The True Christian Concept of The Supernatural

Image result for metacrock's blog supernatural


rose window Notre Dame, Paris


The New atheists constantly mock the SN as though they know what it is. When they discuss it they include anything not naturalistic. The modern conception is that SN is everything from Bigfoot to the resurrection, include  ghosts, UFOs and Psychic Powers. It never occurs to them Christians were using the term before the modern concept of naturalism so it can't just mean everything that's not naturalistic. Jerry Coyne is an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. He is also an apologist for atheism. Coyne says something more interesting than than Dawkins does, however, he says that SN could be studied by science.[1] Although, I'm sure Dawkins probably agrees with his reasoning. If SN could not be so studied it would be unreasonable to fault the notion for not having scientific evidence. Coyne asserts that modern science's tendency to set religion aside as belonging to a different order of reality (magisteria) thus being unsuitable is “accomodationist dogma.” [2]


If you’ve frequented this site, you’ll know that I disagree with this stand. I adamantly maintain that science can indeed test the supernatural—at least those claims about the supernatural that involve its interaction with the real world. Indeed, you’ll be familiar with several claims about the supernatural that have already been tested, and refuted : the Genesis story of creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a 6,000-year-old earth, and the efficacy of intercessory prayer, as well as paranormal phenomena like near-death experiences, telepathy, and precognition. If you invoke a form of the supernatural that claims to have real-world consequences, then those consequences necessarily fall within the ambit of science. This means that any type of theistic faith involves hypotheses that are “scientific”.[3]

Of course he wrongly assumes that theistic faith per se includes young earth creationism, healing and the occult. Most versions of faith based upon modern liberal protestant theology would be immune. He also says, “In other words, we can provisionally accept that there is no god because we don’t see the kind of evidence that we should see if god were present (answered prayers, conformable miracles at Lourdes, and so on….)” Keep reading, we are about to see it.


Ironically, I agree with him on one thing, science can test those aspects of the SN that affect our lives, the only problem is the things he names are not SN. He also does a slippery slope by stating we can test those aspects of SN that overlap with nature then asserting we can go all the way and deny the reality of God based upon that. In this chapter I explore the nature of the original Christian concept. Secientistic thinking writes SN out of reality as unscientific, and as superstition. They justify this, as we just saw Coyne do, by pointing to the ability of science to amass a huge fortress of facts while no facts can be found that prove the existence of a Supernatural realm or any Supernatural events, or beings. Yet the problem is that the original concept of the SN was not about any of these things (witches and six day creation), but about human nature and it's relation to divine nature, plus a set of experiences that issue from that relationship. Those experiences are empirical and have been easily documented to exist and to have effects that make them unique. SN is the tendency of divine encounter to raise human nature to a higher level. Here we can understand human nature as both behavioral tendencies as well as consciousness. This means the scientific fortress of facts is predicated upon a concept of an order of nature that did not exist when the term “supernatural” came into being. Therefore, scientistic skepticism is ideological and not scientific; it uses the mystique of science (the illusion of Technique) to interject its own metaphysical assumptions while triumphing over the assumption of a straw man argument.


Anthropologist Benson Saler quotes the great Emile Durkheim in pointing out that the idea of a bifurcated reality made up of an upper real of “supernatural” and a lower real of “natural” is a modern Western concept that begins with modern science. “[the mysterious world of supernatural above the natural] is not of primitive origin….it is science and not religion that has taught men that things are complex and difficult to understand.” [4]  Saler points out that this concept of the realm above nature presupposes a ream of nature bound together by natural laws. This is a modern concept brought to us by science. He also draws upon Durkheim, Hallowell, and Richard in support' the use of the term “supernatural” has a long history that proceeds this modern scientific concept. [5]


Therefore, this separation and divison of natural law from that something beyond it can't be the original Christian concept.

