their lives, so there’s no reason to think that a fake Christianity wouldn’t be able to inspire the same behavior; 2) adults can be brainwashed too, or more specifically, adults can be convinced to believe in absurdities, as history amply proves.
- Jeffery Graff
  
  I’d need specifics on the miracles allegedly attributed to Buddha and Mohammed including attesting literature and manuscript data of that literature. Dr. Hutchinson carefully dealt with this question from an historical perspective. The question is historical. So to your two points –
  
  1) Yes, people can be inspired by other things; even things I’d disagree with. I don’t see Dr. Hutchinson making an issue of that. Why do you?
  2) Yes, adults can be brainwashed in an environment conducive to brainwashing. Are you claiming that MIT is such an environment? If not, your point is pointless. If so, then it’s likely that people are being brainwashed in all such institutions of learning.
  - FTJ
    
    Did not Jesus also allegedly tell people not to ask for miraculous proofs? That didn’t stop pseudonymous writers from attributing all manner of magical feats to him. Likewise other religious figures.
    Mirales attributed to Buddha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Gautama_Buddha
    
    Miracles attributed to Mohammed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Muhammad
    - David Ryan
      
      Where did Jesus tell people not to ask for miraculous proofs? You can’t just claim something you have to BACK IT UP!
      - FTJ
        
        I claimed nothing, I asked a question. Is it not reported that Jesus told people to keep his miracles secret, in the same text that reveals them? Strange. If I expected the gospels to make sense, I would be sorely disappointed.
      - David Ryan
        
        Very well yes thats true he did tell them at the time to not say anything. It was by no means an order for all time to never say anything. Consider later on he did indeed tell them to go out among all nations telling the people all that they had seen and making disiples out of them.
        
        But even if he had told them to NEVER tell people about the miracles he performed it is still not the same as Muhammad and Buddha. Muhammad and Buddha both claimed to specifically have not performed miracles. Jesus performed the miracles and just told them not to say anything yet. You can’t make the two things the same they are two completely different things.
    - cook4668
      
      Jesus performed miracles out of love. His purpose was not in His miracles. He was the Lamb of God that took away the sins of the world. He tired of the “Santa Claus” role the people wanted from him. He was not there for parlor tricks. He was there for their salvations. Don’t confuse the power of divinity with the purpose of divinity. Neither Buddha nor Mohammed performed miracles… Neither died for humanity both brought a religion of “good works” for salvation. Since men can never seem to be good enough… their religion fails. Only Jesus paid the price we could not pay. Only Jesus… No one is in the same class.
      - FTJ
        
        Islam is “failing” by being the fastest growing religion on Earth.
        If you can 1) provide persuasive evidence that the Jesus character was based on a real, historical Rabbi Joshua ben Joseph and is not the product of syncretized myth making; and 2) provide non-Christian sources for any magical powers you claim he possessed, or the miraculous events which accompanied him (example: any extra Biblical account of zombies roaming the streets of Jerusalem when Jesus was crucified); and 3) provide a logical argument for Jehova’s existence, and for why it was necessary for an omnipotent god to sacrifice a human being before he could forgive us for genetically inherited sin, then you will have done things that no Christian to date has ever been capable of.
      - Harry
        
        Still waiting for you to rebut the historical evidence for Jesus resurrection. This is the entire point of the article and you haven’t addressed it. Explain the following:
        
        1Corinthians15:3-8
        
        3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b]and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
        
        Historians agree 1 corinthians was written about 56 A.D. and Jesus was crucified about 33 A.D.:
        
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
        
        So Paul is saying that the above things happened publicly in a public document and it is being read aloud just 23 years after the events actually took place. Which means most of the eye witnesses who observed the events took place are still alive and able to support or not support Pauls claims. This makes sense because he says “most of whom [the people who actually saw Jesus walking around after he was crucified] are still living.”
        
        If Jesus did not rise from the dead, if all of this is a lie, then why didn’t all of those eye witnesses squash the rumor? Paul says, “Hey, if you don’t believe me, here are 500 people in your community who actually saw and spoke with Jesus after he was killed and then resurrected. They were there, go ask them don’t take my word for it.” How could the Christian movement have gotten started without the supporting testimony of all those witnesses? And why would all of those witnesses collectively say yes Jesus rose from the dead if he didn’t?
        
        23 years ago Bill Clinton was president. What if I wrote a book and in the book I said that he did something he didn’t do. What if I said that Bill Clinton was a Republican. Do you think that interpretation of history would gain any traction? No. Of course not. Why? Because everyone who was alive when Bill Clinton was president is STILL alive. They would say, “uh, no. I was there. I heard him speak. He was not a republican he was a democrat”. Exact same thing here. If Paul said “Jesus rose from the dead ask everyone in your community” and it was a lie the people would say “no he did not I was there that never happened” and the movement would never get off the ground. But it did. Christianity exploded. How do you explain that if don’t believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead?
        
        This is one way Christianity is completely different from every other religion- It is not just a philosophy or abstract idea. It is based on a historical person and a historical event that historically VERIFIABLE. Please read the below article it does a good job of explaining some of this.
        
        http://credohouse.org/blog/chr…
        
        In fact, this argument for the historical validity of the New Testament text can be applied to the ENTIRE new testament because even the OLDEST New Testament books were written only 60 years after Jesus death. Some people hold the position that the events surrounding Christianity and the person of Jesus Christ was just a “legend” or “myth”. But the recency of the documentation makes that impossible. 60 years is not enough time for a “legend” to develop and 20 years definitely isn’t. It would be like me trying to make up a president that didn’t exist and tell everyone he was in office in 1960, or more recently 1993. It’s just silly.
        
        Here’s what it comes down to. If you don’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead, that’s fine. But if you’re going to maintain your intellectual integrity, you then have to explain how Christianity got started in the first place. And good luck doing that because the only way any of it makes sense is if this actually happened.
      - FTJ
        
        There is no historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. There is no historical evidence for Hercules ascending into heaven. There is no historical evidence that Buddha ever teleported or walked on rainbows, or that Krishna ever lifted a mountain or controlled the movement of the sun. There are religious texts which claim all these things happened. There is no evidence that any of them ever happened.
      - cook4668
        
        Islam is not failing because of numbers. Islam fails because of its philosophy. No Muslim is assured of his or her salvation. Their lives are said to be weighed on a scale. If the good out weighs the bad they go to heaven. Therein lies the rub. Who is the most honest liar, the most life giving murder, the most giving thief? The four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) can be easily be traced to the 1st century with thousands of manuscripts scattered all over the Roman world. John was a teenager when he followed Jesus and he lived into his 90s. John had a disciple named Polycap that was an old man when he was burned at the stake by the Romans. ….
      - cook4668
        
        Joshua ben Yahweh… for we believe he was the son of God.
        Genesis 3:14… Messiah would be born of the seed of a woman (No man mentioned)
        Micah 5:2… Messiah would be born in Bethlehem
        Isaiah 7:14… Messiah would be born of a virgin
        Psalm 22: 16-18…David predicts the crucifixion of Christ. 1000 years prior
        2 Samuel 7:12-13 and Isaiah 9:7 …Messiah would be from the tribe of David
        Isaiah 11:1 ….Messiah would be called a Nazarene
        Isaiah 9:1-2 …Messiah would bring light to Galilee
        Isaiah 6:9-10 Messiah would speak in parables
        Psalm 41:9 and Zecharaiah 11:12-13 Messiah would be betrayed
        and many many more… too many to be statistically denied.
      - FTJ
        
        You can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible. That’s Logic 101.
      - David Ryan
        
        Actually you can. Its a common misconception that using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning but its really not. If the Bible was 1 book it would indeed be circular reasoning. But because it is instead 66 books. Written over a period of 1500 years by over 40 different authors from 3 different continents from all different walks of life including a cupbearer, a king, fishermen, physician, priest, etc. You can use 1 book to help prove another book inside the Bible itself.
- David Ryan
  
  Muhammad rather specifically said he performed no miracles. In fact Jews at the time asked him to produce a miracle so they would know he was really sent by God. His reply was the Qua’ran should be enough to satisfy them even though he never performed any miracles. Buddha likewise was asked to perform miracles and replied “…I dislike, reject and despise them,” and refused to comply.
  
  And while adults can be brainwashed….thousands of them from different places would be awfully hard to brainwash especially back in ancient times. The historical examples of brainwashing are generally from modern history. And generally speaking the people doing the brainwashing did it for personal gain or for the gain of their country. So for you’re argument to make sense you would need to establish motive for Jesus and his apostles to purposefully lead people astray (while also teaching them morals that even atheists almost universally agree are good morals). Since the reward they received here on earth anyway was death…you might be hard pressed to show motive …..to show that they gained something materially from their efforts. Also worth noting the brainwashing examples I can think of were almost always during war. They were used to subvert enemy combatants.
  
  All that being said I think you are probably just confusing brainwashing with persuasion. There are many examples of a person persuading people to believe a lie. This is different from brainwashing in that brainwashing is very systematic and often involves psychological torture. Persuasion is just getting someone to believe something that they didn’t previously believe. Persuasion happens far more often and while many times people can be led astray by persuasion you cannot make the claim that anyone who is ever persuaded is wrong to be persuaded. Or that anyone who uses persuasion is also wrong. But you’re absolutely right there are cases where adults are convinced to believe in absurdities. I can give you a few examples.
  Example 1. Something came from nothing. One of the prevailing theories for the creation of the universe now is that it came out of nothing. This is an absurdity….and in fact is one of the oldest known absurdities that philosophers discussed thousands of years ago and even then they knew it was an absurd position.
  Example 2. One of the other more common theories is that the universe is eternal….they tend to use the first law of thermodynamics to support this claim. The first law being that energy cannot be created nor destroyed which leads them to believe it must have always existed. I take exception with this because it seems to ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics which basically states the universe is losing heat energy….which suggests a beginning…because if you start with X amount and now in the present you have X-5 amount then X was the beginning and X-5 is the present.
  Example 3. That micro evolution proves macro evolution. This is just a straight up absurdity. It is also completely unable to be observed and thus unable to be proven. It flies in the face of the scientific method. It is unable to be tested and reproduced. No one has yet seen an ape turn into a human. Are there genetic similarities? Sure! But saying that means that because a wolf has a tail and a cat has a tail then they must have had common ancestors somewhere….is like saying because two books both have the word “the” in them they must have had common authors…. you can have things in common without the source of those things being in common.
  
  Now lets go with something a little more common. Something I bet you have seen somewhere and liked…maybe even liked on facebook at some point. You have probably heard the phrase “there is no absolute truth.” Seems innocent right? And many people believe it to be true….and yet theres the catch…if that statement is true then it would seem there is absolute truth. This is what is known as a self defeating statement. Many MANY people believe in them wholeheartedly and think it is one of the wisest things ever said….instead it is just one of the most absurd things ever uttered.
  
  Another thing that really bothers me about materialists/naturalists…when you ask them certain questions sometimes they respond with the following answer “by chance.” As in evolution or the origin of the universe they will say these things came about “by chance.” Yet chance has no BEING it has no POWER to do anything. It can be used to describe probabilities. Such as the probability of an intelligently designed universe vs. the probability of well any other explanation for the universe. What it cannot EVER be IS THE EXPLANATION FOR THE UNIVERSE OR EVOLUTION OR ANYTHING ELSE. Another way of saying it is that it cannot be a Cause thus it cannot produce Effects.
  - FTJ
    
    So much illogic I can’t hit every point. I’ll just say that special pleading for God as an uncaused cause is not convincing, and leave it at that.
    - David Ryan
      
      Yeah there was a lot of illogical things in my post….that was sort of the point I was showing how the claims of many scientists and even many philosophers are quite illogical. I was also showing how you’re worldview is equally illogical. If you were half as intelligent as you seem to think you are, you should easily be able to offer answers for ALL of my points.
      - FTJ
        
        Very well, I’ll put off watching my show for a few more minutes.
        1) How did the universe originate? I don’t know. On a quantum scale, cause and effect get thrown out the window, and I know of some scientific hypotheses regarding an ex nihilo origin, but you’ll have to research them yourself.
        2) Is the universe eternal? Perhaps, but certainly not unchanging. Again, however, the fact that we don’t have definitive answers to all these questions doesn’t mean that preindustrial fables are a reliable source of information.
        3) Micro and macro evolution are terms that creationists made up. A human has on average about 74 de novo mutations. What happens when you add up thousands of generations of “micro” evolution? This is something creationists have no answer for. The simple fact is that science has abundant evidence of transitional species, and with internet access, you can easily find this information.
        4) Chance is a better explanation for many things than intelligent design or miracles. If pregnancy is a gift from God, for example, why do ectopic pregnancy and spontaneous abortions happen? There is no creationist answer for such questions, because their axioms are nonsensical.
      - David Ryan
        
        1.) On a quantum scale cause and effect do not get thrown out the window. They try to claim it does but sorry you can’t get around cause and effect. Even with God in the equation it still requires a Cause (God) which produces an Effect (anything you want it to be). If you dispute this give me just one example where something happened without a cause. Keep in mind im asking the literal impossible here because at best you could say “effect X happened and you don’t know the cause.” But you can’t definitively say it had no cause. For you to say that, you would have to be omniscient so that you could observe literally everything in order to be able to determine for sure that “effect X” had no cause.
        
        2.) No one is saying that because you don’t have an answer for the origin of the universe that it means our theory is automatically right. However it also doesn’t mean that our theory is wrong. Our theory is every bit as viable as yours. And in fact ive looked at the major theories out there including the eternal universe theory, the multiverse theory, zero sum universe (and thus something from nothing which again is an absurdity) theory, universe by chance (which is really just another way of saying all the previous theories) theory and all of them are unsatisfactory as explanations. When you carry them through to their logical conclusions they make no sense. Because again each depends on the idea of creation by “chance” Chance is not a “thing” it has no ability to DO ANYTHING!
        
        3.) I’ve looked for transitional species before. Google turned up 2 maybe 3 if you count the platypus and some scientists consider them transitional and some don’t. And the evidence they show for them being transitional leaves a lot to be desired frankly. They really don’t do a good job of proving it. And again the scientific method that all these great scientists espouse cannot prove EVOLUTION because they cannot reproduce changes at the species level. Meaning they cannot create one species from another. Also when you add up thousands of generations of micro evolution you get a lot of micro evolution you do not necessarily get macro evolution. Your claim is like saying what happens when you add up thousands and thousands of dollars? You get Hamburgers!!! One does not necessarily lead to the other. It is a slippery slope fallacy and thus an irrational argument. Please take an argument and debate course along with a course on logic and critical thinking before coming back here.
        
