This is simply not true. You are saying that to believe in the Bible, which you assume to be irrational and further assume before hand to have no evidence to support it, you must first reject the only "rational" belief system that is based on the proponderance of evidence which is science.
I agree that one does not necessarily have to reject science in order to place ones faith in the Bible. Certainly some stories have to be as allegorical/metaphorical rather than as literal accounts. As a believer, the only reason I was ever given for holding unwieldingly to a literalist interpretation was a weak slippery slope argument that goes as follows:
If we question the historical accuracy of say the Flood or Joshua's famous battle against the Amorites, then all other claims in the Bible are suspect, including the divinity of Christ and the truth of the Resurrection. We can never question the divinity of Christ or the truth of the Resurrection, therefore we cannot question any other accounts in the Bible.
This argument is of course clearly flawed. Just because we think that one story in Bible is mythology does not mean that every story in the Bible is mythology. Moreover, just because the Global Flood is a myth does not make it any less instructive, nor any less inspiring to a person's faith.
The Bible does in fact have evidence to help support its validity.
This statement is very unclear. Certainly there is evidence to support some of the stories in the Bible. We know that many/most of the locations described in the "Historical Books" of the Bible (e.g., Joshua, Judges, Samuel 1 & 2, Kings 1 & 2, Chronicles 1 & 2) did or do exist.
This isn't exactly evidence supporting the validity of the Bible itself but rather of the geography described in those books. In order to be honest, I think one needs to exercise some caution when speaking of evidence for the Bible as a whole. I mean how are you ever going to find evidence for say Revelation.
As I have said in the past, their is a wide body of evidence to help support its validiy such as the field of Biblical Archeology and the historical accuracy of the Biblical stories.
Have you ever read The Bible Unearthed by Neil Silberman and Israel Finkelstein? These are highly reputed Biblical Archaelogists who give a scholarly account of what archeaology can tell us about things like the Exodus, the kingdoms of David and Solomon, and other traditional Hebrew folklore/history.
The book has been very well received, and, having read the book, I can echo the claims of the reviewers at amazon.com that it is not just a "debunking" book. They are interested in relating the scholarly Biblical archaeology evidence to the general public; they are not out to disprove God or the Bible or anything like that.
Anyway, if you ever became interested in going a bit deeper on the subject of Biblical archaeology than what can be found at some apologists webpage, take a look at this book.
Granted, the Bible is not a scientific text as is science not a text of spirituality/morality. Therefore it is much akin to comparing apples and oranges. This is one of the reasons Dr. Chien does not attempt to prove the Bible via science.
You're right that the Bible is not a scientific text. This does not exempt passages of the Bible that seem to make claims about the natural world from scientific scrutiny. If the Bible claims that the world was submerged in water for approximately one year, and there is a proponderence of evidence (both empirical data and theoretical data) that tell us that such a thing is not naturally possible, then it is reasonable to assume that the this was not a truly global flood. Maybe it was originally a large local flood. Again science does not need to be in the business of disproving God. Natural claims made by any religion are open season though.
On the other hand, evidence is not merely limited to being based upon the scientific method. Personal experiences are just such an example.
Personal experience can be used as evidence. We use personal testimony in a court of law for instance. Personal testimony however must be taken along with some skeptical scrutiny. Even eye witness testimony has been shown to be often unreliable. Testimony from experts requires that the witness actually be established by the court as an "expert." The experts testimony must also be consistent or interpreted within the context of their field of study. Just being an "expert" witness does not mean that whatever you say must be accepted as true.
However, the quote you give comes from neither of these types of sources. Rather it is just a recount of one person's decision to become a xian. There is no evidence for "the Creator" in that quote. It doesn't even seem like that is what Chien is trying to say.
A polytheist could make an analogous statement ("Creators" instead of "Creator" ) and it would not be evidence of polytheism. A pantheist could substitute "Creation" for "Creator" and again no evidence.
We see the attraction to the gospel, but only in reference to morality/spirituality. I would say that these count as evidence, but I also agree that this evidence is not subject to the scientific method.
