Board index ‹ Science and the Bible

[J Lord]

I don't think you can demonstrate that belief in God is reasonable. But assuming you could demonstrate that a god exists, how would demonstrate that a person was born of a virgin? Or was resurrected? Or that hell exists? Or angels?

[jimwalton]

As you know, there are many rational arguments for the existence of God. Though none of them are airtight, and they can all be refuted, they are still solid arguments that demonstrate that belief in God can be a more than reasonable position to take.

So let's talk about the virgin birth (briefly—I can't possibly write it all here). Both Matthew and Luke write about a virginal conception. In the ancient mindset this wasn't a problem, since their obstetric knowledge posed that male provided the life force and the female provided the bodily substance. For them, despite their knowledge that it took a man and woman to have babies, it was easy to postulate that God provided the life force in Mary's "oven". Jesus could easily be perceived as fully divine and fully human.

In our era, we know about sperm and eggs, and X and Y chromosomes—things that make us go Hmmmm... for a virginal conception. Our modern understanding requires God to have acted biologically to provide part of the genetic material necessary for conception to have taken place. Both Matthew and Luke are firm on this, though: Mary had never had intercourse.

It is often said that the real question of the truth of Christianity is not the resurrection, but the incarnation. If we believe that God actually visited the planet, then resurrection is easy. The hard part is comprehending the incarnation.

We need to go back to creation. Some say that God created ex materia, from raw material eternally coexistent with God. Others claim ex deo, creation from God's own being. A third (specifically talked about in Scripture) is ex nihilo, out of nothing (Jn. 1.3; Heb. 11.3). The first is not tenable as far as the Scriptures are concerned. The latter two are possibilities (as long as ex deo creation is perceived in such a way as to make sure that nature does not share in God's divinity). But if God is able to create ex deo, then creating a sperm in Mary ex nihilo that was also ex deo and partaking in God's nature is both within the capabilities of an omnipotent creator God as well as theologically viable.

Resurrection is much easier proposition if you start with a God who is life and who is able to bring life out of nothing. Ex nihilo creation is a Scriptural teaching. But even nature has a fair example of resurrection in the seed. Some seeds were found in the Egyptian pyramids, dead for thousands of years. With botanic nurture they were brought to life. Restarting a heart is even within the capabilities of many doctors with EAD machines.

If resurrection is plausible, given the existence of an omnipotent God who is defined by life, and therefore admitting to the possibility of spirit beings and spiritual realities, then the plausible existence of an afterlife for humans is a small bridge.

Since the arguments for belief in God can be proved to be a reasonable position to take for those convinced of the logic of many such arguments combined, these other things are a smaller step to make them plausible as well.

[Willie Henders]

> I was only contending that there are such things that produce effects upon other things that are not subject to material detection and measurement.

How do you know that dark matter produces an effect upon other things? If you were asked to support that assertion, what would you use for evidence?

> Juries deal not with scientific proof but with the burden of proof: the greater weight of credible evidence.

In what form is your credible evidence for an assertion that God, more often than not, produces a specific significant effect upon other things?

[jimwalton]

> How do you know that dark matter produces an effect upon other things?

"The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe" (wikipedia).

> In what form is your credible evidence for an assertion that God, more often than not, produces a specific significant effect upon other things?

The Bible is the story of God's intervention in and interaction with this history of humanity. While most of that is interpretive and not scientifically provable (for instance, when the Bible claims that God spared Jerusalem from destruction at the hands of the Assyrians), there are some pieces (again interpretive) that can be offered as evidence for an assertion that God has produced a noticeable effect.

- The existence of the Jewish people. All other ancient people groups, with the exception of the Egyptians, have disappeared. But the Jews are unique in that for most of their history they didn't have a land of their own. Their current existence as a people group is beyond remarkable.
- The fulfillment of prophecy. No one can predict (even the best scientists) who will win the football game or the horse race, or who will fall in love with whom. The prophetic writings of Scripture give credible evidence that God produces a specific significant effect on other things.
- The resurrection of Jesus—obviously contrary to nature, and yet to be realistically and legitimately debunked (though many try, and there are arguments against it; the arguments against it are not nearly as strong as the arguments for it).
- The existence of the Church and its personal- and culture-changing power give credible evidence every day that God continues to produce a specific significant effect on other things.

[Willie Henders]

> The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe" (wikipedia).

It sounds like science is in fact utilized to infer the existence of dark matter.

> The Bible is the story of God's intervention in and interaction with this history of humanity.

Many different religious texts fit this description.