        4.) Chance is not an explanation for anything it has no power to do anything. It cannot cause anything. I don’t know why I keep having to repeat this. It seems so obvious that chance cannot cause anything. The examples you give do have causes. Again they may not always know what the causes are but that doesn’t mean there is no cause it just means the cause has yet to be discovered. For the most part though they can usually identify why miscarriages occur. Calling them spontaneous abortions make them sound like they are a result of chance but they aren’t really because again Chance has no ability to cause anything. Simple example if you flip a coin is it chance that determines how it lands? Or is it the flip speed, the height it rises, the air moving it, the gravity pulling it back down, the weight of the coin, etc, that determines how it falls? If anyone desired to experiment on this (and they likely have) by doing the right calculations you could more ably predict on which side of the coin it will land. OH and to answer your question yes creationists do have an answer for both of those things happening. Its called sin. Sin blights the entire world and everything in it. So yes bad things do happen. Lucky for all of us God put a redemptive plan in place in the form of His Son Jesus Christ. So even those babies who are miscarried have an eternal future, they can even be counted as lucky because they will never really have to face the perils of this world. They will instead get an eternal lifetime with the living God. Keep in mind I am not saying here that people who miscarry or have ectopic pregnancies are having those things happen as punishment for sin. I am saying that once sin entered the world it corrupted everything including pregnancy so that sometimes pregnancies do not occur the way they would if the world were free from sin.
      - FTJ
        
        1) “Spontaneous abortion” is the correct medical term
        
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
      - David Ryan
        
        Thank you for the wikipedia article. I randomly selected an example from it and I would like to ask you a question. Nardovelifer the oldest known Lamprid fish. It is said to be an intermediary….but the only thing its specific page talks about is its differences from other fish. So it does not indicate a change that macro evolution says takes place. It indicates micro evolution but it does not indicate macro evolution on the level of it being an intermediary between a fish and a completely different animal like a cat or a frog or what have you. They merely point to it as an intermediary between two different kinds of fish. All agree that is possible. Heck we have DOMESTICATED animals to be intermediaries between two different kinds of the same species. Dogs for example. The argument you need to prove is that there are intermediaries indicating a change from a worm into a fish, or a fish into a frog. We need to see those intermediaries between those things. As of right now as far as I know there are none. And even were they to appear you would still have to PROVE that its not just a species that happens to have the characteristics of the other two species. If we found an animal that had characteristics of both a fish and a frog it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the animal was the descendant of a fish and an ancestor of a frog instead it could simply indicate oh look there is a new species discovered that happens to have characteristics of both frogs and fish.
      - Jeffrey Moberly
        
        I believe that the correct term is “Faith”. Faith is necessary for science and religion alike.
        
        Science rarely provides all-encompassing answers to our questions about nature, therefore, science is filled with many theories and few laws of science.
        
        In order for a person to believe in something that he/she doesn’t fully understand requires faith.
        
        In the same way, nobody understands everything about God, or how God sometimes works outside of the realm of nature. That also requires faith.
        
        Therefore, I believe it would be quite reasonable for everybody to be comfortable with the three following words, “I Don’t Know!”
        
        Once we humble ourselves enough to say “I Don’t Know,” we can then discuss what we do know.
Jraghon

Thank you! This is such a straightforward post, and I love it.
John Faulkner

Historical evidence, like scientific evidence, just tells you is what is more likely to have happened. A dead man coming back to life is incredibly unlikely. It seems to me there are several more likely scenarios including option one and also that it was all just made up. Perhaps as a nuclear physicist you could find a way of turning water into wine but surely it is easier to do this by means of a conjuring trick.
- leehiufung911
  
  John, all science operates by “planned observation”, under the assumption that “the way the universe behaves at one point in time is likely to also be way it will behave in the future, and at all points in time.” Indeed, cases where this assumption fail, and things don’t go the way science predicts, are so so rare that we either rewrite our laws of physics, or call it a miracle.
  
  If Jesus really was God as he claimed, wouldn’t it be quite reasonable, in fact, to expect him to be able to mess around with the “normal rules” of the universe? i.e. Wouldn’t you expect a miracle from God? If someone claims to be God but then says he can’t perform miracles and mess with the laws that he created, wouldn’t that be more suspiscious?
  
  I really encourage you to go ahead and have a look for yourself the historical credibility of the books of the bible, and the accounts of Jesus in the bible, as well as what the bible says. (Which can lead to a very very lengthy discussion that I’m not going to type all the way here)
  
  But in this case, to point out a couple of things: Non-christian historians have recorded the existence and death of Jesus, and so has the bible. The disciples of Jesus went from disowning him, then cowering in a house after Jesus’ Death, and then suddenly a few days later preaching about the resurrection loudly and claiming they had seen the risen Christ, and then in the end every one of them dying very painful deaths for being Christians. If they had made the whole thing up, why would they go on and commit themselves to a crazy cult and be persecuted and be willing to die painful deaths for a made-up belief? If this had all been an elaborate ploy, why was everyone else so gullible and so so many people believe what the disciples said? Jerusalem was in disarray–why didn’t the Jewish leaders simply show everyone the body, and this little uprising would be put down? Nobody at all could produce the body of Jesus, on the contrary, 500+ people allegedly claimed to have seen him at the same time (some mass hallucination!), people walked with him, talked with him, touched him, ate with him, after Jesus’ very public death. It would have had to been a conspiracy of massive scale for the whole thing to be made up, and all of this is to the detriment of the people making it up–I can’t see a clear motive for doing so.
- ab
  
  1 Cor 1:18-19
  
  18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,
  
  “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
  
  And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”
  
  20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
  - Kenneth Bozeman
    
    Lest this seem or be self-righteous, I share the following humbling personal experience. I have only one experience in my life which I claim to quote verbatim as a conversation with God. I was meditating on the subsequent verse [1 Cor 1:25]: “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than man…” I made so bold as to ask God what precisely his foolishness was–since it seemed incongruous with the very concept of God. This is the short but devastating conversation that immediately occurred (to my stunned surprise, in my mind in what I would call a somewhat trance-like stream of consciousness state):
    
    “Do you remember in Job* where I said that if I were to withdraw my spirit to myself, all flesh would perish together?”
    
    “Yes sir.”
    
    Pause. “That would have been the smart thing to do.”
    
    I can tell you that I did not expect to get a direct answer, very much less, this answer. My response was intense, tearful gratitude that God did not do the “smart” thing, but did the foolish thing (Christ on the cross), which became for me–and any who will accept it, the wisdom of God.
    [*Job 34:14-15]
- TheBigCat (Steve)
  
  As Sir Karl (Popper) put forth with regard to what is and what is not science, can the original premise or any of the “more likely scenarios” be falsified?
  - FTJ
    
    Yes. https://www.newsday.co.zw/2015/06/05/prophet-buried-alive-in-cleansing-ceremony/
    - TheBigCat (Steve)
      
      Sorry, I don’t get the point.
- tj10
  
  John, you assume Jesus was not God. We assume He was and that the eyewitness testimony of the Bible is reliable. Each has to make his own decision though since science is of no use here. All science can tell us is that it is basically impossible by totally natural processes. Christians agree totally with that statement.
- Dean Johnson
  
  “..to me there are several more likely scenarios including option one and also that it was all just made up” How likely is it that the eyewitnesses to the Resurrected Christ and The Ascension of the Savior into Heaven, would would plot and lie about it? What was in it for them? They were martyred by crucifixion, (Peter upside-down), hanging, flayed, stoned, beheaded, sawn asunder. A great price to pay for spreading a thesis you would say they contrived.
  - Susan Hamer
    
    Well there are enough idiots who follow the Muslim religion who believe they will have many virgins if they blow themselves up so why not the disciples believing crazy things?
    - FTJ
      
      Exactly. Every proselytizer can say, “Why would I make this up? What do I have to gain?” The world is filled with people who can argue, “Why would I make up a story of alien abduction, knowing that I’ll be ridiculed for it?” or “Why would Mohammed make up a story about receiving a prophecy, knowing that he would be banished and that people would try to kill him for it?”
    - Dean Johnson
      
      That is the point. They (The Apostles) were eye witnesses to Jesus Resurrection. They did not have to take a leap of faith. They would know if The Gospel they preached was true or false. Who goes to his death defending what they know to be a lie?
      - FTJ
        
        Julius Rosenberg, Joseph Smith, too many others to list.
      - David Kim
        
        People can make claims but our question is what evidence do you bring to prove your claim.
        
        For example, Muhammad in the Quran claims that Jesus was not crucified Surah 4:157. yet the Bible claims that Jesus was indeed crucified. Both parties are making claims, which party is true, when both parties claim to be from God? To that we look at historical evidence. Tactitus who was a Roman Senator and historian wrote about Jesus and His crucifixion under Pontius Pilate in His Annals 15.4
        
        “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, and the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
        
        We can also look to the Babylonian Talmud a record of Jewish rabbinic teachings, in which they make references to Jesus (Yeshua, or Yeshu as an insult by Jews) killed on the eve of Passover by hanging (another word used to refer to crucifixion).
        
        These are from two sources one from a Roman Senator/Historian and another from Jewish rabbis. Both of these confirm what we know about Jesus’ death according to the New Testament. That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate (John 19) and that he died on the eve of Passover (John 19:14).
        
        Again back to my original point. People can make claims but our question is what evidence do you bring to prove your claim. Considering the evidence The Quran (Muhammad) is wrong in its claim concerning Jesus and His death. Thus making the Quran a historically unreliable book and can’t be from God. The claim the bible made is right concerning Jesus and His death. Which points to its historical reliability, divine inspiration, a book warranted for further study. That is if you are open minded and unbiased in seeking out the truth no matter where it will lead
      - honesttoGod
        
        You misunderstand the claim in the Quran about the death of Jesus. Muhammad can only know that Jesus did not die by revelation from Allah. God created a duplicate of Jesus (like an automaton, one supposes) who died on the cross while Jesus was assumed into Heaven. He will return from Heaven to cast down an evil ruler, and will reign here on Earth. But no one saw Jesus as not dying– he appeared to, so no question of a historical difference as to reliability, at least with this incident.
      - GJD
        
        It sounds like your definition of ‘reason’ is an epistemological system which dictates that we should never believe in something unless it could be proven rationally. Please correct me if i am wrong in this.
        
        Yet the entire story of the Enlightenment, and the reason it was overcome by post-modern philosophy–is that that of philosophers realizing over time that pure rationality is incapable as an epistemological standard for what is true and not true.
        
        In conjunction with this, I am not sure that others here are claiming that “because people were willing to die for it, THEREFORE it must be true.” They are pointing out that the narrative of Christ being real is ‘reasonable’–in that, people don’t die for something if they know that it is a lie.
        
        Obviously this is not a rational proof for the existence of God and that the Bible is true. But it is a consistency which is worth our attention.
        
        The other logical explanation, as you point out, is that people often believe that something is true, and then they are willing to die for it (whether it is actually true or not). (all of your examples above). And of course, that is another very likely explanation.
        
        I would say that there is a difference between an enlightenment styled epistemology of pure reason and the use of reason as one of many tools to test claim’s as to whether or not they are justified true beliefs.
        
        I would also suggest that you have ‘faith’ in your epistemological system…i.e., that you can’t use reason to prove the reasonability of reason itself, nor can you use reason to prove that we should only ever believe in what is reasonable.
        
        BUT, i’m curious what your thoughts are.
Paul Hutchinson

Thankyou for this article, it’s well written and encouraging!

There’s one comment I’d like to pick up on – “Is celebrating a myth consistent with scientific integrity?” I’m sure there are lots of scientists who celebrate the myth of an apple falling on Newton’s head, or the myth of Archimedes shouting “eureka!” whilst in the bath, even though the historical basis of these myths is hard to establish.

When it comes to the resurrection, I’m inclined to agree with CS Lewis, “The story of Christ is a true myth, a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened”.
- David Cherry
  
  Newton told the apple story to Stukeley, who relayed it as such:
  
  “After dinner, the weather being warm, we went into the garden and drank thea, under the shade of some apple trees…he told me, he was just in the same situation, as when formerly, the notion of gravitation came into his mind. It was occasion’d by the fall of an apple, as he sat in contemplative mood. Why should that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground, thought he to himself…”
  - Paul Hutchinson
    
    Ah, interesting. Perhaps this “myth” also has some historical basis.
    
    The story certainly sticks in people’s imaginations better than if the facts had been “I was carrying out some experiments in a laboratory, and it became apparent that any object which I released from being held would fall vertically downwards. Why should this be so, I thought to myself?”
    
    A good story has enduring power to stick in people’s imaginations better than a principle or a hypothesis.
Pingback: Can a scientist believe in the resurrection? Three hypotheses. | We're here for you - St Paul's and Gnadenberg()

rebecca

Hi there! We’re happy to approve your reposting, but please credit The Veritas Forum alongside the link. Thanks!

