How Do Scientists Believe The Resurrection?

[AllenWitmerMiller (Semi-Expired Professor & Minister.)]

@Rumraket

I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how you can claim to know something with no way of distinguishing true from false.

It is possible that I’ve missed some relevant posts in this thread but is this a moving of the goalposts? I never claimed that there was “no way of distinguishing true from false.” I was reacting to this statement:

@Rumraket

How can there be another “kind” of knowledge that could in any way be said to be reliable if there is none of the kinds of quality controls that makes science work? You seem to be insinuating that there’s this completely different arena of investigation where things like double blind trials, replicability, and measurent, or even having consistency with our background knowledge of how the world around us works, don’t apply, and yet it still produces “knowledge” of some kind that we can be confident in.

[T_aquaticus]

@AllenWitmerMiller

The following article is not meant to be some sort of “clincher” to this discussion. I simply provide the link because I happened to read it yesterday and it is nicely relevant:

I think the article is a bit misleading. The author is critical of a statement made by Harry Kroto:

Science is the only philosophical construct we have to determine TRUTH with any degree of reliability.
–Harry Kroto

This is how the author mischaracterizes Kroto’s statement:

Remember, he has just defined truth (or TRUTH) as something that can only be established scientifically.

Those are not equivalent statements. Kroto is speaking to the reliability of conclusions. Namely, scientific conclusions can be checked and tested by empirical evidence that is available to everyone. That is what makes scientific conclusions reliable. I don’t know of any other epistemologies that have the same type of reliability.

Kroto never said that science is the only way to arrive at truth, although he did question the intellectual integrity of other approaches.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@T_aquaticus

Namely, scientific conclusions can be checked and tested by empirical evidence that is available to everyone.

Isn’t the is cartoon understanding of science? Might be true possibly in principle, but not in reality.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@AllenWitmerMiller

It is possible that I’ve missed some relevant posts in this thread but is this a moving of the goalposts? I never claimed that there was “no way of distinguishing true from false.” I was reacting to this statement:

I know you didn’t claim this, but then can you explain how we do that?

I read the article you link, and what a confused mess. The idea that only science gives us knowledge is not itself a knowledge claim, it’s a working principle, or you might call it an axiom. If it turns out to be a bad axiom for obtaining knowledge (you never get anywhere), you can discard it.

If you think there’s another way of gaining knowledge, then tell me what it is, and how you would distinguish true from false claims with this method.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Can you rephrase your racism question? I’d like to know where you were going with that.

[T_aquaticus]

@swamidass

Isn’t the is cartoon understanding of science? Might be true possibly in principle, but not in reality.

It was meant to be a statement of principle. Not everyone gets time on the LHC at CERN, but that career pathway is essentially open to everyone. The important difference is that it isn’t personal revelation only available to those who experience it.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@swamidass

Isn’t the is cartoon understanding of science? Might be true possibly in principle, but not in reality.

It’s not clear what you’re getting at. If you’re talking about practical limitations we all face, sure. We all have to put down our feet and admit we can’t personally engage all evidence for all claims we will ever come across. At some point we have to do a job, earn an income, eat, and sleep. And even if we didn’t we still couldn’t possible engage all possible claims of knowledge in detail.

So we tentatively relegate that job to a community with a trackrecord of having done well in the past. and who operate on a principle we all understand has those built-in methods of quality control.

How is this analogous to what is done in theology, or by religious believers? Who could not just claim to be in possession of revelation? What claims could not be supported by invoking some “special case” rule that says this particular type of claim doesn’t need to be tested in any way and can, just by definition, be rationally believed on faith?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@T_aquaticus

The important difference is that it isn’t personal revelation only available to those who experience it.

@T_aquaticus we are not saying that evidence for God is merely a personal revelation.

@T_aquaticus

It was meant to be a statement of principle. Not everyone gets time on the LHC at CERN, but that career pathway is essentially open to everyone.

The fact that is only in principle is important. That means for science to function we have to trust the reports of other scientists about what they have seen. Yes evidence is important but into the overwhelming number of cases we only access that evidence through trustworthy reports.

[T_aquaticus]

@swamidass

The fact that is only in principle is important. That means for science to function we have to trust the reports of other scientists about what they have seen. Yes evidence is important but into the overwhelming number of cases we only access that evidence through trustworthy reports.

The difference being that experiments can be repeated by anyone who disputes the results and has the training to rerun the experiments.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Semi-Expired Professor & Minister.)]

My philosophy textbooks are in storage so I will start a rudimentary list from memory. Perhaps the philosophers on this forum will help me out.

Is there any way of knowing that doesn’t depend upon scientific methodologies/empiricism? Yes.

1. Ethical and moral conclusions are derived from logical reasoning and human moral proclivities and values.
2. Historical truths are not based upon the scientific method.
3. Philosophical truths are derived from logical reasoning and the application of basic intuitive facts.
4. Mathematical truths are derived from purely logical reasoning. (And Boolean logic, for example, was an important bridge between classical philosophy and algebra.)
5. Aesthetic propositions are not based upon the scientific method: “Escher’s drawings establish the fact that he was an artistic genius.”
6. Valid teleological truths are not based upon the scientific method: “I gave you this gift because I wanted to make you happy.”