>The existence of the Jewish people.

Does the existence of a people, such as the Aborigines prove their god(s) are real?

>The fulfillment of prophecy.

Any prophesy that is more clear and specific than a horoscope should be subject to scientific evaluation.

> The resurrection of Jesus.

Evidence of this would be subject to scientific evaluation.

> God continues to produce a specific significant effect on other things.

If you can articulate a specific significant effect God has on other things, that can be identified and anticipated, this effect can be evaluated.

[jimwalton]

> Many different religious texts fit this description.

Actually and realistically, I'm not sure that many do. The Hindu texts don't. Nor do Buddhist or Confucian texts. Even the Qur'an is not really the story of God's intervention in and interaction with the history of humanity, though it is more so than the other holy books. In truth, very few religious texts deal with God's historical interactions and interventions.

> Any prophesy that is more clear and specific than a horoscope should be subject to scientific evaluation.

Well, sort of, depending on the prophecy. There are prophecies, for instance, that say the Messiah would be from Bethlehem, that he would do miraculous things, that he would ride a donkey into Jerusalem, that men would gamble for his clothes, that he would be pierced, but no bones broken. Are these subject to scientific evaluation as they relate to Jesus? But if you want scientific evaluation, for instance, can you prove to me, scientifically, that Paul Revere rode from town to town declaring that the British were coming? Can you prove to me scientifically that Crispus Attucks was the first man killed in the Revolutionary War? Science can only take us so far in historical matters. And what of prophecy? Several years ago I said that the Seattle Seahawks would soon win the Super Bowl. Was I right? Yep. Can I prove it to you scientifically? Nope. Does that mean I didn't say it? Nope, but it's not subject to scientific verification. You're demanding the wrong evidence for the issue at hand.

> The resurrection of Jesus

You want scientific evaluation. What does that even mean? You want a scientific study on a body that isn't there? You want proof that people claim they saw something? A few years back I was in Vermont, walking down a road with some friends, and we all saw a catamount cross the road. The scientists will tell you there are no catamounts in Vermont, and yet we all saw it. Is this sighting subject to scientific evaluation? Nope. I can't prove it to you, but we all saw it. Did those people 2000 years ago see Jesus in his resurrection body? What "scientific evaluation" are you looking for?

> If you can articulate a specific significant effect God has on other things, that can be identified and anticipated, this effect can be evaluated.

I know a man named Roberto. He used to be a drug runner. He was a violent man, and was often in trouble with the police. He had been involved in robberies and you name it. In prison he became a Christian. He's a completely different person: kind, soft-spoken, caring, peaceful, honest and you name it. I say God produced a specific significant effect on him. Is that subject to scientific evaluation? Nope, but it's as real as real can be. Can his change in personality and character be evaluated? Absolutely. It's one example of millions around the world.

Lots of people I talk to denigrate anecdotal evidence, but not only do our courts accept such evidence in the prosecution of cases, we as normal human beings accept such evidence all the time pertaining to classes, professors, movies, restaurants, concerts, etc. To me it's a double standard to go by anecdotal evidence in so many areas of life, but to forbid it in questions of religion. A friend of mine just got back from Afghanistan and was telling us about it. Should I say, "I don't believe any of what you're telling me, because it's just anecdotal. I'll only believe it if you can give me the scientific evidence for what you're saying?" Of course not. That's absurd. We have to use the correct measure for the appropriate conversations.

[J Lord]

> there are many rational arguments for the existence of God. Though none of them are airtight, and they can all be refuted

I do not think an argument is rational if it can be refuted. If an argument is refuted it is not a solid argument. And if an argument is refuted it does not give us a reasonable basis to accept the argument's conclusion. The fact that there are numerous refuted arguments does not make the conclusion more likely to be true. You could have a million refuted arguments for the existence of God and it wouldn't provide any reasonable basis for belief.

> Both Matthew and Luke write about a virginal conception.

Neither author had any way of confirming that it was true. Since virgin birth stories were commonly added to the biographies of famous people by their devout followers, and since the followers of Jesus believed he had divine qualities, there is a reasonable likelihood that these authors simply made up the story. However, if they weren't making it up they could only have gained the information by hearing someone else make the same claim to them. And for the same reasons as stated above, there is a reasonable likelihood that whoever told the story to them was making it up. Or that someone, somewhere down the line of story telling simply made it up. Surely this explanation is far more likely than the possibility that the natural order was suspended. You are comparing something that is known to happen regularly with an event that has never been confirmed to have occurred and may not be possible at all.