Terry Colpitts

Thanks for sharing. There is scientific proof that we exist even after we are dead. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that ‘Energy can neither be created nor destroyed”.Our bodies are full of electric current. And this cannot be destroyed. Sow yes our mortal bodies die but our energy lives on. Some call this energy the soul or the spirit. And if we believe we have already died aka the born again experience. I believe. He is risen.
- Julian Luttrell
  
  Science does not, never has, and does not claim to, “prove” anything. Science is a method, and can only _disprove_ things: make hypothesis, construct test, if the test achieves its aims then the hypothesis is false.
  Thermodynamics does not state “energy can neither be created nor destroyed”; instead it openly assumes “energy can neither be created nor destroyed” (this is the hypothesis) and invites all scientists (using the scientific method above) to come and disprove the assumption. So far no repeatable experiment (scientific method) has disproved the assumption.
- leehiufung911
  
  (I’m a Christian and I’m a scientist and this doesn’t make any sense to me… Or is this sarcasm and I’m completely missing it?)
Laurie

Keep sharing your insight – the world needs to hear and comprehend the message and reality of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of our One True God.
Pingback: MUSIC NOTES: 3.29.16 | BHBC Music Notes()
Pingback: Christ is Risen! A 2016 reflection. | St. Aidan's Anglican Church Parkdale()
Julian Luttrell

I can’t see any hypotheses here. Can somebody write them for me?
- tj10
  
  Sorry. Can’t do. We are dealing with unrepeatable untestable history here, not science. We do however have various historical documents that record supposed eyewitness testimony of people who did see the resurrected Christ. Although we cannot do that, the next best thing is the testimony of someone who did and whose life was radically changed as a result and spent the rest of their lives living (and even experiencing suffering) as if it was true.
  - Julian Luttrell
    
    Then the title should not claim ‘three hypotheses’.
    - tj10
      
      Well, I guess to be technical, yes, you are right. Three possible interpretations would be a more accurate title. Good point!
    - leehiufung911
      
      Well, hypotheses within science need to be testable.
      But a hypothesis is simply a postulate. It does not need to be testable.
      So here its meaning is more like “possibilities” rather than “candidates for scientific theories”
tj10

Great! It’s wonderful to see believing scientists who understand that science is not the only arbiter of truth. If he is open to God’s existence and actually believes that God has intervened in history as the Bible says, I wonder what his views on origins are. I wonder if he accepts the secular story that assumes God did not intervene or if he is open to God intervening in the creation of the world as well. As he said, certainly for the normal order of events, science is unbeatable, but God has, can, and sometimes still does intervene in supernatural ways in His world which is why I believe the biblical record of history, including Genesis.
https://mindyourmaker.wordpress.com Mind your Maker

This comment is directed primarily towards fellow Christians: It’s interesting to me that Athanasius (a key figure in the early church) did not have any interest in using historical or legal / circumstantial evidence arguments for proving the reality of the resurrection. His argument revolved around two interrelated things which he assumed were manifest to anyone who bothered to look. Basically, he said that Christians have no fear of death at all, and if Jesus did not rise from the dead, he would not have been able to bring to effect the ministry and mission of ‘the Church’ in setting people free from paganism (etc) and the transformation of culture (towards general benevolence and forgiveness, banishing ‘superstition etc) all done ‘in his name’. I do wonder, however, whether the same argument could be used in broad swaths of Christianity in ‘the west’. Instead of looking at the character and vitality of actual Christians and churches we now tend to fall back on logical or historical arguments to prove that at least belief in the resurrection is intellectually defensible. However, logical and rational arguments in this sense don’t cause people to believe (though removing barriers to belief is not a bad thing). Personal witness to Christ’s resurrection power in our lives does (e.g., Jesus healed me of _____. I can’t explain it. My doctor can’t explain it. Those closest to me see that I’m a changed person). I’m coming to realize how impoverished western Christians are (and I am one…) in spite (or because?) of all our wealth and the lingering (though rapidly fading) sense of cultural entitlement. Perhaps when we are finally despised on the margins of western society a different sort of experience of the Resurrection will become present in ‘the Church’ in the west.
- FTJ
  
  Would Athanasius today argue that suicide bombers’ not fearing death manifestly proved the validity of their religion?
  - https://mindyourmaker.wordpress.com Mind your Maker
    
    I would say definitely not. I think Athanasius regards both ‘proofs’ as being necessarily linked and would doubtless point to 1 Corinthians 13 (the necessity of love being the motive of all our actions) and Jesus’ command to love indiscriminately and forgive our ‘enemies’. Back then, as now, merely being unafraid to die for a cause wouldn’t itself be proof regarding the validity of that cause (to make no mention of the violence perpetuated by suicide bombers).
    - FTJ
      
      Would not Jainism meet Athanasius’ criteria better than Christianity? Its followers are equally willing to die for their beliefs, and practice absolute nonviolence toward both humans and animals, where Christians are forever making exceptions to allow for their violence.
      - https://mindyourmaker.wordpress.com Mind your Maker
        
        Athanasius’ ‘proofs’ come at the end of series of arguments explaining why the Christian belief in ‘the incarnation’ is both necessary and logical. I’d recommend reading his little book ‘On the Incarnation’ as it is a classic book explaining Christianity and worth while whatever your world view may be. Jainism and Christianity have fundamentally different views regarding ‘theism’, the world and engagement with it, and what we are being saved from and save to. It would be a fruitful and interesting discussion to explore which of the two world views make more sense of why the world is the way it is, but not realistically possible in a forum such as this.
        
        As for Christians ‘forever making exceptions to allow for their violence’ are you talking about classical Christian formulations of ‘just war theory’? What do you have in mind here? It’s not possible for a Christian or Christians to justify ‘terrorism’ as it is currently being justified by certain quarters of Islam (1 Corinthians 13; Matthew 5.44; Luke 6.27-36). I think Aquinas’ just war theory makes a lot of sense regarding how to decide if war is justified and how it may be justly waged (incidentally, if the USA made its decisions to go to war using Aquinas’ theory many of their wars would not have occurred (Iraq 1 and 2 for instance) and they would have entered others sooner (WW2).
        
        This is not to say that institutional Christianity hasn’t at times been corrupt or been disastrously wrong or blind to particular cultural presuppositions or political manipulation. Institutional Christianity has always been ‘a mingling of bad and good’. It’s never been assumed that merely being a Church leader or a leader of a historically ‘Christian’ country means that you are actually a Christian (e.g., Dante’s hell is full of Popes, Bishops, priests and baptized political leaders)…But again, I’m not sure what you have in mind with that blanket statement.
      - FTJ
        
        I’ll quote my reply to another poster: Why would an all-powerful god require a brutal human sacrifice before forgiving us for a genetically inherited sin committed by people we aren’t actually descended from? If you can make a logical argument in defense of Christianity, you would be the first person in history to do so.
        As to what I meant by Christians making exceptions for violence, there’s no Jain equivalent to the KKK, which describes itself as a Christian organization, or to the self-described Christians who carry assault rifles to go shopping at Walmart, or who shoot unarmed black boys and then say it was “God’s will”. Jains simply don’t do such things then use their religion as justification. Christians do. Frequently.
      - https://mindyourmaker.wordpress.com Mind your Maker
        
        You fundamentally misrepresent and/or misunderstand what Christians think is actually going on in the incarnation and death of Jesus. Otherwise you wouldn’t frame your question in the way you have. I doubt you would falsely simplify your diet and exercise regime or the plot to your favourite movie or TV show in the manner you have falsely simplified Christianity here. Anyway, I’m not interested in burning straw-man arguments, nor putting effort into discussing questions with someone who seems to lack any genuine curiosity or goodwill towards those with whom they disagree. There are many many books written by thoughtful Christians you can read (the one from Athanasius being one of many to start with) to actually figure out what Christians actually think. Be my guest. Re: KKK etc, see my previous comment… I’m pretty certain there are even Jains who fail to live up to the ideals of their worldview or who embrace hypocrisy. It’s the human condition…
        
        I think I’ll back out of this discussion now. Peace.
      - FTJ
        
        Actually I state St Paul’s logic accurately. Jesus’ sacrifice was somehow necessary (why, if god is all-powerful, could he not forgive us without it?) in order to balance the scales after Adam & Eve’s sin (modern genetics having proven that we don’t all descend from one couple). Your problem is that you can’t defend Christianity, so attacking me is easier than admitting your religion is nonsensical.
      - https://mindyourmaker.wordpress.com Mind your Maker
        
        www (dot) silouanthompson (dot) net/2008/03/on-the-incarnation/
      - FTJ
        
        What utter nonsense.
        Would you put something you knew to be fatal within easy reach of your children whom you knew to be incapable of understanding why they shouldn’t eat it?
        Rational People: No.
        God: Yes.
        Hopefully there will come a time when you’re able to face up to the fundamental irrationality of the Christian myth. Even if not, there’s a chance someone who’s ready to stop being Christian might read this and find encouragement.
      - Andrea Fitzgerald
        
        I stopped 15 years ago and have never looked back! Thanks for the encouragement!
      - Lauren Smith
        
        What you speak is utter nonsense.
        If you understood the Gospel in any way, shape or form, this concept would be simple for you to understand.
        When God created Adam & Eve, HE GAVE THEM FREE WILL. Free will is defined as: ‘the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.’
        Therefore, He gave Adam & Eve (a representation of us, as humans, right now. Which we are created in God’s image) the ability to act at their own discretion. He gave them this, because as much as God LOVES us, He didn’t want to FORCE His Beloved (Ephesians 6:1) children into loving Him.
        Imagine if you got set up on a date with some random lady that you had never met before, and the second you met her, you were forced to love her, even if you didn’t want to. Imagine, not being able to get out of it, EVER. You would not want to love her, because you had no FREE WILL. God is the same.
        God wants us to choose Him, He wants us to be able to make our own decisions, so that we can decide whether or not we want to go on His path.
        From there, it is easy to see (with the free will of humans, being conformed by the devil, which is sin) why Adam & Eve did sin & pick from the tree of knowledge.
        it’s always about wonder. Even when you’re a little kid, you just want to know about things. ‘Oh I wonder why this happens…’, ‘I wonder why the door opens that way..’ It’s simple.
        it’s far from the truth when you say that Adam & Eve were incapable of understanding why they shouldn’t eat from the tree, but it is close to the truth IF you said that Adam & Eve were incapable of understanding why they couldn’t eat from the tree, and why it was bad.
        They were positioned in this beautiful Garden of Eden, given one rule, and of course, as children, did the thing they weren’t meant to, PURELY BECAUSE they were given free will.
        Although God IS all-mighty, all-powerful, He is a loving God, and most importantly, a JUST God. This means that, yes, He lays down the punishment for sin and He will follow through with that. He has to, He can’t just suddenly say ‘Oh, I’m sorry that this happened to you, here’s a free pass.’ Because that’s not being just (or justified some people like to say).
        God had a deal with Adam & Eve that if they did eat from the tree (sin), their punishment would be death. And to be continued and consistently righteous (as God is and forever will be) He had to punish them for this sin.
        Now, don’t say that God LET them sin. God cannot MAKE you do anything. Yes, He created you and made you like you are (the good parts), He can’t MAKE you do anything. He does not illegally come into the world and grab your arm and yell from the clouds (a bit of banter) ‘WAVE AT THAT PERSON!’. But, you know who does do illegal things?
        WELL! I’m glad you asked.
        His name is the devil. He comes to steal, kill and destroy. What the devil does, has no mercy, no love and no grace at all. So the devil tempted Eve (just like he temps us every single day) into eating from the tree because it would destroy her purity and impute sin onto her. It would also ATTEMPT (emphasis on attempt) to destroy God’s plan. Although it didn’t, because we have a perfect exchange for all of this sin.
        And his name is (drum roll pleeeeeeeease)
        JESUS CHRIST!!
        Jesus Christ was the perfect exchange. He came onto this earth perfectly, never sinned, saved peoples lives, brought them from the dead, cared for people, chased after the one and, most of all, loved. He was, is and is still to come. For God so loved the world, that He gave His One and Only Begotten Son, (John 3). God gave up His own Son, to DIE, for us.
        It might not make sense, and sometimes I get super overwhelmed with that particular point, but God laid all of His wroth onto His perfect Jesus, so that WE, (ME AND YOU) can live a life sin free again. As soon as we accept this perfect Jesus into our hearts, and accept what He has done as truth, we are eternally, perfectly, consistently, constantly S.A.V.E.D!
        We are now ‘hidden’ in Christ, because of what God has done, so that we can have a relationship with Him. God did all of this for us, just so we are able to call out, ‘Abba, Father.’.
        Christianity is NOT a myth, but you know what is?
        Your warped and misshaped views on Christianity and Christians. Please don’t forget to separate the Christian with the ‘religion’. Because you’re acting as if every Christian is the same, which is totally not correct!! That’s the same stereotype as bunching ALL germans as Nazi’s, all of Australia as Aboriginals. Please also take into consideration that myths also come in the form of you listening to the devil. Don’t get me wrong, I sometimes listen to the devil too, and that’s just life. But to be able to run to my God, my Father and know that I am loved, eternally, perfectly, consistently and constantly, is the most joyful and peaceful thing ever. To know that I don’t have to feel like crap and listen to the devil anymore. I may stumble and fall, but God has my back!
        But it doesn’t just have to be me. It can be you too. I want it to be you! God wants it to be you too. He wants you to talk to Him, to ask Him, to CRY OUT!
        Don’t ever hesitate to talk to your creator. He is earnestly waiting for you to come to Him. He IS LOVE. I am so excited for what God has for you! He has incredible things for you when you choose His will.
        Thank you so much for this opportunity to chat with you.
        I hope you have an amazing night.
      - Glenn Alexander
        
        God gives us free will and doesn’t force us to follow his laws. But if we don’t, he will allow us to burn in hell for all eternity. No coercion lol. Why even bother to give us free will is he’s going to toast us if for exercising it! This god you christians believe in is a malevolent bully. I would fart in his general direction, if he existed. But he doesn’t! God (notice the big G) = the universe, composed of matter and consciousness. You and I are part of God, the amazing, unfolding cosmos. Ja Zeus (Hail Zeus). Hmmmm, looks a lot like the name of you guy you Christians worship these days. Funny, because his name wasn’t even Jesus. It was Jehoshua.
      - JallopyMacfurry
        
        In case you haven’t noticed, Glenn, the universe is set up with contrasts. For perfect love only possible via free will, death was allowed in. Yet ultimately, God is the source of any allowance to suffering and death, yet is also perfectly benevolent and powerful and knowing. Therefore He wouldn’t have set His plan in motion if every single one who can will not end up being somehow thankful for any suffering they endured. That’s how great His love is. Or life is. Reality. The heart of the universe is intent, and love. Not nothingness and death, as the left believes.
      - Zeiglarre
        
        That is an interpretation of atonement theory, but it is not the only one. Even sticking strictly with St. Paul’s interpretation of events doesn’t necessarily lead to penal substitution. I, too, reject a form of Christianity as you describe it. But that is not the whole, or even majority, of Christians’ understanding of atonement, thus Mind your Maker’s assertion of your fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity. You state one understanding of St. Paul’s logic accurately. There are others.
      - Bruce Mercer
        
        actually the science says we did all descend from one couple
        .
      - Regan Griffin
        
        Forgiveness always costs someone something. So regardless if you think an all-powerful God can just forgive and everything be fine, it had to cost Him something, and it did.
      - FTJ
        
        >> Forgiveness always costs someone something.
        No it doesn’t.
      - Bruce Mercer
        
        first of all, our sin was representative not genetic. second we sinned against a Holy God. and He justly forgave through the penal substitutionary death of His unique Son. He imputed or He transferred the sins of believers so Christ was numbered with transgressors (Isaiah 53). He then transferred the righteousness of Christ to all the believing ones. as for relation? of course we are related. all humans are related through adam and then through noah. that is much more reasonable than molecules to human evolution
      - FTJ
        
        Genetics proves beyond any doubt that we are not all descended from one family that survived a flood less than ten thousand years ago. It is absurd to claim that we are. You might as well argue for geocentrism (and you probably do).
      - Bruce Mercer
        
        actually, i don’t. but i do know the weaknesses of the darwinian datings and know that mathematically, if we begin with 6 and go 4000 years we can easily have the present population.
      - FTJ
        
        There’s no such thing as “Darwinian dating”. And geneticists, chemists, linguists, anthropologists, archaeologists all disagree with you. But I guess that’s one giant conspiracy, right? Surely preindustrial folklore is more reliable than empirical data.
        I urge you to seek mental health care. Your delusions are dangerous to yourself and others.
  - http://about.me/jcmmanuel jcmmanuel
    
    “Would Athanasius today argue that suicide bombers’ not fearing death manifestly proved the validity of their religion” — No more than atheists and other secularists would argue for another 100 million deaths in the name of some atheist ideology (not necessarily communism).
    As an atheist, I must say your approach is not per se rational. You depend a lot on unchecked argumentation from analogy.
WoBuYaoTweet

The easiest answer: cognitive dissonance.
He & others want it to be true, so they justify in their minds & shared culture why it must be.
If you need the magic & miracles to be a good person & grasp the lessons, fine …
You’re kind of missing the point, but whatever works … just promise not to kill anyone over it.