One persons attraction to the gospel of xianity is no more evidence of the truth of xianity than Tom Cruise's attraction to scientology is evidence of its truth. People can and do find all sorts of things attractive to believe in (e.g., astrology, reincarnation, karma, chi). Attractiveness is not evidence.
If you want the proponderance of such evidences, however, just look at the number of people who have converted and had similair experiences such as myself. This accounts for billions of people and Christianity currently outnumbers all other faiths to date.
By this standard, there was a "proponderance" of evidence for Roman mythology in 20 A.D. Back then almost nobody believed in the divinity of Christ. If you go by rate of conversion, xianity is actually in trouble because Islam is a faster growing religion. Apparently the evidence, by your standard, is leading people to believe in Islam and reject xianity. Finally, I'd like to point out that when you are using those figures you are accepting all Christ-related religions into the fold. This means Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and Moonies. I'd like to know if you will officially here, declare all of these sects to be "Christian." That way in other threads, we won't equivocate.
If billions of people claimed they saw a UFO, for example, it should count for something. Granted, it is not proof.
Maybe if there testimony was internally consistent. The problem is that these billions are not at all together on their story.
It used to be that in the time of Galileo, that the church found his scientific findings to be a threat to Christianity. It was assumed that his finding contradicted the word of God in some way. As we can see today, nothing can be further from the truth. There is nothing in scripture that refutes his findings. LIkewise, what I see from the Christian world today, there is much resistance from scientific findings regarding the theory of evolution and such. I do not necessarilty think that such finding contradict scripture much in the same way Galileo's findings did not do so as well. What we have in the Bible are a chapter or two on the creation of the universe, therefore, much is left to the imagination and much unfortunatly is assumed.
I think that this is the most reasonably position for a xian to take.
For example, the 6 days are not six literal days. The lliteral Hebrew translation of morning and evening can be correctly translated as "chaos" and "order".
I've looked at his interpretation. It's basically just reverse engineering. What would it take to make the measure of a day consistent with our best knowledge of the earth's age? He then builds his measure with the goal in mind. It seems a bit absurd given that he still has to come up with some sort of magic light keep the plants alive on the third day. Why go through all the effort if you're just going to fall back on magic anyway?
What's wrong with interpreting the first chapter of Genesis as a Hebrew creation myth story? It wouldn't mean that God didn't create the universe. It wouldn't mean that Jesus wasn't the Son of God. It just means that an important piece of Hebrew culture made it into the Hebrew scriptures (gasp! 🙂 )
There are other dimensions to our existence that science cannot ponder and/or man cannot fully comprehend such as spirituality.
You're assuming that spiritual realm exists. It could very well be made up. You have to admit that possibility. If such a "dimension" exists, there is no reason to think that xianity (or any other religion to date) is the best way to explore it.
I'd say that those who have faith in Christ, we'd do themselves and others around them a favor by not struggling to much to find natural evidence for their faith. After all if their was clear, strong, consistent evidence out there pointing to the xian story, then you wouldn't have to call it "faith." Faith is faith. I say leave it at that.
Originally posted by whodeyAgain, we went over the order already. The order was wrong. You and Freaky came up with "life-enfusing" light to get around the problem.
Partially. For example, the story of creation has an oreder to it that is correct. Frist the light, then the plants and then the animals for example. The author even says that the stars and sun were made at the same time. How did they know the sun was a star? If the story made no sense after knowing what we know today, I would perhaps be compelled to rec ...[text shortened]... and others can see it in you. That is a fact, or at least, in my life and others I have seen.
Originally posted by telerionWhy is this the case? You can still embrace science and the findings of science and still believe in miracles, no? For example, science has nothing to say about the parting of the Red Sea. Scientifically there is no evidence for it taking place or explanation about how it could have taken place. However, just because science cannot explain how it could have happened naturally it does not mean science has shown that it could not have happened supernaturally. For example, scientific evidence against the parting of the Red Sea does not exist, however, evidence against the young earth creationist position such as dating rocks billions of years old does exist. After all, if you have faith, you have faith in the supernatural. If you have faith in the supernatural, you have faith in supernatural activity ergo miracles. Miracles are just that, they have no real explanation. Even science must come to terms with the fact that not every problem or equation has an explanation or solution.