The Original Concept of Supernature


All of these objections assume a certain version of the SN. It has become a catch-all for anything non materialistic or naturalistic that scientistic types want to snub without really having to disprove it. Supernatural today means anything from ghosts, Bigfoot, UFO to psychic powers, and angels and demons and God in heaven. Not so with the original concept. In the early centuries of Christian philosophy the original Greek fathers thought of God as transcendent but they did not necessarily conceive of that as “supernatural.” The Church fathers took their notions from the Greeks. “The term 'supernatural' and cognate words in various European languages were employed Long before the rise of modern natural sciences. [6] The school of Miletus (Ionian Greeks) are generally credited with being the first school of critical philosophy. Their use of the term Phusis (roughly translated “nature;” from this term we derive our word Physics.) caused them to be deemed a “physicists” [7] The Stoics had a concept of natural law and materialism. Their natural order would not have been based upon supernatural design. Aristotle viewed the universe working in a rational manner out of necessity rather than design. Ultimately he grounded everything (motion) in the prime mover, but his prime mover was not anthropomorphic and did not design a higher order but worked by necessity. Many ancients had a notion of natural order without a contrasting notion of a supernatural order. “For some the most interesting opposition was conceptualized as a contrast between nature and art...Christian thinkers through the fifth century did not develop theologically significant uses of supernatural” [8]


Saler points out that St. Cyril of Alexandria is a significant exception, using the Greek huper phusin to describe theology of God's grace in elevation of humanity above nature though Christ. He was writing in 444AD around the same time as pseudo Dionysius (500A.D.) who is credited as having coined the term “Supernatural.”. Dionysius was in Syria. Before this time there is found no word that could be rendered “supernatural” used of God's transcendence in the New Testament or in the Patristics. [9] They saw the primary ontological distinction as pertaining to God and creation. Thus while we would classify angels and demons as supernatural in the category with God, apart from natural things, they would classify angels and demons with the created order, blew the level of God as creator. [10]Leading up to the period in which began to emerge terms that would be understood as SN, used by Christian mystics such as Cyril and Dionysius, from the end pf the Apostolic age, the Church faced certain struggles over doctrines with a variety of groups all labeled under the same stigma as “Gnostic.” There was confusion over Chrisatian identity, confussion over the Christianity of Gnostic ideas of dualism between matter and spirit. The Orthodox Church emerged in dialectical relation to the gnostics. Even though they rejected the notion of the evil nature of matter that most such groups taught they created their own dualism with the moral superiority and ontological exaltation of spirit over matter. This forged the way for Neoplatonic Christianity.


Neoplatonism began with Plotinus who died around 270A.D.. Another major figure in the school was Proclus (d.485). that the notion of supernatural really begins to emerge. Neoplatonism is a variation on Platonic thinking that posited a totally transcendent origin of all things. This was a principle, not a personal god. They called it “the one” (a term used by Plato –sort of the “form of the forms”). The one did not create the world dirctly but the world emerged from it through a series of emanations, much like the particulars from the realm of the forms. For that reason the physical realm is not separated out from the one completely and thus the one is emanate within the world. Christian Platonists used hierarchies of angels and what we would call “supernatural beings” in place of emendations. [11] In names such hierarchies Dionysius used, among other things, the term huper hamousios. Hamousios was an important term in the Chronological disputes and the Trinitarian controversy it means “substance” or “being.” God is three persona in one substance. It could be translated essence. [12] Huper might be translated “superior.” It might be “above.” That plays into the notion of a realm above nature. Higher nature. Eugene R. Fairweather concures with Dionysius' use of the term and also points out that John of Damascus (676-749) also used it in the same way (speaking of God in the adverbial form Supernaturaliter). [13]


When various works of Dionysius were translated into Latin by John Scotus Erigena, he rendered it supernaturalis, from which we derive our term “supernatural.” [14]The term was given the Neoplatonic implication of superior substance. Thomas Aquinas preserved the Neoplatonic aspects of the word. God is the first cause who actively and purposefully creates all things, as opposed to the unmoved mover which works unconsciously and of necessity. Moreover, God endows the creatures with their own necessity so that morally each one is an end in itself. [15] Scholastic theology developed the dichotomy of the realm of SN above the realm of nature based upon the distinction between nature and Grace. The centerpiece of that theology is God's free gift of Grace to man in the redemptive act of Christ. This is a gratuity added to human nature and enables a new relationship between creature and creator. That relationship consists of adoptive showmanship and culminates in the elevation of human nature.[16]


The Trace of God, by Joseph Hinman, on Amazon. The 200 studies in this book prove that Mystical experience is real, this article just proved that the original concept of SN is mystical experiemce. Therefore, SN is real.