This piece is rife with logical fallacies.
First is “argument from authority” – he’s not right simply because he’s a scientist.
In fact, he gets the entire scientific method wrong right off the bat.
None of his “hypotheses” are testable, verifiable, or repeatable. They’re conjecture & opinion backed by nothing.
He uses the word “hypothesis” to appear authoritative because you remember it from elementary school.

His explanation #1 is most likely …
Jesus’ followers used the “miraculous” story to spread the gospel & gain a wider impact for their cause.
Ok then. Perfectly plausible & valid suggestion.
Perhaps they meant it as symbolism, or perhaps they flat-out lied to people to “boost ratings.”
And why not? The govt had just murdered their spiritual leader to silence them & maintain political control.
This made Jesus a religious and political martyr to be mythologized by his followers & any other enemy of Rome.
In reality, the “resurrection” story (and other Biblical “miracles”) predate Jesus by centuries.
It’s a springtime pagan allegory of rebirth that spans from N. Africa to Persia, appearing in many variations & faiths.
People knew these stories from oral & written tradition – so why not use them to spread the Christian message? This was the Bronze Age version of “going viral,” and clearly it worked.

Where Dr. Hutchinson makes a logical fallacy is in assuming they wouldn’t “suffer” for their art & beliefs.
People lie for causes & fame & legacy & “for the greater good” all the time. They’re human…
Does a lie further their cause? Sure. Christians didn’t even bother to change the name “Easter” from its Norse pagan goddess origins, because it helped them gain followers in the middle ages. Same reason “Christmas” falls on the winter solstice & features Norse pagan symbolism, even though the Roman “census” and lamb flocks in the story of Jesus’ birth were really in the springtime. It’s clever repackaging of old material, like any literary adaptation.

Dr. Hutchinson’s second explanation is:
1) This alleged event was an untestable/unrepeatable/unverifiable “miracle”
2) Therefore science can’t explain it
3) Therefore it must have been a true “miracle”!

FALSE!

Sorry, that’s a logical fallacy called “argument from conclusion” or “circular reasoning.”
You can’t begin with the desired result & reverse it to justify (or dismiss) a pre-determined cause.
This same logical misdirection underlies creationist claims as well.

By this “logic” anything we don’t know is “God” and “magic,” which is preposterous dark-ages thinking.
Not finding “electromagnets in the flying carpet” or knowing how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear on live TV doesn’t make it “God” or magic – it only means you lack information.
And science does, in fact, account for this by accepting that the simplest answer is the most likely.
Believing it’s really supernatural only means you’re gullible & likely to be easily separated from your money…

His only “evidence” is the Bible, which he cites as “historical evidence as good as for almost any event of ancient history.” This is absolutely not the case. We know from archaeological finds & drafts spanning centuries that the Bible was edited (and mistranslated) repeatedly by monks, kings & churches, largely to maximize their political and economic power over people & territory. Entire gospels were thrown out for political & dogmatic reasons.
It’s about as historically accurate & reliable as that chain email from your uncle…

Today we also have countless written and visual records indicating that Superman was an alien who fell from the sky and performed miraculous feats to save mankind from evil. Certainly HE must be real too? We even have it on video!
Science cannot prove Superman wasn’t a real alien with superpowers, because to quote Dr. Hutchinson:
“miracles are, by definition, abnormal and non-reproducible, so they cannot be proved by science’s methods.”
You cannot prove that those who produced these historical records weren’t sharing the word of God!

…See how this explanation doesn’t work at all?

As for #3 – adults can absolutely be brainwashed too if you’re open to listening to the message.
This is cognitive dissonance at work. Just look at the current presidential race…
Trump is a racist, misogynist, lustful, proud, angry, vengeful, greedy, man – and yet “Christians” are flocking to him…?

Here’s the thing – you can believe the “resurrection” story if you want to.
It doesn’t matter, unless you want a career in medicine or biology – in which case, please learn real science.
If believing Jesus rose from the dead helps you be a good person, great.
You don’t need to believe in any of it to be a good person though.
You can still apply the lessons & moral guidance as you struggle with your fallibility, and try to do the right thing.
That’s called being human. Do unto others as you would have done unto you…
All the magic is entirely unnecessary to the real message.

Happy Vernal Equinox. Enjoy the sunshine & chocolate bunnies…
- Akshay Rajkumar
  
  I see some cognitive dissonance in this reply
- leehiufung911
  
  I’m a scientist (I work in chemistry) and I’m a Christian.
  
  A hypothesis is simply a hypothetical statement, like “such and such could be true”. It does not need to be testable.
  
  Within the scientific method, you need testable hypotheses, yes, but here he is simply saying “3 possibilities”.
  
  As many Christians would also say, the main evidence for Jesus’ life, death and resurrection is what is written in the Bible. We believe what the bible says is true historically. If the bible is indeed authentic it’s very hard to deny Jesus’ life and death and resurrection indeed (see my comment to John)
  
  So now the main thing you are saying, is that “assuming that the bible is true and then using the bible’s claims to say Jesus’ resurrection is true”, is Circular reasoning.
  
  You’re absolutely right—except that there is very good reason to believe the bible is indeed authentic, historically accurate and reliable.
  
  I’m not going to anticipate and pre-refute your arguments one-by-one, and it’s not my job to do so, but for one, the accuracy of the manuscripts in Hebrew(Old testament) and Greek(New testament) is very high. We have about 20000 old manuscripts of the New testament dating earliest from 125AD, about 50 years after the books were written, and the manuscripts agree with each other 99.5% of the time. Compare that to other old writings such as Annals from Tacticus, which was written at about 100AD, and we have only 20 manuscripts from 1100AD, 1000 years later.
  
  I do encourage you to go look into this thoroughly, as you seem to be a victim of cognitive dissonance as well, in this world where any claims of “absolute truth” is simply unfashionable… It seems you have already assumed God doesn’t exist, for example, when you say anyone who believes in anything supernatural is gullible. If God did exist, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect him to be able to do miracles?
  - Finite
    
    “If believing Jesus rose from the dead helps you be a good person, great.
    You don’t need to believe in any of it to be a good person though.
    You can still apply the lessons & moral guidance as you struggle with your fallibility, and try to do the right thing.
    That’s called being human. Do unto others as you would have done unto you…
    All the magic is entirely unnecessary to the real message.”
    
    I find great irony in the notion that you sit comfortably in a world of various moral mores formed entirely by religion and then essentially claim that you don’t need religion to “be a good person”. Without religion, you wouldn’t even have a basis for the word “good” or “evil”.
  - FTJ
    
    There is no reason to believe a text of contradictory magic fables is historically reliable. You might as well argue that the fact that the Vedic texts, which have been passed down word for word for far longer than the Biblical texts, is evidence that the Vedic texts are even more historically reliable.
    More specifically, there is little historical evidence to suggest the Jesus character was based on a real person. The best evidence is Josephus’ reference to the execution of James, which contradicts Christian Tradition on the subject, and it is argued therefore that it’s less likely to be Christian hearsay and more likely to be a genuine historical account.
    There is at least as much evidence to support the hypothesis that the Jesus character evolved out of rhetorical characters in ascetic Jewish literature, later syncretized with Hellenic aspects, such as the virgin birth and resurrection, after ascetic Judaism began to morph into a distinct religion that was rejected by mainstream Jews.
    Either way, whether the Jesus character was based on a single Rabbi Joshua ben Joseph or not, there is zero evidence to support the accounts of his magic powers, just as whether one believes that King Arthur was based on a real historical person or not, there is no reason to believe his conception was magical and validation of prophecy, or that he wielded a magic sword, or will return from his rest on the Isle of Avalon at the hour of Britain’s greatest need. Belief in supernatural stories which accrue onto (somewhat plausibly) historical characters is quite simply ridiculous and childish.
    - Finite
      
      “Belief in supernatural stories which accrue onto (somewhat plausibly) historical characters is quite simply ridiculous and childish.”
      
      This is the just about the height of arrogance. You believe you have tested all that there is to be tested and know all that can be known and leave no room for the possibility that you could be wrong. At least those of religious faith have the decency and humility to recognize that they are utilizing faith for their beliefs. You are no different except that your faith has given you the belief that you know everything.
      - FTJ
        
        What you call arrogance I call rational skepticism. I don’t believe I’ve tested all there is to be tested. I simply apply a uniform standard when it comes to supernatural claims. You don’t. If you start to do that, you will stop being a Christian like I did.
      - Finite
        
        “It takes no faith to reject supernatural claims that have neither a logical nor evidential basis.”
        
        Of course it does. By it’s very definition “supernatural claims” can’t be explained away using natural law. If it could, it would cease to be supernatural.
        
        “I simply apply a uniform standard when it comes to supernatural claims. You don’t. If you start to do that, you will stop being religious as I did.”
        
        See my above comment. You wish to explain supernatural claims using natural law, which in turn invalidates its supernatural nature. You are working one-dimensionally and applying it to all. . . akin to arguing 3-dimensions cannot exist based upon 2-D experience.
        
        The problem is that you are assigning all views of theology from your specific view point rather than from within their construct. For example, you refer to the Biblical God as “unjust”, but if you believe in said God, the definition of “just” originates with Him and it is your thinking that is unjust and faulty. The fact you cannot understand His thinking, does not make it wrong, but you start from the other end of the equation and say that if you cannot figure it out, He must be wrong. . . which is a remarkably arrogant claim.
      - FTJ
        
        And does the fact that I don’t understand aliens’ reasons for abducting humans mean that 1) aliens exist; 2) they are in fact abducting humans; and 3) it is arrogant for me to judge this behavior simply because I can’t understand their thinking?
        That is plainly preposterous.
        It is not arrogant to dismiss nonsensical claims and dreadfully flawed reasoning. It is merely rational to do so.
      - Finite
        
        “And does the fact that I don’t understand aliens’ reasons for abducting humans mean that 1) aliens exist; 2) they are in fact abducting humans; and 3) it is arrogant for me to judge this behavior simply because I can’t understand their thinking?”
        
        False equivalency. We are discussing supernatural vs. natural. You might as well have asked why whales beach themselves or why Bigfoot only chooses to appear to drunken hicks. Again, you are attempting to use natural law to explain the supernatural, which by its very definition is impossible. (except in this example where you’ve evidently confused the idea of aliens with the concept of the supernatural. I’ve got to ask. . .really? Is this that hard for you?)
        
        “At least you admit that your position relies upon a presupposition that your specific god exists, and that the unverifiable instructions of this invisible, silent being, rather than reason, should be the basis for ethical judgments and jurisprudence. That is frightening in the 21st century, but at least you admit it.”
        
        Haha! I know this was meant as some sort of “zinger”, but of course I admit it and the fact that this surprises you tells me you basically have never studied any element of theology or philosophy at all. It is the most basic principle in all of them and has been discussed through the millennia. How can you possibly not know this or be surprised by it? Do you think that all these monotheistic religions that hold their God to be infallible and omnipotent preach that “if you find yourself conflicted about what God says is right and wrong, He’s probably wrong so you should do what you feel like”?! At this point, I’d say that it is abundantly clear that I’ve evidently dragged you into the deeper end of the pool without realizing you are unable to swim. I’m sorry for having assumed too much. You’re welcome to the last word, but I would point out that you perhaps may wish to think about hitting the books a bit more as it is evident you’ve put a lot of stock in something you barely understand. Here’s something to get you started: if you can’t argue the opposing position decently for say 5+ minutes, you probably don’t know much about the subject. Perhaps you would be better served by first trying to prove yourself wrong than continuing down your confirmation bias route.
      - FTJ
        
        Why would an all-powerful god require a brutal human sacrifice before forgiving us for a genetically inherited sin committed by people we aren’t actually descended from?
        If you can make a logical argument in defense of Christianity, you would be the first person in history to do so.
        Just admit that it makes no sense and let it go.
      - Lauren Smith
        
        Numberrrrrr 1!!
        ‘Why would an all-powerful god require a brutal human sacrifice’
        Note; all powerful God, is also, a LOVING God and a JUST God. (keep that in mind).
        You clearly do not understand the punishment for sin. The punishment for sin is death. So to answer this simple (could be confusing for someone who is highly uneducated on this topic) yet rather deep statement, God HAS TO (being just), punish us for our sin. ‘Human sacrifice’ is also incorrect. If you were aware, Jesus is God, in HUMAN form. So, you have Jesus in flesh, and Jesus in Spirit, which is with God. (like we have our flesh and our Spirit as well). So to say that human sacrifice, is only half correct. Jesus was the sacrifice, not just any old human who God picked off of the ground. JESUS. The perfect Saviour. (sin-less).
        Number 2!
        ‘before forgiving us for a genetically inherited sin’
        Genetically inherited is also incorrect. We did not genetically inherit sin, we were INFLUENCED by the devil to sin, because he is the father of lies, and this is how he gets to us.
        If God never sent Jesus, we would ALL BE DEAD. No one would be able to be saved, or to live. AT ALL.
        Number 3!
        ‘committed by people we aren’t actually descended from?’
        Also incorrect. We commit sin every day. You cannot say that they sinned and that’s that, where you are perfect and never done a thing wrong in your life.
        Depending on your view, we may/may not have descended from them, but we were created by the maker, thus, Biblically, we are all sisters and brothers of God. This is not going to say that God has made us with sin in us, (TOTALLY WRONG), but to say that we are made perfectly in His image, and then when we begin to grow in the world (and not unbeknown to sin in the womb) we become like the world and grow into sin.
        
        I really truly think that you need to re-evaluate your opinions, questions and statements and actually pose a question that has any sort of reasonable point of discussion. The only thing you are doing here is creating a question-statement where you can feel like you know more than anyone else, and your only refuge is for them to succumb to your ‘all knowing’. I feel like you just want to be all-powerful. But the only person who is that, is God.
        Please go and form a question that actually has some sort of substance (not stupidity, or plain rudeness) that we can properly discuss upon. The second you say anything in your ‘question’ that has a preconceived idea or thought from your mind, you have to throw it out! I hope you can do that, because you might be the first person in history to do so. 🙂 🙂
        I also say discuss, because the things I’ve seen God do, will never change my opinion of Him. I just pray that you will come to knowledge soon!
        I just wonder why you’re fighting so hard to defend something that you also don’t really know anything about (claiming that you think that we know nothing about our Christianity). It’s surely interesting to see that you ever-so-want to convince others as well, that it is ‘useless’ to believe in God, even though He is the very one to gives you life.
        Have a good night FTJ 🙂
      - Οδυσσεας Μπουρνιας Βαροτσις
        
        Hello there. I accidently “bumped” in this really intresting conversation, and I would like to lay down some personal thoughts of mine, in these theological and philosophical discussion.
        