I agree that one does not necessarily have to reject science in order to place ones faith in the Bible. Certainly some stories have to be as allegorical/metaphorical rather than as literal accounts.
Originally posted by whodeyIf you want to invent supernatural explanations for possibly historical events then do so. However, don't claim that because science can't prove these supernatural explanations wrong they have any validity. They are purely invention.
Why is this the case? You can still embrace science and the findings of science and still believe in miracles, no? For example, science has nothing to say about the parting of the Red Sea. Scientifically there is no evidence for it taking place or explanation about how it could have taken place. However, just because science cannot explain how it could ha ...[text shortened]... come to terms with the fact that not every problem or equation has an explanation or solution.
Originally posted by telerionYes, that is when I brought up the life-enfusing light talked about in Revelation. Setting science aside, I did not bring it up to prove anything other than the fact it was formally adressed some where else in the Bible. Whether this happened in Genesis in terms of Biblical accuracy one can only speculate. However, seeing that it is possible, according to Biblical doctrine in Revelation, I do not see the problem with speculating about this happening in Genesis as well.
Again, we went over the order already. The order was wrong. You and Freaky came up with "life-enfusing" light to get around the problem.
Originally posted by whodeyOkay, magical light aside, the order of the colonisation of land is wrong. The earliest things to not live in water were insects. Insects can be found on the land 30 million years before any have been found which could fly. The bible states that things were flying about before the colonisation of land.
Yes, that is when I brought up the life-enfusing light talked about in Revelation. Setting science aside, I did not bring it up to prove anything other than the fact it was formally adressed some where else in the Bible. Whether this happened in Genesis in terms of Biblical accuracy one can only speculate. However, seeing that it is possible, according to ...[text shortened]... n Revelation, I do not see the problem with speculating about this happening in Genesis as well.
Originally posted by telerionIn terms of labelilng certain aspects of the Bible as myth, you do indeed traverse a slippery slope. The idea Christians have of the Word of God is that it is inspired by God. Therefore, if you say that God inspired a myth, you are then implying that he is a liar. If the Bible is not inspired by God, then it is merely man made and thus containing man made imperfections. If one determains that the Bible is then myth or written soley by man, then one can pick and choose what he likes from scripture and reject the rest as falsehood. When this happens you more or less develope your own theology based on choosing a rejecting certain aspects of scripture. This theology would then inherently be flawed due to the fact that an imperfect being such as yourself created it. For example, lets say that you like Christ's overall message and think he is a swell guy but reject the fact that he died and rose again due to its "scientific" unlikelyhood. You may embrace the teachings of Christ but then completely miss the purpose of his life and purpose of God's overall message to mankind. Faith also becomes a problem. The basic problem, however, is that faith is based on the inspired Word of God. If you undermine his Word, you then undermine what you can place your faith in such as Christ's redemptive power to save you.
As a believer, the only reason I was ever given for holding unwieldingly to a literalist interpretation was a weak slippery slope argument that goes as follows:
[i]If we question the historical accuracy of say the Flood or Joshua's famous battle against the Amorites, then all other claims in the Bible are suspect, including the divinity of Christ and the ...[text shortened]... hink that one story in Bible is mythology does not mean that every story in the Bible is mythology.
Edit: It saddens me that you lost your faith. May I ask why?
Originally posted by whodeyJesus spoke in fake stories (parables), could it not be the case that people could view stories in the old testament in a similar manner? God's way of conveying difficult material in an easy to understand way?
In terms of labelilng certain aspects of the Bible as myth, you do indeed traverse a slippery slope. The idea Christians have of the Word of God is that it is inspired by God. Therefore, if you say that God inspired a myth, you are then implying that he is a liar. If the Bible is not inspired by God, then it is merely man made and thus containing man made ...[text shortened]... mptive power to save you.
Edit: It saddens me that you lost your faith. May I ask why?
Of course this means you actually have to think when reading the Bible which is incredibly offensive to some Christians.