Part 2

Sources

[1] Jerry Coyne, “Can Science Test The Supernaural, Yes!,” Why Evolution is True. (6/27/2012) URL:

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Emil Durkheim quoted in Benson Saler, “Supernatural as a Western Category,” Ethos, Vol. 5, issue 1, first published online 28 Oct., 2009, 31-53 35. PDF URL:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/eth.1977.5.1.02a00040/pdf (accessed 1/25/2016).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 36

[7] Ibid., 39 Saler draws upon Jeager (1947) in trying to define this complex term, phusis.Basically it means “growth and emergence”

[8] Ibid., 38-39.

[9] Ibid., 43

[10] Ibid. 44.

[11] Henry de Lubecl , Remarques sur l'Hisoire du mot “Surnaturale.” Nouvelle Revue Theologique, (1934) 61: 225-249, 226.

[12] Saler, Op. Cit., 47.

[13] Eugene R. Fairweather, “Christianity and the Supernatural,” in New Theology no.1. New York: Macmillian, Martin E. Marty and Dean G. Peerman ed. 1964. 235-256, 239.

[14] Ibid. see also Fairweather, 239.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., 48.


Comments

Anonymous said…
JH: They justify this, as we just saw Coyne do, by pointing to the ability of science to amass a huge fortress of facts while no facts can be found that prove the existence of a Supernatural realm or any Supernatural events, or beings. Yet the problem is that the original concept of the SN was not about any of these things (witches and six day creation), but about human nature and it's relation to divine nature, plus a set of experiences that issue from that relationship.

So what? Who cares how "supernatural" is defined?

As you admit, science has the ability to amass a huge fortress of facts while no facts can be found that prove the existence of God. We do not need to worry about whether God is supernatural or not, we do not need to woory what supernatural means. What we care about is the existence of God, and we have established that science has a accumulated a huge amount of information about the world, and yet no science points to the existence of God.

Pix
im-skeptical said…
Interesting. I read the paper, and it doesn't seem to say exactly what you think. it says the term applied to 'elevation of humanity" could be glossed as supernatural, but it is not to be understood in that sense. The word supernatural has shifted in meaning, but has always been understood as something distinct from the natural order. That is how it is defined right from the start. As I read this paper, the word originally had a much more religious connotation, referring to gods, angels, and souls. But with the coming of science, the meaning has shifted more to include things that are not necessarily divine.
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: They justify this, as we just saw Coyne do, by pointing to the ability of science to amass a huge fortress of facts while no facts can be found that prove the existence of a Supernatural realm or any Supernatural events, or beings. Yet the problem is that the original concept of the SN was not about any of these things (witches and six day creation), but about human nature and it's relation to divine nature, plus a set of experiences that issue from that relationship.

So what? Who cares how "supernatural" is defined?

well that's pretty stupid, you are not a stupid guy so you are being a slouch. If you criticize an idea and you get the idea wrong your criticisms are wrong. If you don't care your criticisms don't matter, which is it,?

As you admit, science has the ability to amass a huge fortress of facts while no facts can be found that prove the existence of God.

that's because we can warrant belief aside from proof so we don't need proof. One thing we can warrant is supernatural which is mystical experience,


We do not need to worry about whether God is supernatural or not, we do not need to woory what supernatural means. What we care about is the existence of God, and we have established that science has a accumulated a huge amount of information about the world, and yet no science points to the existence of God.

wrong because science dedicate Mystical experience winch is SN is a valid reason to warrant brief,
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
Interesting. I read the paper, and it doesn't seem to say exactly what you think. it says the term applied to 'elevation of humanity" could be glossed as supernatural, but it is not to be understood in that sense.

wrong, what that the Sailor article? He talks about several different cominations of terms used over time that are clsoe and abouit that term as well.I think you just missing it,


The word supernatural has shifted in meaning, but has always been understood as something distinct from the natural order.


you can't fault Christianity for a term it doesn't us, don't you know what a straw man is?