        “Why would an all-powerful god require a brutal human sacrifice before forgiving us for a genetically inherited sin committed by people we aren’t actually descended from?”
        
        First of all, please allow me to make a correction, in the theological background of your question. God did not require a human sacrifice, He required the sacrifice of Himself. Hence your question really is; “Why would an all-powerful God, require to sacrifice Himself, in order to forgive us for a genetically inherited sin committed by people we aren’t actually descended from?”
        
        It all comes down to the construct of free will. Sin is not only genetically inherited, but we choose to act upon it. The human species, as a whole chooses not to be “good”, as defined from the biblical terminology of what “good” is. This can be easily observed in the current state of the world, which is ravaged by war and crime, destruction of the planet’s ecosystem and unsatisfying human relationships, which often lead many into depression or self-destructive behaviors.
        
        Nevertheless, all humans desire existential freedom, and the hapiness which is experienced with the unfathomable power which the english language describes with the word “Love”. Some of us are aware of this fundemental desire which exists within the human psyche and thus pursue this freedom with mindfulnes, most of us however pursue it without having awareness or even a basic understanding of the thing we want to acquire, and fall into mistakes or even brutal crimes, which have a negative effect in the quality of our lives and for the society.
        
        In the eons of human history, those who were mindful that the core desire for any human, is an everlasting communion with Love, wrote down scriptures, in which it was desrcibed the coming of a Savior, which would lead the race of humans from the darkness of non-awereness and death, to the Light of knowledge and life. These scriptures can be found not only from the jewish tradition, but from the Hellenic as well, and many other traditions over the world . The writers of these scriptures, essentially prayed to God, to be revealed to all nations, and saves us from our selves, since at the time human civilizations were built on the foundations of injustice and a non-ending cycle of violence (and in an lower degree they still are).
        
        Thus, when the time came, the “Word became flesh”, and the “Light of the world” was lead to the cross as a living sacrifice, for 3 simple reasons. First, in order for God to fulfil the prayers of those who were mindful of the core desire of the human psyche and requested for the salvation of the world, hence confirming their faith in the empirical world, since by knowing the Son, you can know the Father, and by kowing the Father, not only believing ,you gain eternal life. Secondly, for those who have not atained self-awareness and are bound by sin, to gain the possibility, if they choose it, to save their souls, since otherwise they wouldn’t know, what true Love means (“Father forgive them, for they do not know what they do)”. Thirdly, to commune with us by giving Himself fully to us as a sacrifice, showing to all humans that He, the Creator of the universe, truly loves us, even though we are not capable of understanding Him fully, thus setting a series of events which will ultimately, as the christian faith states, lead us to an age of world peace, and transcendence of the human nature as we currently understand it.
        
        I have many other things to say, upon the subject, of the crucifiction of Christ , but I believe that I have expanded adequately on this matter, for one post. I am really intrested to know what is your opinion, on the point of view I presented.
        
        Blessings.
      - GJD
        
        Hmm…I would argue that you are completely straw-manning Jesus’s message of restoration/salvation. However, underneath the straw-man, you do ask a legitimate question, and anyone who says they follow Jesus has to consider it–why would an all-powerful god even need a sacrifice? couldn’t he have done it some other way…
        
        According to Jesus’s ideas himself (even if you think the Bible isn’t historically accurate, the record of pieces shows that it is internally incredible consistent with earlier copies, at least to the point where if you reject the Bible then you reject most, if not all, history), this is a simple principle of justice. Doing something wrong must be answered with a punishment. What is interesting to me is that somehow, within this, God allows himself/his son Jesus to take on the punishment that we should have gotten…and yes, it’s reasonable and important to ask why God didn’t use some other alternative, but that discussion is too big for a comment stream i think.
        
        here’s a different question in response to some of your earlier statements…i’m curious about your opinion: if a claim about reality (or something in reality) isn’t logical or rational, is it bad or wrong or stupid to believe that the claim is correct? (note, I am not saying that we should believe in illogical claims, but rather non-logical claims…or claims that perhaps surpass logic’s ability to validate)…my question is analagous to others on this chain were pointing out that science is designed to test claims about the natural world and thus is not helpful in understanding supernatural or spiritual reality (if such a level of reality exists)
      - FTJ
        
        >> According to Jesus’s ideas himself (even if you think the Bible isn’t historically accurate, the record of pieces shows that it is internally incredible consistent with earlier copies, at least to the point where if you reject the Bible then you reject most, if not all, history)
        That is preposterous. As I mentioned last year, the Vedic texts have been even better preserved. Thus you would surely argue that to reject Hinduism is to reject all of history. Absurd.
      - GJD
        
        …well, there’s a lot more in my post than that, but I suppose if that’s what you want to respond to, that’s up to you.
        
        to clarify my idea–Biblical text contains both claims of historical events–events which happened or didn’t happen–and certain ethics of a way of life. I don’t know the Vedic texts well, so you can correct me on this if I’m wrong, but I am not sure if they contain claims to actual historical events, in the same way that the Bible does.
        
        When I say that the textual record of biblical documents, epistles, copies of the Torah, etc., is consistent, I mean that comparative analysis of ancient and modern versions of the text shows very few meaningful divergences in any of the text itself, including translation equivalency tests. So whether or not we believe that the Bible is accurately describing historical events, as they happened, we can be reasonable certain that the text itself hasn’t changed in 2000 years. (the only one meaningful example of divergence in the NT is John 8:1-11, which is apparently not included in the earliest manuscripts, and most Bibles highlight this for readers.
        
        So in terms of internal consistency, the Bible, in particular the Epistles and Gospels, are reliably consistent–especially when compared with most other historic texts, especially those of leading thinkers such as Aristotle or others. Their records are small, compared to those of the Bible. But the thing is, these texts claim to describe actual historical events. Not just religious direction or moral exhortation. We need to engage with these claims.
        
        So I’m happy to take your word that the Vedas texts are preserved better than the Bible. Additionally, if Vedas scriptures contain claims as to actual historical events, and if their historicity tests are better than the Bible, I am happy to trust that those events happened. I don’t see how that challenges my point. However, I would not necessarily argue that to reject Hinduism is to reject history, because I am not sure whether the Hinduism depends on claims to actual factual events in history. (as you note, that is one of the challenges of Christianity…that it does depend on the veracity of a claim to an actual historical event, the resurrection..and many others).
        
        However, most people think that the bible is a fairytale (because of things like the resurrection). My point is simply that if we are going to call the Bible a fairytale, we logically have to then call most other ancient texts fairytales, at least if their historical record is not as strong as the Bible’s. Perhaps I overstated earlier…I don’t think this necessarily means a rejection of ‘history’. Historians probably know best that reconstructing the past is unbelievably hard. But if our reconstructions are based on ancient texts, and their historicity tests are less reliable than the Bible’s, and we don’t trust the Bible, then how can we trust the other texts?
        
        That’s my point. Hope this is more clear. Anyways, this whole idea is tangential to my other questions, on which I would love to hear your thoughts.
      - Bruce Mercer
        
        it takes faith to believe lifeless molecules became living
      - FTJ
        
        No, we have evidence for that. http://www.ibtimes.com/astronomers-find-complex-organic-molecules-young-star-system-1875376
      - Bruce Mercer
        
        mot evidence. speculation
      - Rose Rosenthal
        
        FYI “organic” doesn’t mean “living.” THAT is a leap of faith!
      - Bogs Nartatez
        
        “Astronomers believe that comets and asteroids from the outer solar system seeded the young Earth with water and organic molecules that ultimately helped set the stage for life to emerge.” FTJ it’s either you are badly misreading the text or you are being willfully dishonest, using the “link and bluff” strategy to assert something that you know is not true. The quote demonstrates conclusively the error of your assertion that “we have evidence for… lifeless molecules became living.” The article speculates what probably happened, they “believe” is not the same as “we have evidence that this is what actually happened” or “proved” as you seem to be asserting. The panspermia theory is not new (even the biblical account can be labelled a panspermia theory–God seeding the planet with life!).
    - Bruce Mercer
      
      you are correct, evolution is a fairy tale. a loooong one
    - http://about.me/jcmmanuel jcmmanuel
      
      FTJ, “contradictory magic fables” is the achilles heel in your objection here. Even I as an atheist knows that myths are not “magic”, and by the way, “contradictory” is pretty much the hallmark of reality – unless we want to turn all living things into machines, we better get used to dealing with paradoxes. Welcome to the real world. To me, the Jesus story – including all its mythical parts (which, as always with myths, emphasize what people deem important – most often something that gives hope) is one of many great stories. It inspired a large collection of the greatest artworks known in history – by painters & musicians and other artists. You don’t need to believe literally in a myth (less so call it “magic” or show disdain in whatever way) to appreciate the human message conveyed in it.
    - Terry Lannon
      
      For me my evidence is how I am now compared to before. When the holy spirit is deposited in you, only then will faith in Jesus makes sense. It’s a volunteer thing to come under Jesus’s lordship. But one must ask for it. Revelation 3:20. Knock knock. Who’s there? Jesus. Jesus who? Jesus! Oh. Come on in.
      - FTJ
        
        >> For me my evidence is how I am now compared to before.
        
        That is not evidence.
        
        >> When the holy spirit is deposited in you, only then will faith in Jesus makes sense.
        So your argument is that Christianity is nonsensical unless you presuppose it to be true. I’m glad we agree on that point.
      - Terry Lannon
        
        Hi FTJ , I’m glad but also surprised someone read what I wrote. It interesting what you said, because Jesus kinda says the same thing. In His parable concerning seeds, He spoke in such a manner so to separate those who believed, (his disciples) and those who couldn’t get him. when He was finished even His disciples were confused as to what he was trying to impart to the masses who came to hear him speak. They were Like, “Jesus, What was that all about?” I’m paraphrasing but if you google Jesus and seeds you’ll come up with the scripture. I believe it is in Matthew 13 and Mark 4. but my point is Jesus knew that it was senseless to try to convince the masses that he came down from heaven to make us spotless on the cross. so He is saying if you plant seeds in good soil it will flourish. But don’t bother planting in shallow or bad ground. Faith comes from a desire to know my origins and for me it is from a loving place. I believe God is Love, and i also believe because he loves me and all of His creations he has to get skin in the game so to speak. Otherwise he is a deadbeat dad. As a father, myself and a faulted one at that, i understand sacrifice and what it entails. I would die for my child. I think most of us would. Sot the question that comes to mind for me is that if God is all love, and we know love exist, (doesn’t it), and it is tangible, don’t we seek it and we desire it? We all can identify with sorrow due to the the moral conundrums we find ourselves in. Acts we see perpetrated on one another, ie; war, abuse, hate, and so on Tell me that We (people) are not very good are we? We fall short of perfection. I believe there is perfection somewhere, and it is outside ourselves. In heaven. I believe I am a spiritual being housed in a temporal body and i will continue to live on after bodily death. I hope this isn’t boring you! So back to Why Jesus? Because God loves us all, He is the great mathematician, and the great builder of the known and the unknown worlds, the seen and the unseen. He is all love and with love comes sacrifice. So if He Is a good Father, full of Love Mercy and Grace. He has to want us to come back to Him. So because He is all love He can’t have my stupid arrogant self in a place where only love can reside. So, in steps Jesus. He comes Here, loves everyone, even those who tortured Him, mostly those who tortured Him. In Matthew 5:46 he says What rewards is it to love only those who love you. We must love those who hate us. that is real love. Kinda hard to do!. So when he came down and took my sins on the cross he basically put a replacement heart in me and a unblemished spirit, called the Holy spirit. I surrendered to Him and When i die and when i want entrance into heaven God will only see Jesus heart in me, not me. He’s my substitute as long as i ask Him to be. I wish we were in front of each other to share this topic. On a more personal note i didn’t find Jesus. he found me. My quick story is that after months of caring for my mother-law who had a stroke and died in my arms, (she was My best friend) shortly after that, one night i heard a knock on my door around 9 o’clock, Twice. As I reached from the doorknob a force, an energy, a spirit I believe now was the Holy Spirit came upon me. I was simply overwhelmed. It gently laid me onto the floor and this incredible feeling of Love washed over me. It was as if an Angelic faucet was turned on to me and crept so deep into my body that it was bone deep. I was on the floor wrapped in this most amazing place of love . in the passed I had been through some awful things (abuse) and i had deep regrets about a lot of things i had done in my life. But all this seemed to be washed away during this encounter. (I was not HIGH OR UNDER the influence of ANY SUBSTANCE.) I was cooking dinner for my wife and brother sitting in the living room. when I was finally released from this place i was different. I was undone as they say. Ever since then I have been a different person. It took months of dreams and wonderings to find out what happened. I met an older couple who introduced me to
        Revelation 3:20 Check it out. Its a scripture verse where Jesus is standing outside a door waiting for an invitation to come in. I guess I opened the door. I think My mother-in -law had something to do with it. A while after this experience i had a similar experience while stopped at a red light in boston.. I observed an older gentleman and His retarded son on the corner. All of a sudden the same entity that came into me at the door wept into my car. I had such empathy thrust upon me that I was again undone. Out of My moth I just screamed”Jesus, I don’t care if your rip my fucking arms off, Please help them. I have so much, take something from me.” And that was it. I knew in my heart that Jesus is real. Its been 8 years now. I have a small coffee house church in my art gallery called JettyWalk and i sing worship songs to a small group of people who love God. It is also amazing that our art gallery has been a draw for many who are broken. We live in Rockport Ma on a jetty that extends out to the ocean. it is an international vacation spot. for years now people come in to our gallery unintended and ask about Jesus and ask for us to pray for them. I can tell you of so many stories of people falling into our gallery and us laying hands on them and they report healing. It crazy. God had a volunteer army. It is a choice to seek Him out. I believe love is real, and Hate is real as well. I believe love trumps hate. Are you spiritual at all? Thanks for responding to my post. You can look me up on Facebook under Terry Lannon and you can get a better idea of who I am if you search through my videos Peace Love Dove to you
      - FTJ
        