Originally posted by telerionThanks for the info about the book on Biblical Archeology. I will have to look it up. As far as finding evidence for everything talked about in the Bible, I don't think someone could honestly think this to be a realistic possibility even if you know it to be 100% correct
Certainly there is evidence to support some of the stories in the Bible. We know that many/most of the locations described in the "Historical Books" of the Bible (e.g., Joshua, Judges, Samuel 1 & 2, Kings 1 & 2, Chronicles 1 & 2) did or do exist.
This isn't exactly evidence supporting the validity of the Bible itself but rather of the geography described i ...[text shortened]... ike the Exodus, the kingdoms of David and Solomon, and other traditional Hebrew folklore/history.
Originally posted by whodeyWhat? People shouldn't believe something to be a realistic possibility even if it is in fact the only possibility (that's what knowing something to be 100% correct would mean)?
Thanks for the info about the book on Biblical Archeology. I will have to look it up. As far as finding evidence for everything talked about in the Bible, I don't think someone could honestly think this to be a realistic possibility even if you know it to be 100% correct
Originally posted by telerionWhen talking about other religions of the world, we should ask ourselves what the major religions are. Most are based upon the Bible except for a few Far Eastern religions such as Hinduism and such. Why does the Bible carry so much weight? For me, this is another bit of evidence that supports its spiritual importance and validity. I would say that the Roman and Greek mythology were man made and nothing more than a fad. If those gods were real, mankind would not have forsaken them completely as they have. I find it interesting that other religions such as the Mormons and JW's and Muslims say that the Bible is God's inspiried word, but then turn around and say that it has been tampered with in some way. They then write thier own Bible to "correct" these flaws. As it warns in Revelation, no one should add or subtract from the inspired word of God as it has been written.
By this standard, there was a "proponderance" of evidence for Roman mythology in 20 A.D. Back then almost nobody believed in the divinity of Christ. If you go by rate of conversion, xianity is actually in trouble because Islam is a faster growing religion. Apparently the evidence, by your standard, is leading people to believe in Islam and reject xianity. ...[text shortened]... have to call it "faith." Faith is faith. I say leave it at that.[/b]
Originally posted by telerionYou have a point here, however, I would say that faith is not based in a vaccum. For example, I do not place my faith in Santa Clause. If I had ample evidence to do so I might, but I do not. On the other hand, I do not have answers for everything and must therefore trust in the God that has shown himself to me to be trustworthy.
I'd say that those who have faith in Christ, we'd do themselves and others around them a favor by not struggling to much to find natural evidence for their faith. After all if their was clear, strong, consistent evidence out there pointing to the xian story, then you wouldn't have to call it "faith." Faith is faith. I say leave it at that.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyWhat would be "ample evidence"? The evidence for God or for Santa is precisely the same. In fact, the evidence for Santa is better - when did God ever leave presents for you?
For example, I do not place my faith in Santa Clause. If I had ample evidence to do so I might, but I do not.
First of all I never said anything about the parting of the Red Sea (although as far archaeology points to the exodus as being a Hebrew myth). I was thinking of things like a global flood that wiped out all humans but Noah and his small family and two of each "kind" of animal or Joshua praying for the sun to "stand still." You brought up young earthism. That's another fine example of what I was talking about. These are stories for which one can say are naturally impossible and/or can find ample evidence that is in complete contradiction to the stories (the decomposition of radioactive isotopes, the existence of many thousands of varves)
However, just because science cannot explain how it could have happened naturally it does not mean science has shown that it could not have happened supernaturally.
Of course, and I have always agreed with this. The problem that I have is that once you play the "supernatural" card, virtually anything becomes possible. This includes global floods, young earths, and suns standing still, the Matrix, or that the we are all living inside of a giant fireball. As long as there is not a fundamental logical contradiction, then it "could" happen. Personally, I have always found arguments from magic to be unappealing exactly for this problem of arbitrariness.
Even science must come to terms with the fact that not every problem or equation has an explanation or solution.
Science has its own intrinsic standard for what it can and cannot study. It can only deal with those things which could, at least in theory, be tested empirically. I just wish that religionists would realize that not every problem or equation has an explaination or solution. We need some honest "I don't knows" instead of appeals to magic and "Goddunnits."