That is how it is defined right from the start.

wrong, there was no such distinction between N and SN it was the created order as a whole and God, a couple of thinkers such as John of Damascus they were exceptions their thinking until 500 when they started talking about SN but that was about mystical,


As I read this paper, the word originally had a much more religious connotation, referring to gods, angels, and souls. But with the coming of science, the meaning has shifted more to include things that are not necessarily divine.


what article what word? you are being absurdly veg, I charted the develpkentin my article, you did notg read this articleid you>
Joe Hinman said…
Saler points out that St. Cyril of Alexandria is a significant exception, using the Greek huper phusin to describe theology of God's grace in elevation of humanity above nature though Christ. He was writing in 444AD around the same time as pseudo Dionysius (500A.D.) who is credited as having coined the term “Supernatural.”. Dionysius was in Syria. Before this time there is found no word that could be rendered “supernatural” used of God's transcendence in the New Testament or in the Patristics. [9] They saw the primary ontological distinction as pertaining to God and creation. Thus while we would classify angels and demons as supernatural in the category with God, apart from natural things, they would classify angels and demons with the created order, blew the level of God as creator. [10]Leading up to the period in which began to emerge terms that would be understood as SN, used by Christian mystics such as Cyril and Dionysius, from the end pf the Apostolic age, the Church faced certain struggles over doctrines with a variety of groups all labeled under the same stigma as “Gnostic.” There was confusion over Chrisatian identity, confussion over the Christianity of Gnostic ideas of dualism between matter and spirit. The Orthodox Church emerged in dialectical relation to the gnostics. Even though they rejected the notion of the evil nature of matter that most such groups taught they created their own dualism with the moral superiority and ontological exaltation of spirit over matter. This forged the way for Neoplatonic Christianity.


Neoplatonism began with Plotinus who died around 270A.D.. Another major figure in the school was Proclus (d.485). that the notion of supernatural really begins to emerge. Neoplatonism is a variation on Platonic thinking that posited a totally transcendent origin of all things. This was a principle, not a personal god. They called it “the one” (a term used by Plato –sort of the “form of the forms”). The one did not create the world dirctly but the world emerged from it through a series of emanations, much like the particulars from the realm of the forms. For that reason the physical realm is not separated out from the one completely and thus the one is emanate within the world. Christian Platonists used hierarchies of angels and what we would call “supernatural beings” in place of emendations. [11] In names such hierarchies Dionysius used, among other things, the term huper hamousios. Hamousios was an important term in the Chronological disputes and the Trinitarian controversy it means “substance” or “being.” God is three persona in one substance. It could be translated essence. [12] Huper might be translated “superior.” It might be “above.” That plays into the notion of a realm above nature. Higher nature. Eugene R. Fairweather concures with Dionysius' use of the term and also points out that John of Damascus (676-749) also used it in the same way (speaking of God in the adverbial form Supernaturaliter). [13]

Joe Hinman said…
Their natural order would not have been based upon supernatural design. Aristotle viewed the universe working in a rational manner out of necessity rather than design. Ultimately he grounded everything (motion) in the prime mover, but his prime mover was not anthropomorphic and did not design a higher order but worked by necessity. Many ancients had a notion of natural order without a contrasting notion of a supernatural order. “For some the most interesting opposition was conceptualized as a contrast between nature and art...Christian thinkers through the fifth century did not develop theologically significant uses of supernatural” [8]

FN Salier
im-skeptical said…
He talks about several different cominations of terms used over time that are clsoe and abouit that term as well.I think you just missing it

- That's right. One of those terms that is 'close' is huper phusin. It refers to the growth or elevation of humanity. That phrase might be translated at supernatural, but the "phusin" part if it really means growth, and it happens to be the root word from which nature comes. But this came from the tradition that made no distinction between natural and non-natural. In other words, it should not be understood as meaning supernatural. It's about growth of the human spirit.


wrong, there was no such distinction between N and SN it was the created order as a whole and God

- Yes, Joe. Like I said in the previous remark. You can read, but you don't understand.


what article what word? you are being absurdly veg, I charted the develpkentin my article, you did notg read this articleid you>

- No.Joe. I read it (unlike you) and understood what he said. It wasn't until there was a distinction between the natural and the non-natural that the term supernatural arose. It came from the Latin, not the Greek. And it refers to that distinction. That's what the article tells us.
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…

The true concept of supernatural arose later, as described in the latter part of the paper:

page 15) They clearly regarded things spiritual as ultimately more desirable than than things material. Their points of view, I think, paved the way for the eventual advancement and acceptance of a theology of the supernatural.