        Well, I don’t see your follow-up comment that was posted to my email, but I have a few moments to expand on a couple of points.
        First, if a scientist claimed there’s life on Mars and said his evidence for life on Mars was that he dreamed about it or he just had a strong personal feeling about it, he would be fired from his job. That’s not evidence. And it’s important to understand and acknowledge that that’s not evidence.
        Second, I want to address the issue of cherry picking. This is usually brought up in relation to people who condemn homosexuality but not mixed fabrics and tattoos, but there’s a much more insidious kind of cherry picking in my opinion. When people talk about the “loving god” of the Bible, they’re engaging in cherry picking of the worst kind. A god who would drown every pregnant woman on Earth, who would make Pharaoh disbelieve as a pretext for the wholesale slaughter of children, is not a loving god, he is a vile terrorist. Any ethical human being not engaged in cherry picking would repudiate such a monster, not venerate it.
        You asked if I’m a spiritual person. The answer is no, and the reason I’m not spiritual is that I try to be ethical and rational.
      - Ajith Kom
        
        Kudos, I agree whole heartedly with you. We hold the Divine ( especially that of the three monotheistic faiths) to a much lower standard than we would to a terrorist, despite seemingly guilty of horrific acts that in today’s context would be labelled as crimes against humanity. It is amazing that Christians do not have a moral delimma with this or the notion of a loving God who is willing to torture a large part of his creation for eternity. It makes Jesus appear as a hypocrite. He who asks us to turn the other cheek would then torture his creation for all eternity. Fine logic. Even a child can see the moral hypocracy in all this, but you don’t.
        What you have here is cognitive dissonance of the highest order. having Scientists or Doctors or physicist in your midst, doesn’t make a wrong, right.
  - http://about.me/jcmmanuel jcmmanuel
    
    “If the bible is indeed authentic it’s very hard to deny Jesus’ life and death and resurrection indeed” — But the point is that ‘authentic’ doesn’t mean what you suppose it is. The bible is a Jewish book (only Luke was not a Jew), and a Jewish Midrash wasn’t even meant to be ‘true’, it was meant to draw a parallel with past events and grow hope in the human heart. Also, don’t ever forget that when someone doesn’t believe in a resurrected Jesus, he may still appreciate Jesus – perhaps even more than you want to know. After all, seeing a human(e) Jesus may make Jesus bigger and more important to the world than a divine Jesus. Never say no to another good interpretation of a story.
    - Crimsondynasty323
      
      Hmm…so because one is Jewish, they are automatically writing midrash? Would you also say that Josephus was writing in midrash? Actually, Jewish midrash is a very broad genre, and while there are slight parallels between the genre and some passages in the gospels (e.g., comparison of Old Testament prophecy and an event in the life of Jesus), there is no reason to think that the events themselves didn’t actually occur. Midrash is not fiction per se, it’s a form of interpretation of the Scriptures, which even includes translation. Lots of scholars, including Jewish scholars, have written about some of the midrashic elements of the gospels, but rather than centering the narrative around the Old Testament text, the gospels center around the biography of Jesus. A more apt parallel is drawn between the gospel texts and the ancient Greek biography. Never say no to another good interpretation of a story, but also look to scholarly consensus, don’t rely on a handful of outliers.
      - http://about.me/jcmmanuel jcmmanuel
        
        Midrash was the well-known way of writing at that time, for sure. It is not because Christianity was not aware of it that it is not so. Christianity integrated the Jewish book into their own theology (not the other way round) so they totally ignored the Talmud, with which they lost all affinity.
        
        Josephus wrote history, not Midrash of course. His history is not unbiased, we know he wrote with the purpose of giving an explanation for the embarrassing position of the Jews in the Judean anto-Rome wars (besides other purposes). This has little to do with Midrash.
        
        I didn’t use your word “fiction” – I do not think myth is a fiction. Myths are real stories represented in the form of myth – and this does change the real stories. E.g. there is nothing in Isaiah’s story of the “virgin” (is it Isaiah 5, or 9 or something) that enforces upon us the idea that there really was a virgin who had a child without intervention of a man. Neither does this have to be so in the case of the mother of Jesus (unless we are already in a position of wanting to believe so). So neither the ‘original’ nor the retelling has to be literally true. This, in my opinion, does not make the myth (or both myths, if you want) a lie. Both are, in a way, true. There are always elements of truth in it, as far as we can see. In the case of Mary though, there is an aspect of borrowing from an older myth (or story). The purpose is clear enough: giving hope to the people. And why not? After all, without fantasy & imagination, no creativity, no art, maybe even no culture, and therefore, no progress.
        
        I agree that ancient Greek biography is also full of mythology. The whole cosmic view at that time, everywhere, was mythical.
      - Crimsondynasty323
        
        The whole cosmic view today is just as mythical, or maybe more so, than it was back then. It’s just that the myths have changed. I don’t think we can put the Gospels in the same category as mythology, because:
        
        1) Myth and legend usually take time to develop, and by historical standards, the Gospels were written frightfully early/nearly contemporaneously with the events. Where are all the stories with different endings? There is remarkable consistency in the earliest documents that don’t jibe with myth-making.
        
        2) Unlike Greek biographies, people were willing to stake their lives on the veracity of the events in question, people who were eyewitnesses to the events, not just those who read of them later on. Not to mention, there were powerful enemies of the Gospel early on (namely, the Jewish and Roman authorities) who, if they could, would have quashed the whole thing by simply producing a body. Where is the shrine that contains Jesus’ body? Shrines were common for venerated leaders in those days, and if the resurrection were a myth that developed later on, you would expect to find some kind of shrine in the historical record. But we find nothing of the sort.
        
        3) Bodily resurrection in history (as opposed to the bodily resurrection at the end of history, which 1st century Jews subscribed to), was not anticipated by either the Jewish or pagan religious views of that time. In fact the disciples were totally shocked and surprised by the resurrection. If you want to say the Gospels present myth, why didn’t they present the more earthly, military-military style Messiah that the Jews would have been expecting?
        
        I’m not a scholar on these topics or a PhD student by any means, I’m just presenting some arguments that I have found to be intriguing in my own reading.
        
        But I do think that 20th century naturalism/scientism is every bit as much of a mythology as say, the Roman pantheon. The purpose is clear: set up human reason as the ultimate authority (in spite of all evidence to the contrary), giving hope of continual progress away from the primordial slime of the past toward a technological utopia.
      - GJD
        
        isn’t the value of hope predicated on us actually believing that it might be real?
        
        for example, I may have hope that somehow, my advisor will give me a second change on my graduate thesis so i can graduate on time. But if that hope is not founded in something real, it’s worse than useless. False hope kills–it’s worse than no hope at all…
        
        what do you think?
      - http://twitter.com/jcmmanuel jcmmanuel
        
        @disqus_RGOjKe3cxA:disqus I don’t agree with your position here. Even in the case of your graduate thesis example, I’m not so sure it would be false hope. Of course, if it is absolutely clear that it would be against all the rules to offer a second chance, it would be unfounded. Nevertheless, history has its examples when even the most ardent limitations turned out less determinate than they were supposed to be. Some things would never have happened in the course of history unless there was someone who started believing in the impossible (the possibility to put an end to legal slavery would be one out of many good examples here). We often don’t know that certain (good) things are possible until someone is daring enough to be “the fool” who finally does it.
        
        Hope does not exclude rational consideration, but many if not most great discoveries or changes didn’t start with rational consideration, they started with a daring, “foolish” hope, which was then escorted by reason in order to achieve the goals – but not limited to reason.
        
        In storytelling, it’s even more complex because stories do not necessitate literal belief in its content in order to lead to truth. For instance there is truth in every resurrection story, because nature gives us examples of things that ‘die’ and then live again the next season – and ideas can also seemingly die, yet many years later they suddenly get our attention and get alive. Likewise, there is something like “being reborn”, the relation between a caterpillar and a butterfly justifies this language, this belief. Of course, that won’t make me suddenly believe that Jesus was risen from the death, but I certainly understand the power of the story, and the different ways in which this ‘resurrection’ might energize hope for our world.
        
        I would agree though, that much depends on a justified way to work with the story. If faith in the resurrection of Jesus leads to mistrust in or rejection of all people who do not believe in it, then the outcome of this faith already shows how worthless its effect is in such believers (what good is such a ‘risen Jesus’ if its effect is just the making of fanatic creeps that every normal human being would rather avoid meeting in the streets?). But if this belief in Jesus gives the believer hope and joy, without specific negative effects such as fanaticism, apocalyptic fears, conspiracies of all sorts etc., then why not? I then consider it a spiritual guide of some kind.
    - Rose Rosenthal
      
      How do you know what a sacred writing is “meant to do?”
    - GJD
      
      I like your responses here…although I’m curious how you interpret Jesus’s actual claims in the text. He repeatedly uses Jewish cultural imagery to claim Godship as the Messiah who was promised to the Jewish people, and often points out that he is extending that salvation to non-Jewish ‘gentiles.’ Personally I find it hard to say that he was just a good person or leader…in fact, it was his disciples and later the apostles who give all of the moral exhortation. Jesus was more often than not telling tricky parables and claiming to be God. I’ve always found CS Lewis’s framework pretty accurate–either he was a liar, or a madman who, or telling the truth.
      
      Curious what you think…
      - http://twitter.com/jcmmanuel jcmmanuel
        
        @GJD Sorry for my late answer. But, to be brief and honest: the research shows a much more complex picture. You say Jesus uses Jewish cultural imagery to claim Godship – yet in reality we do not even know this – there is a strong impression that Jesus did not even claim that, but his divinity is the consequence of the “growing of the myth” surrounding Jesus – and also the consequence of St.Paul’s theology about Jesus. The divinity of Jesus isn’t even (necessarily) Jewish.
        
        I don’t know how “good” Jesus was at anything – we don’t even know for sure if such a person (as a single person) even existed. What most reasonable people are doing (while others try to look at Jesus from the worst possible side, and still others are looking at Jesus from the best possible side), is trying to make the best possible sense of the stories that we inherited. We all inevitably do some cherry-picking, but some do it for the greatest possible benefit of all, and others just try to annihilate any good outcome, or to make the outcome to be “the entire truth” about mankind. It’s a choice.
- Jraghon
  
  This is a well reasoned (albeit overly aggressive) reply. However, I think you largely missed the point of the original article: This is not a proof that the resurrection must have occurred. Instead, it investigates the question, “Is it dissonant for a scientist to believe in the literal resurrection?” I believe that rereading it under that paradigm will address most of your concerns. However, in case it does not:
  
  a) He mentions the fact that he is an MIT scientist in a rigorous field so that readers cannot dismiss him as an idiot. Is it an argument from authority? Yes. But to say that makes his point invalid is a fallacy fallacy, especially since he uses his authority to support his augment, not to make it. That is, he says, “I am an intelligent person; please do not dismiss me,” not, “I am an intelligent person, so I must be infallible.” There are obviously still intelligent scientists who are kooks (see Andrew Wakefield), but the density of kooks among MIT scientists is (probably) much lower than among general people.
  
  His third supposition is for this same reason: “I was not indoctrinated as a child, so please do not dismiss me.” I agree that many people are brainwashed as adults, or cults would not form. But it is certainly /easier/ to brainwash a child.
  
  b) Google: “hypothesis – a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.” These are not scientific hypotheses, but historical ones. If I say, “It is my hypothesis that Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese,” that is neither testable, repeatable, nor rigorously verifiable in a scientific sense. And yet I assume that you agree with my hypothesis due to the overwhelming historical evidence. “Hypothesis” in the hard sciences is a keyword. It carries a special meaning not transferable to other contexts. Here, Dr. Hutchinson lists suppositions or proposed explanations that an outside observer might make after hearing that he believes in the Resurrection, and he uses them as a starting point for further investigation.
  
  c) The article does not, in any way, try to prove that the Resurrection of Jesus did happen. It says that, if a scientist believes that the Resurrection did happen, that does not make him/her a bad scientist. It is not cognitively dissonant, because it is not scientific to believe that science can explain everything. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to believe something that science cannot explain, but which is backed by a body of historical evidence. Specifically, if one believes that there is a God who created nature (not congnitively dissonant), it would makes sense to believe that He could break the laws of nature.
  
  d) The Bible is NOT the only historical evidence. The existence and death of Christ are well documented by both Jewish and Greco-Roman historians. While the Resurrection is not, they do document that Jesus’s followers “claim he rose from the dead.”
  
  ———————-
  
  Again, this article is not to sway non-Christians to faith. It merely addresses the paradigm that all rigorous scientists must be non-theists — a paradigm which you seem to share. As a scientist, I find that incredibly close minded. If we must only believe what we can rigorously test and verify, then all of history is out the window.
- Finite
  
  “If believing Jesus rose from the dead helps you be a good person, great.
  You don’t need to believe in any of it to be a good person though.
  You can still apply the lessons & moral guidance as you struggle with your fallibility, and try to do the right thing.
  That’s called being human. Do unto others as you would have done unto you…
  All the magic is entirely unnecessary to the real message.”
  
  I find great irony in the notion that you sit comfortably in a world of various moral mores formed entirely by religion and then essentially claim that you don’t need religion to “be a good person”. Without religion, you wouldn’t even have a basis for the word “good” or “evil”.
- FTJ
  
  Excellent.
- Gene Dunkley
  
  Unfortunately, you have a significant number of fallacious assumptions here that just can’t be ignored. The first assumption is that people “want” this to be true. Absolutely not…it is a lot easier to live one’s life without the knowledge of the resurrection than with it. Secondly, you somehow have conflated present-day “Christianity” with the nascent revolution that began at Pentecost. Christianity is not about being a “good” person – in fact the Bible that you have critiqued actually tells us quite the opposite. Most importantly, you have the assumption that Christians believe in the resurrection simply from the standpoint of history. Here is the reality – if Jesus was truly resurrected then He is alive today. Therefore, a Christian can interact with Him today as the early disciples and followers interacted.The point of Christianity is that we can have this relationship today and the “evidence” is our present-day interaction. That is why the essence is not a religion, but a personal relationship with God through Christ. That is what real Christianity is about and the only reason why there are believers 2000 years later all over the world. And the reality still is that science is a wonderful tool of acquiring knowledge about the natural world but can say nothing to any existence outside of it. In terms of knowing Christ, it is simply a question of whether you decide to learn this for yourself or not.
- http://about.me/jcmmanuel jcmmanuel
  
  “in which case, please learn real science” – Duh. Boasting usually isn’t as helpful as people like to believe.
- Joe Young
  
  Finally a sane voice. Very nice reply
  I hope in future more people see the truth and accept science. We don’t need people who willingly persecute someone for believing in ‘Earth revolving around Sun’ doctrine just because their own holy book(and the god it is based on) claims that to be false. We don’t want another brilliant mind to face same fate as Galileo. 🙁
http://www.adesva.com/ David Hay

What an amazing article.
Pingback: Can a scientist believe in the resurrection? | The Good News()
Pingback: Can a scientist believe in the resurrection?()
W B Adair

Amen!