Even if by pure speculation you want to suppose that the authors of Matthew and Luke spoke to Jesus' mother herself. It is still more likely that a women might lie about her past sex life to protect her reputation than it is for the natural order to be suspended. It is unreasonable to accept the less likely explanation simply because it forms part of your preferred religious tradition.

> If resurrection is plausible, given the existence of an omnipotent God

It is plausible if you assume the existence of an omnipotent God. But that doesn't provide any reasonable basis for thinking it ever actually happened.

[jimwalton]

> I do not think an argument is rational if it can be refuted.

Every argument can be refuted. People refute that humans ever landed on the moon. People refute that the concentration camps were real. Some scientists still contend that the universe is more governed by electromagnetism than by gravity. Every argument can be refuted. There are debates about cosmology, epistemology, oh, I don't have to list them all. If you won't believe anything unless it's absolutely irrefutable, then you believe in absolutes and presuppositions, and there are plenty of people who would refute that. So your position is self-defeating.

> Neither author had any way of confirming that [the virginal conception] was true.

Maybe, but we need to consider the broader picture here.

1. Matthew was trying to present a case that Jesus was of the line of David. He even starts his book with "Jesus, son of David..." It hurt his case to claim that Joseph wasn't involved in the conception. Jewish messianic expectation included Davidic descent, so no one was expecting a virginal conception.

2. Matthew would have absolutely no motive for inventing such a story. It only made his writing seem mythological. No convincing motive for contriving such a story has yet been suggested.

3. Traditional Jewish monotheism would have abhorred the notion of a story about God replacing a human male in the act of conception.

4. Since Isa. 7.14 (the prophecy referred to in Mt. 1.23) was not understood to predict a virginal conception, there was little reason for Matthew to invent it.

5. The only logical reason that Matthew and Luke would have included a virginal conception is if they were convinced that's what actually happened. It goes against reason and the known biology, even at that time. (They didn't understand what we know about gynecology, but they knew it took two to tango.)

In addition, while other religious figures (such as Krishna and Karna) were said to be of divine birth, there is nothing in the Hindu holy books to suggest it was a virgin birth. So also Buddha. Three Egyptian kings (Hatshepsut, Amenhotep III, and Ramesses II) were said to have been conceived by a deity, but each was also said to have descended from a biological father. Actually, if you examine all of these ancient alleged parallels to a virginal conception (as some scholars have done), there is a vast difference between them and the virgin birth of Jesus, and only a far-distant parallel. The story of Jesus, in history, is quite unique when you look deeper than the surface.

> It is unreasonable to accept the less likely explanation simply because it forms part of your preferred religious tradition.

It does very little to Christian religious tradition to claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. His virgin birth is never tied in, by Scripture, to his sinlessness or anything else. As a matter of fact, it never comes up again in Scripture. It's almost a non-factor, and yet it's there. Why? There as nothing to gain from such a teaching, unless they were just reporting what happened.

> [The resurrection] is plausible if you assume the existence of an omnipotent God. But that doesn't provide any reasonable basis for thinking it ever actually happened.

It is plausible if one assumes the existence of an omnipotent God, but it's also plausible on examination of the evidence, that gives it a more than reasonable basis for thinking it actually happened. The evidence for the resurrection is strong.

1. Clement of Rome. A disciple of Peter. We have one letter he wrote, between 65-69 or 90-95. "[The apostles were] fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ."

2. Polycarp. A disciple of John. He wrote around AD 125. "The one who raised Jesus from the dead will raise us also."

3. The resurrection story in the Gospel of Luke. Most scholars agree that he got his information from primary sources and was a traveling companion of Paul.

4. The resurrection story in the Gospel of Matthew. While it may not have been written by Matthew, there is eyewitness testimony in the book.

5. The resurrection story in the Gospel of John, which was probably written by John, an eyewitness.

6. The resurrection teachings by the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 15.1-8), a one-time hostile witness, a verifiably early source who knew Jesus' disciples.

In addition...

1. There wasn't enough time for legend or myth to develop. Paul's writing in 1 Cor. 15-1-8 is confirmable from an account 3-5 years after the resurrection.

2. There is no evidence at all for the idea that the disciples or Christians considered it a metaphor of something else.

3. Their willingness to die for this story proves their sincerity in their belief in the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus.

4. It doesn't make sense that it was a hallucination since there is no such thing as mass hallucinations or even group hallucinations.

Actually there is quite a reasonable basis for thinking the resurrection is a historical fact.