Also, the foundations of modern science were established by means of philosophers applying logic and their “methodologies of knowing” to develop and conform empiricism as an important tool in one subfield of philosophy applied to the physical world: Natural Philosophy. We place so much trust in empiricism because of the solid philosophical foundations upon which empiricism rests.

[Patrick]

@swamidass

For me, the way I know God exists, is good, and wants to be known is because of Jesus. There is the Gospels, but there is also public evidence outside the Gospels too. As I trusted in this evidence, there also grew private evidence as well. Early on, many times, it was the outcome of an evidential inquiry. Now, it is different. I see something that is very hard to “unsee.”

Why do you speak of God and Jesus as two different entities instead of one and the same?

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@Patrick

Why do you speak of God and Jesus as two different entities instead of one and the same?

The doctrine of the trinity is deduced from the narrative of the Bible, such that:

The word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible but was an explanation that developed over time. Here’s how it might be expressed:

G = God
F = Father
S = Son
H = Holy Spirit

F = G
S = G
H = G

F ≠ S
F ≠ H
S ≠ F
S ≠ H
H ≠ F
H ≠ S

Logically speaking, if F = G, and S = G, then F = S. In the case of the Trinity, this is not so, however. When Christians say “God” they are usually referring to the person of the Father. Though both are God, they are distinct. It does not make logical sense in our realm, but it is how the relationships are described.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I suppose this speaks to the Trinity and the nature of the Incarnation.

We can talk about Jesus @patrick, you and I, as a concrete real person in Galilee 2,000 years ago, even without agreeing whether God exists or not. This makes the Incarnate Jesus a different handle, an easier access point, to the rather abstract range of possibilities that could be associated with “God.” The way Jesus puts it, “if you see me, you’ve seen the Father.” I get a clearest handle on who God is (not just who he could be) as I get a better grip on that concrete reality of Jesus.

With out that fixed point, I’d be prone to forming a man made God in service of my own power (and maybe I still am). Jesus lays down power. He does not missuse it for coercion. Theism too easily dips towards abuse of power without the restraining influence of the goodness of God, which is see most clearly embodied in Jesus.

So yes, Jesus and the Father (and the Spirit) are one, but Jesus is the direct representation of Gods being for us on Earth. So that is why I talk about them distinctly, and point to Jesus rather than some abstract (and likely dangerous) “God.”

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Rumraket

I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how you can claim to know something with no way of distinguishing true from false. I see some attempts to try to label me, and an invitation to tell this to philosophers. What would they tell me, these philosophers?

@Rumraket

PeacefulScience was not established to convince Atheists about religion. So if nobody wants to answer your question (which I think is not only out of place here, but is rather troll-ish), you’ll just
have to accept that.

There are other blogs where such questions by Atheists are asked all day long… and others are
pleased to respond to them.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

We aren’t trying to convince people, but we do welcome honest questions.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@swamidass

We aren’t trying to convince people, but we do welcome honest questions.

@swamidass

Sure… honest questions… not the SAME question, day-in and day-out, challenging the very roots of belief that is taken as a default position here, because the focus is on the conflict between Christians who want to over-turn science … and Christians who want to retain science - -

it’s not about putting Christians on the spot for just being Christians.

Some people ask nice questions in a nice way. And others ask the same question in a million different ways - - to the extent that it disrupts the very calm and collective atmosphere we seek to cultivate.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@gbrooks9

PeacefulScience was not established to convince Atheists about religion.

However, @Rumraket, rumors exist of a secret document, known as the “Door Stop Document” created when the PS inner circle assembled in their secret hideaway and crafted a document that was to serve as their operational framework. In it, the true and insidious nature of PS was architected. Plans to force-evangelize the world’s atheist scientists were launched and included such techniques as: being nice, liking them, and occasionally agreeing with what they had to say.

As effective as this all sounds, it seems that it only truly looked good on paper. To date, only one verified conversion (a “kill” we call it) has been made, and Swamidass banned him. So, there you have it…

[Patrick]

@Michael_Callen

Logically speaking, if F = G, and S = G, then F = S. In the case of the Trinity, this is not so, however. When Christians say “God” they are usually referring to the person of the Father. Though both are God, they are distinct. It does not make logical sense in our realm, but it is how the relationships are described.

Better check your math a lot of logical inconsistencies there, using substitution a lot of G≠G

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@Patrick

Better check your math a lot of logical inconsistencies there, using substitution a lot of G≠G

You are right and it is correct… As I said, it does not make sense, at least in our realm. In four physical dimensions, one can turn a basketball inside out without breaking the surface. It makes no sense in three.

This is like miracles and the resurrection. It is told like it is. It is understood that it not normal or standard, or even logical. It is… supernatural.

[Patrick]

@Michael_Callen

You are right and it is correct… As I said, it does not make sense, at least in our realm. In four physical dimensions, one can turn a basketball inside out without breaking the surface. It makes no sense in three.

This is like miracles and the resurrection. It is told like it is. It is understood that it not normal or standard, or even logical. It is… supernatural.

You might try using imaginary numbers, it might work out for you.