When I worked at NASA Johnson Space Center, the “Manned Space Flight Center” many non-scientist believers were sure that I was “the lone believer” at work. In reality I fit right in. Indeed, at NASA Johnson I received more invitations to lunch time Bible studies than at any other place I ever worked. In these meetings if one were to say “Doctor” almost everyone present would turn to look at you. Most had Ph.D.s in various hard sciences, like physics, chemistry and so on. The more exacting the science, the more rigorous the science, the more likely that science was represented in those Bible studies.
- Michele Higbee Hixon
  
  Buzz Aldrin received communion on the moon, something I never knew.
Timo

God Bless You! Be courageous with your faith and skilled in your thoughts!
donsevers

Whether Jesus rose from the dead or not, it’s not much a ‘great demonstration of God’s power’. How about raising everyone from the dead? I miss my brother, and he has missed out on everything since 1985.

If Jesus could raise people from the dead and only raised himself and a few others, that’s not a miracle. It’s a crime.
- FTJ
  
  More to the point, why didn’t Jesus just stick around for the past 2k years, healing the sick, feeding the hungry with magic food? Why did he conveniently disappear before people started telling his story?
  - David Kim
    
    The intention of Jesus was to pass this (ministry of miracles) on to His disciples which we see in Matthew 28:18-20 commonly known as the Great Commission. After Christ was resurrected from the dead, He commissioned His disciples to go and proclaim that Jesus is the long awaited Messiah. Which we see in most of the eyewitness accounts recorded in the Gospels (Matthew, Luke, and Mark).
    We have to keep in mind that Christianity is a Messianic movement centered around Jesus. It’d be hard to start an entire messianic movement if the main guy didn’t “exist”
    
    The point of Jesus’ miracles was to confirm His messianic identity and authority. Jesus was not doing miracles for entertainment, money, or fame. But to confirm what he said about Himself and His stated mission which He outlines in Matthew 5:17-20, Luke 24:44 and other places in Scripture. The goal of Jesus was to fulfill the prophecies previously spoken as the Messiah, that He would be born in Bethlehem Micah 5;2, born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14, His death for atonement (Isaiah 53) and which was to be before the destruction of the second temple (Daniel 9). His resurrection (Psalm 16:10), and His ascension into Heaven (Psalm 110). As well as His message (The Gospel) reaching out to the nations (Isaiah 49:6).
    
    Basically Jesus told His disciples who lived with him and were eyewitnesses to His teachings, miracles, death, resurrection and Ascension. To spread His story(The Gospel) and then He ascended into Heaven. From whence He will return and establish His eternal Kingdom in our midst. Then His disciples went out proclaiming that Jesus is the Messiah, by appealing to prophecies spoken of in the bible and appealing to their own eyewitness accounts stated explicitly by Peter:
    
    “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,[i] with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit,”
- http://www.LarryShort.com/ Larry Short
  
  You appear to be unaware of the Bible’s promise that everyone WILL indeed be raised from the dead. And, contrary to what you stated, I do suspect that if you saw someone (anyone) actually literally raised from the dead, you would recant what you said about it not being a miraculous demonstration of power.
  - donsevers
    
    But if he could do it sooner and doesn’t he is not as kind and loving as he could be. What is he waiting for?
    
    The larger issue is that he allowed death in the first place. He watched my brother expire from diabetic ketoacidosis. Even if he raises him from the dead he was negligent and cruel in doing nothing when he died. You get no points for loosening a cord that you put around my neck.
    - http://www.LarryShort.com/ Larry Short
      
      I’m sorry to hear about your brother. I too have watched loved ones die.
      
      The Bible teaches clearly that humans were created with free will and that it is a result of that free will (not God’s lack of goodness) that we die.
      
      Let’s hypothesize that humans were NOT created with free will and that we therefore did not die. Couldn’t you then (very legitimately) argue that God is not as good as He could be, because He didn’t give us free will?
      
      I think my point is, you can’t have it both ways. God is good because He created us with free will. We are not good because we use that free will as a weapon against Him (and others). That puts the responsibility for death (as much as we don’t like it), squarely on us, not God. And it also puts us in a very weak position to argue that God is not good.
      - donsevers
        
        >humans were created with free will and that it is a result of that free will (not God’s lack of goodness) that we die.
        
        You’re playing wack-a-mole with the causes of suffering. Much suffering comes from natural causes, not human choices. Animals who die of burns from lightning strikes in pre-human history or uninhabited places, for example.
        
        As for free will, give God some credit. We could have free will without sin flowing down the generations. It was not necessary for God to have infants be born with birth defects because others sinned.
      - donsevers
        
        Second, even suffering caused by free will is limited by the power God gave us. I can kill, but I can’t kill with only my thoughts, yet we still say I have free will.
        
        God could have set human power lower and reduced suffering dramatically, while still giving us free will.
    - GJD
      
      I appreciate your responses here…the biggest difficulty with Jesus isn’t so much whether he existed, had powers, is God, etc., but whether or not he is good and therefore worth following.
      
      Several people in the Bible who ask God the same question, and try to hold him to account for his allowance of pain, suffering, evil to exist and in some cases thrive. Job and Habakkuk are two examples. Mary, sister of Lazarus, calls Jesus to defend his decision to not come save her brother Lazarus (who he later resurrected)…
      
      Their responses are really hard to take. Really hard to accept.
      
      In my own life, I’ve come to trust that even when God allows terrible things to happen to me, He is with me, and He has my best interests at heart. That sound silly to most people, and I get that.
      
      However, the alternative is almost more frightening. On one hand, we can conceive of a world with a God who promises to ultimately turn all pain to joy, to ultimately punish all evil (even if we don’t see it in our time), to right all wrongs, such that no matter how many bad things will happen they ultimately only serve to creater a greater more awesome good. We can be skeptical of whether He is fulfilling this promise, but this is the promise seen in the Bible.
      
      On the other hand, we can conceive of a world were pain is simply random and meaningless. There is no point or purpose to pain.
      
      But yeah…as you point out, even if he ultimately would turn pain to good, it doesn’t take away the pain. Losing people still hurts. Hurts deeply. Injustice is still wrong, hateful.
      
      Curious what your thoughts are on this?
      - donsevers
        
        Suppose you’re in a car accident and your face if badly burned. Terrible, right?
        
        Then you find that your wife knew the brakes were about to fail but did nothing because she wanted the life insurance money. This explains your suffering, but has made it far worse.
        
        This is our situation. With no god in the picture, suffering is terrible and we humans do all we can to reduce or eliminate it. But with God in the picture, we learn that there is a superbeing who could help us, but instead just watches kids like little Leo Sanchez suffocate.
        
        http://fox13now.com/2016/09/09/utah-mom-seeks-answers-in-death-of-toddler-who-suffocated-beneath-bean-bag-chair-at-daycare/
        
        By my values, that is far worse. I’ll take meaningless suffering over suffering-as-part-of-a-plan and suffering-that-could-have-been-avoided any day.
        
        But that’s not why I think God doesn’t seem to exist. It’s just one of the many reasons I’m overjoyed that he doesn’t seem to exist. Just imagine your EMT showing up at your car accident, but only to watch. He might even weep with you or hold your hand, but does nothing to stop your bleeding or ease your pain. That’s creepy and cruel.
  - donsevers
    
    Even if everyone is raised, they still died, many from agonizing conditions. So the issue is not how the story ends, it is whether God could have written a kinder story. We know he could have because some people suffer far less than others.
    
    >you would recant what you said about it not being a miraculous demonstration of power.
    
    Ok, God’s powerful, so what? Is he as Good as he could be? We know the answer is no.
    
    Christianity is for people who worship power.
Judith Offermann

I firmly believe that all the evil that we see in the world is because we chose to shut God out and do our own thing. Evil does not exist in and of itself, but is merely the absence of Good., just as darkness does not exist, but is merely the absence of light. We forget that the human beings that God created were extremely powerful creatures, not helpless automatons. They were made in God’s image with powerful intelligence and creativity. We’re at the top of the list of who to blame for our condition and to go around saying, “Poor little humans!“ and “Evil God!” is nonsense. By exercising their free will to shut God out, they shut Good out, and what is the absence of Good? Evil. But if God is all powerful why didn‘t he just do as he did when he created the world, when he said “Let it be“, and it was? The only way I can understand it is that God created his own rules when he created physical existence, and agreed that his power would be bound by his own rules, and he cannot violate his own commitment to limit his own power. Among those rules was the rule that humans would have absolute free will. God didn’t want robots whom he could control with his remote. He wanted free agents. If their free will could be taken away as soon as they exercised it, it wouldn’t be free will at all, would it. And once they exercised the power he gave them to rebel against him, God couldn’t just zap a magic wand and make it all right. So He literally had to jump through hoops to save his beloved humans who had voluntarily separated themselves from him without violating the rules which make physical existence and free humans possible and thus destroying his own integrity and the integrity of physical existence itself. Furthermore, to say that the whole point of Jesus’ death was his suffering is to miss the complexity of what happened. Obviously it’s difficult to explain in a few words, but as the God-man Jesus, God became an integral part of the tree of humanity which includes all humans who have ever existed or will exist in the future. The anguish the man Jesus experienced on the cross when he cried out, “My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me” was probably the most important thing that happened, aside from the resurrection. In order to be truly human, the fully human Jesus had to experience the same separation from God that humans experienced because of their rebellion. He had to descend into Hell and literally lift the whole tree of humanity and defeat the death and destruction that had become an integral part of God’s creation once humans had separated themselves from God. Well that’s a partial answer anyway.
- Sandra
  
  So what was the means (mechanism, power) by which Jesus “literally lifted the whole tree of humanity” and defeated death and destruction?
  - http://www.LarryShort.com/ Larry Short
    
    “And God raised the Lord (Jesus) and will also raise us up by his power.” (1 Cor. 6:14) He who created life has the power to defeat death.
    - Sandra
      
      Thanks for the reply. I’m reasonably well acquainted with scripture and I don’t question the power of God. I think I need to form my thoughts into a more precise question.
Donald Sensing

There are five confounding facts about the resurrection that do NOT depend on divine revelation or supernatural events. They are historical facts as established as any others of ancient history, and in fact better established than most. And they are agreed to be historical by non-Christian historians as well. They are:

1. The sudden and immediate founding of the Church following the death of the man called Jesus of Nazareth. We don’t even have to bring up the Day of Pentecost. That the church began with the power and beliefs that it did has never been explained on any basis that leaves Jesus, like John Brown, “a molderin’ in his grave,” especially since absent Jesus’s resurrection, there is nothing left but ordinary Judaism.

2. Jesus’s tomb was discovered empty on the Sunday after he died on the cross.

3. The first person to claim that Jesus rose from the dead was a woman.

4. Many other people also said they saw Jesus risen from the dead, especially Paul and James the brother of Jesus, called James the Just.

5. The apostles who proclaimed Jesus’s resurrection were killed for doing so, except John, who died in exile. None recanted even when it would have saved their lives.

Note that none of these facts rely on supernatural authority. They are historical facts documented as well or better than accounts of other ancient figures or events. Longer explanation here:

http://pastordonblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/five-confounding-facts-about-jesus.html
BobM001

“SCIENCE” is what we lowly humans use in an “attempt” to explain the actions of a “supreme being”. That being the SON OF GOD. To think that we are some sort of “superior species” in this universe is laughable. Hence more and more “scientists” are coming “on board” with the concept of “INTELLIGENT DESIGN”. Jesus DID “rise from the dead”. With the aid of his ALMIGHTY FATHER. Whom I pray can send us his blessings and make us “in his own image” once again. The “original” has been perverted by the “Seven Deadly Sins”
Pingback: Knowledge is Power | leximcnair()
http://about.me/jcmmanuel jcmmanuel

But what’s the point in all of this? I wouldn’t deny the value of the Jesus story (including the resurrection story) – the author himself acknowledges the possibility that the myth has by itself great value, after all. Stories are the way we cope with the often harsh reality of our world – our brain works like this. Ultimately it is (scientifically) justified to say we all believe in certain things and we have to (an atheist for instance may believe in a greater good, a common sense, a social dependency that outperforms our individualist views). Where is the *necessity* of trying to prove that Jesus needs to be seen as risen from the death – when most people cannot believe that anyway? Moreover, why coming up with bogus statements like “But the first disciples attested to a physical resurrection” – when we all know by now that the gospels weren’t written before 70 CE and it is by no means certain that those disciples did so – there was room for an all too common mythologization process introducing concepts like resurrection and divinity of Jesus – Jesus became more divine with each appearing gospel (Mark – Matthew – John…).

By the way, hypothesis 3 is also bogus: you are right that some people (mostly anti-theists including those who prefer to confuse the world by calling themselves just atheist) are quick to talk about “cognitive dissonance” and “brainwashing” etc. when it comes to religion – even while there is obviously no less brainwashing in atheist communities. But why mentioning this as if it is part and parcel of an argumentation pro christianity? It does not. It’s just a deviation from the subject. No serious person is really interested in people who call “brainwashed” anyone who does not accept their own worldview. We know it’s more complex than that.

Anyway. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not even denying the value of the mythologization – after all, myths grow along the lines of what most people are longing for: hope, something to hold on to. Those are great human characteristics which I (as a non-theist) can fully respect. I just wonder why you guys at Veritas seem to refuse to get as close as possible to the reality of our world. You make (probably not on purpose) others feel like “it is not good enough” to be an admirer of Jesus unless we believe he has NOT been dead for the last 2000 years. Kind of “better no Jesus at all than a non-divine Jesus”. I believe we (humans) can do much better.

As an atheist, I think true atheism means just one thing: taking the same distance from (or closeness to, if you want) every religion. I can appreciate other religions more since I’m not a christian anymore. I also didn’t even try to deny christian faith – sometimes these things just happen. You grow out of something and then you need to deal with those things in a new way. Such “inclusive atheism” is certainly no better (and I think also no worse) than taking an “inclusive religious position”. We can connect in a non-exclusivist way of looking at the world, at life, at human longing, hope, compassion etc.

Neither of us has to be “materialist” (not believing in god does not make me a materialist). I would even agree that “science is not our only means for accessing truth” – however, that doesn’t mean I would suddenly find it meaningful to believe in a risen Jesus. Saying this doesn’t make me “hostile” to Christian beliefs – it just means I see Jesus in a very different way – and parts of our views may be very compatible. Not believing in a Jesus-resurrection is not a species of materialism or physicalism, or scientism – it’s a matter of not having any clue why believing so would be helpful for me. However, we may share the longing for a “resurrection” of the mind – towards a more compassionate, humane world, for instance.

That’s just adding my 2 pence to the debate. Hopefully it helps.
Pingback: Ruksis780()
Pingback: fire pit table()
clifford cook

When jesus gave his life on the cross , his spirit energy , love light and consciousness , his soul , left his physical body and returned to heaven , jesus was god in a physical body , and god incarnated his spirit energy into the body of jesus , and then returned to heaven .

God never left us ,god was in spirit form omnipresent , and around all of us , and when god left the body of jesus , he returned to spirit form and was still around all of us in fact even in the body of jesus god was still all around us in spirit form .
Michael J Felock

shownamystery.com
Michael J Felock

Other than “blind faith” or any other means that does not require a type of tangible proof or evidence it is necessary to “untangle” each and every aspect of the Resurrection and many other aspects relative to it in order to culminate in some absolute degree of its probability
Carol Green

I was reared in the church, with weekly Sunday school, church, fellowship, Bible study, and choir. But, throughout childhood and adolescence, I simply could not understand how virgin birth and Christ’s resurrection had anything to do with reality and science, let alone water being made into wine, or a blind person regaining full sight. When I made the break in my senior year of high school, I found the paradigm shift from religious to non-religious to be the most freeing experience of my life. I now see religion as bigoted, judgmental, intolerant, inflexible. narrow-minded, and the greatest cause for wars throughout the world. Sin is no longer a part of my life. I’ve become far more accepting of differences and other cultures as a non-religious person, and I am so glad.
Gary Whittenberger

IH2 marks a quote from the author’s essay. GW2 marks my response to it.

IH2: But the first disciples attested to a physical resurrection. How could an untruth logically support high moral character? How could it have sustained the apostles through the extremes of persecution they experienced founding Christianity? And is celebrating a myth consistent with scientific integrity?

GW2: A single first-person eyewitness report of any events in the life of Jesus has never been found or presented. An untruth could support high or low moral character. The apostles could have sincerely believed falsehoods. Celebrating a myth could be consistent with scientific integrity as long as you admit that the myth is just symbolic.

IH2: My Christian colleagues at MIT – and millions of other scientists worldwide – somehow think that a literal miracle like the resurrection of Jesus is possible.

GW2: Of course a literal miracle like the resurrection of Jesus is possible! It is just so improbable and the evidence is so poor that we shouldn’t believe it occurred. It is unreasonable to believe today that Jesus came back to life in the first century.

IH2: The founders of the scientific revolution and many of the greatest scientists of the intervening centuries were serious Christian believers.

GW2: So what? They made the same mistakes in interpretation which you have made. Besides, most scientists and philosophers in the modern world are atheists or agnostics.

IH2: Science cannot and does not disprove the resurrection.

GW2: So what? Science doesn’t need to disprove it. Reason and science together show that Jesus almost certainly did not come back to life. That’s good enough.

IH2: Miracles like the resurrection are inherently abnormal.

GW2: Yes, if they occurred, they would be abnormal, but we don’t have good reason to think they have occurred.

IH2: Still, the fact that the resurrection was impossible in the normal course of events was as obvious in the first century as it is for us. Indeed that is why it was seen as a great demonstration of God’s power.

GW2: The resurrection was never impossible! If God came to Earth and caused a person to come back to life in front of a mixed crowd under controlled conditions, that would be one hell of a demonstration. But there is no reason to believe that something like this has ever happened. In fact the Gospels don’t even describe anything like this.

IH2: Miracles are, by definition, abnormal and non-reproducible, so they cannot be proved by science’s methods.

GW2: But science can demonstrate the reproducible pattern of people dying and not coming back to life. And so we are entitled to believe that probably nobody in the history of humanity has ever come back to life. If you claim that somebody did come back to life, then the burden of proof is on you to supply good historical evidence (reports, remnants, and/or recordings) of the event. And if you claim that somebody is able to cause somebody else to come back to life, then give us a demonstration under controlled conditions.

IH2: Today’s widespread materialist view that events contrary to the laws of science just can’t happen is a metaphysical doctrine, not a scientific fact…Science offers natural explanations of natural events. It has no power or need to assert that only natural events happen.

GW2: Those contrarian events COULD happen; they are POSSIBLE! Nobody should claim that they are IMPOSSIBLE. But so far nobody has presented evidence sufficient to believe that any has actually occurred. They may have occurred, but it is unreasonable to think they have.

IH2: In the case of Jesus’ resurrection, we must consider the historical evidence, and the historical evidence for the resurrection is as good as for almost any event of ancient history.

GW2: No, it isn’t! A single first-person eyewitness report of any events in the life of Jesus has never been found or presented. The evidential bar for a miracle should be set higher than for a non-miracle.

IH2: I came to faith in Jesus when I was an undergraduate at Cambridge University and was baptized in the chapel of Kings College on my 20th birthday. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are as compelling to me now as then.

GW2: This has nothing to do with the hypothesis that Jesus came back to life. Early indoctrination is not the only explanation why a scientist might believe fanciful ideas.
- GJD
  
  @GW, i’m curious what you would consider as acceptable ‘evidence’ of any supernatural event, whether it be the claimed resurrection of Jesus, the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus (which actually meets your criteria stated in this post…if you accept that Jesus was God), various healings reported in the Gospels, or continued reports of various healings around the world today?
  - Gary Whittenberger
    
    Good question. There are so many scenarios in which evidence could be provided which would be convincing to me, but here is just one:
    
    “A man or woman who claims to be God, having been invited to a small auditorium under controlled conditions, is given a cup of dirt and transforms the dirt into a human being in front of a thousand persons including theists, atheists, agnostics, scientists, magicians, and me and you.”
    
    As Carl Sagan said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
    - GJD
      
      no hearsay then. Smart. haha.
      
      I recently have been reading John, and chapters 6-8 are very interesting…it starts with the story of the feeding of the 5,000. Jesus goes off into the hills, uses 2 fish and 5 loaves, and feeds 5,000 families with it, and there’s 12 baskets of leftovers.
      
      Most of these are normal Jewish families who heard about some guy who could do crazy stuff and came to see. So the next morning they basically chase him around the lake, and ask for more miracles. And Jesus doesn’t comply–partly because he thinks that they’re just after more food, but also because he knows they don’t yet believe his claims to be their Messiah.Actually, it’s kind of a pattern for him–the Jewish people, particularly the Pharisees, are always asking him to prove who He is by doing some sort of miracle, and he is pointing out that the fact that they are asking for a miracle is an indication that they are approaching him in a way that he doesn’t want (i.e., belief based on visible exhibition of some sort of magical powers). And to be honest, if Jesus is who he says he is, he could have done so much more…i mean, so many incredible things.
      
      If the point of miracles was to prove god’s existence, and if Jesus was god, then he would not have acted the way He did, as recorded in the gospels. So I begin to wonder if that is not really the point of miracles at all. Actually, it makes more sense in the recorded narrative of the Gospels to think that miracles are not performed to prove power, but to reveal his character, desires, purposes. All Jesus ever does is heal people. No fancy displays, no jedi-style combat skills. His message and his choice of exercising power are consistent–restoration.
      
      If somebody shows me a miracle to try to prove that they are ‘all that’, I am instantly suspicious. That’s what posers always do. Jesus doesn’t seem to care whether people believe in him because of an exercise of ‘power’–it actually seems like he doesn’t want that to happen. He seems to ask people to trust him based on the type/character or his choices and actions.
      
      anyways…recent musings on the role of miracles as performed by Jesus…
      - Gary Whittenberger
        
        GJD1: So the next morning they basically chase him around the lake, and ask for more miracles.
        And Jesus doesn’t comply–partly because he thinks that they’re just after more food, but also because he knows they don’t yet believe his claims to be their Messiah.
        
        GW1: But if he were divine, he would perform more miracles.
        
        GJD1: Actually, it’s kind of a pattern for him–the Jewish people, particularly the Pharisees, are always asking him to prove who He is by doing some sort of miracle, and he is pointing out that the fact that they are asking for a miracle is an indication that they are approaching him in a way that he doesn’t want (i.e., belief based on visible exhibition of some sort of magical powers). And to be honest, if Jesus is who he says he is, he could have done so much more…i mean, so many incredible things.
        
        GW1: Yes, I see the pattern. However, if he were divine he would have performed miracles frequently, regardless if he were asked.
        
        GJD1: If the point of miracles was to prove god’s existence, and if Jesus was god, then he would not have acted the way He did, as recorded in the gospels. So I begin to wonder if that is not really the point of miracles at all. Actually, it makes more sense in the recorded narrative of the Gospels to think that miracles are not performed to prove power, but to reveal his character, desires, purposes.
        
        GW1: I don’t believe any of these miracles occurred. If Jesus were divine, he would frequently perform miracles to validate his divinity and his message, with and without a request, and the documentation would be outstanding. God would not be incompetent.
        
        GJD1: All Jesus ever does is heal people.
        
        GW1: I disagree. The stories say that he walked on water and changed water into wine.
        
        GJD1: If somebody shows me a miracle to try to prove that they are ‘all that’, I am instantly suspicious. That’s what posers always do.
        
        GW1: If Jesus performed obvious miracles (like what I described in my scenario), then you wouldn’t confuse him with a poser.
        
        GJD1: Jesus doesn’t seem to care whether people believe in him because of an exercise of ‘power’–it actually seems like he doesn’t want that to happen.
        
        GW1: That’s one reason why the miracle stories are almost certainly false. If Jesus did exist and were divine, he WOULD care whether people believe in him and he would SHOW IT in his actions, including the performance of many miracles to an extent which far surpasses what is described in the Gospels. Not only that, but either he or God would be performing miracles today to you, me, and others.
    - GJD
      
      awesome hypothetical by the way. is that also a Sagan quote?
      - Gary Whittenberger
        
        To my knowledge, the scenario is not a Sagan quote. That is an original from me.
Matei Stefan

.. nobody’s perfect.
🙂
Being a professor (MIT or not) and being highly intelligent is not necessarily the same thing. That’s one. And second, there are religious people amongst very intelligent people as well, because, as I said, nobody’s perfect. Intelligence is an average of a series of brain processes, and there’s a little drawer there responsible with people’s tendency to be “spiritual”, to mistify and have religious feelings, experiences. That drawer is either empty, or jammed. In some cases it doesn’t even exist: just like some are born with a missing body part.

As an atheist, my problem is not the fact that people (so many, too many! — that’s sad) are religious. What others believe is none of my business: go ahead!, believe whatever makes you feel good, whatever inspires you, whatever gives you a purpose, a sense. Believe!

… just… keep it for yourselves. How about taking religion out of public life? Take it out of schools, let the kids grow up first and decide for themselves. Why is it legal to brainwash them (one way or another), but fuckin’ them before they’re old enough to make a decision is illegal? Why do you abuse, corrupt their minds, huh? Are they old enough to consent?…

And I don’t want to see new churches appearing everywhere every day, you know. Stop building, people! I thought your Jesus said God doesn’t need churches and priests, God is everywhere and if you want to go to him you can find him even under a stone. Can’t you see how… chaotic you are? You believe, but you don’t follow. How hypocrits can you be?

I don’t want any public money to be supplied to the churches, I want the church to be taxed like anyone else, I want you guys to stop telling us how wrong we are, that we need to be saved etc… WTF!, just keep it for yourselves.

And one more thing. If you decide to give your own private money to the church instead of giving it to the poor, to education, to health care, to research etc… stop seeing a doctor when you’re sick. Go to your fuckin’ preast, let him heal you through prayer.
Gerry Beritela

Don’t forget Hyposthesis 4 The mystical spiritual explanation that the disciples had “visions” of the risen Jesus.
Jayden Hunter

20 year old people are still children and easily duped into believing fantasy.
Jayden Hunter

Millions of scientists believe in the Resurrection? Actual scientists? Evidence for this claim? I find it rather bold.
Pingback: Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection? · Preachers Institute()
Pantocrator

When we look through a telescope at distant objects, we see them not as they are, but as they were. Similarly, distant observers looking at Earth would see us in the past, perhaps before we came to be. What we are observe are not objects or events, but memories radiating from those objects and events. Every moment, our thoughts, our actions, our movements, our history, perturbes space, creates a signal that is essentially uploading information into space itself. Someone five light years away can see us as we were five years ago. Between us and them, the entire five years is stored, intact, and radiating outward at the speed of light. Only an observer who is everywhere present, ecompassing all of space, can access this information in its entirety in order to reconstitute it much the way a lens reconstitutes a real image of an object.
Frank Criscenti

Coming in late to this.
While the author may not be totally convincing in his arguments to some, let’s get over being so condescending as to suggest that Christianity is something that gets us through the day. Historical Christ, according to my reading is more than a character in some fiction. That doesn’t prove his resurrection. That is based on faith. And yes, figuring that science explains the non-existence of the resurrection is also based on faith.
Supposing 120 years ago that a “camel could pass through the eye of a needle” one would have been considered unscientific. With quantum physics, we now know such things are theoretically possible. Spontaneous generation once was deemed science. It doesn’t mean it was true.
We don’t understand everything. Yes, kill an organism and all-known science says that organism is forever dead. Well, explain the existence of life then in a sterile universe. We might think we know what happened, but there surely are some mysteries left. No I am not sprouting Creationism, but to suggest that all believers are superstitious and unlearned fools is rather insulting. Whatever gets you through the day huh?
Pingback: Render Unto Caesar – waka waka waka()
Pingback: mid-week apologetics booster (6-15-2017) – 1 Peter 4:12-16()
Pingback: Can a scientist believe in the resurrection? – Paul M. Jones()

March 25, 2016

Can a scientist believe in the resurrection? Three hypotheses.

Ian Hutchinson
MIT

Jump To Comments

Share This Talk

Topics

Featured

Jesus

Popular

Science

Tags

easter

MIT

Resurrection

Science and Faith

What to Read Next:

Related Posts

Article

Jesus, Meaning, Popular

Rebecca McLaughlin

Audio

Featured, Jesus, Reason, Science

Tom Rudelius

Related Playlists

Playlist

Is there truth beyond science?

Ian Hutchinson

David Helfand

et. al.

Playlist

Five scientists share their journeys to faith

Francis Collins

Praveen Sethupathy

et. al.

Denmark

Finland

France

Netherlands

United Kingdom

March 25, 2016

Can a scientist believe in the resurrection? Three hypotheses.

Ian HutchinsonMIT

Jump To Comments

Share This Talk

Topics

Featured

Jesus

Popular

Science

Tags

easter

MIT

Resurrection

Science and Faith

What to Read Next:

Related Posts

Article

Jesus, Meaning, Popular

Rebecca McLaughlin

Audio

Featured, Jesus, Reason, Science

Tom Rudelius

Related Playlists

Playlist

Is there truth beyond science?

Ian Hutchinson

David Helfand

et. al.

Playlist

Five scientists share their journeys to faith

Francis Collins

Praveen Sethupathy

et. al.

Ian Hutchinson
MIT