page 16) Neoplatonists were influential in promoting the tradition of describing spiritual beings (Gods, angels, and human souls) with terms that suggest certain senses of what we generally take to be implied by "supernatural". ... The Latin term supernaturalis was given to the neoplatonic sense of superior substance.
Joe Hinman said…
He talks about several different cominations of terms used over time that are clsoe and abouit that term as well.I think you just missing it

- That's right. One of those terms that is 'close' is huper phusin. It refers to the growth or elevation of humanity. That phrase might be translated at supernatural, but the "phusin" part if it really means growth, and it happens to be the root word from which nature comes. But this came from the tradition that made no distinction between natural and non-natural. In other words, it should not be understood as meaning supernatural. It's about growth of the human spirit.

that was the use made by one guy who he says was the exception, it was also a step toward what became known as SN. I know Greek. It says nature because about the higher nature,


Me: wrong, there was no such distinction between N and SN it was the created order as a whole and God

- Yes, Joe. Like I said in the previous remark. You can read, but you don't understand.


dense boy you are missing the obvious again! Since what you think of as SN was not present in their thinking then have meant something else by the term. What they meant was our human nature being raised to the higher level in God not a divide between SN ande N in the modern sense.HE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT A DIVINED BETWEEN MATERIAL AND SPIRITIUAL


what article what word? you are being absurdly veg, I charted the develpkentin my article, you did notg read this articleid you>

- No.Joe. I read it (unlike you) and understood what he said. It wasn't until there was a distinction between the natural and the non-natural that the term supernatural arose. It came from the Latin, not the Greek. And it refers to that distinction. That's what the article tells us.


you did not read the whole you sure as hell did not understand it stupid, the basic premise of the article is that modem concepts of SN are wrong! He argues that the modern ideas are conditioned by scientific thinking in the enlightenment they reflect the concerns of the French philsophes and ancient world Christians could not possibly i have talked about that, I FOOTNOTED THAT QUOTE AT THE BEGRIMING OF MY PAPER!!!!
Joe Hinman said…
my words summarizing Salor

Anthropologist Benson Saler quotes the great Emile Durkheim in pointing out that the idea of a bifurcated reality made up of an upper real of “supernatural” and a lower real of “natural” is a modern Western concept that begins with modern science. “[the mysterious world of supernatural above the natural] is not of primitive origin….it is science and not religion that has taught men that things are complex and difficult to understand.” [4] Saler points out that this concept of the realm above nature presupposes a ream of nature bound together by natural laws. This is a modern concept brought to us by science. He also draws upon Durkheim, Hallowell, and Richard in support' the use of the term “supernatural” has a long history that proceeds this modern scientific concept. [5]

fn 35 in article

bold above fn 4 is Salior quoiting Durkhiem
Joe Hinman said…
The true concept of supernatural arose later, as described in the latter part of the paper:

look follow the historical narrative It starts with "Saler points out that St. Cyril of Alexandria is a significant exception, using the Greek huper phusin to describe theology of God's grace in elevation of humanity above nature though Christ." quoting myself, we talked about this above St Cryil is the first step and he is talkie about the elevation of human nature not a diving line between metaphysics between material and spiritual. that starts im 444 and becomes promiomnamt by 500

It's going to be translation of Dyonisius into Latin that creates the term SN.



ME:
"He was writing in 444AD around the same time as pseudo Dionysius (500A.D.) who is credited as having coined the term “Supernatural.”. Dionysius was in Syria. Before this time there is found no word that could be rendered “supernatural” used of God's transcendence in the New Testament or in the Patristics. [9] (fn = 39 in Saler)


page 15) They clearly regarded things spiritual as ultimately more desirable than than things material. Their points of view, I think, paved the way for the eventual advancement and acceptance of a theology of the supernatural.


only imn terms of elevation human nature not in terms of rocks and trees,it's noit saying spirit is better than flesh and blood it's saying being loving and kind and even tempered is better than being aggressive and mean. it's saying being aware of God's presence is better than being without God, better than temporal power

page 16) Neoplatonists were influential in promoting the tradition of describing spiritual beings (Gods, angels, and human souls) with terms that suggest certain senses of what we generally take to be implied by "supernatural". ... The Latin term supernaturalis was given to the neoplatonic sense of superior substance.

up have such bad reading comprehension. He talking about the development mysticism. Of course neo platonic influences meant emphasis o nonspiritual relativity but that does ntput the dividend between material and spiritual,not in the sense of realms, he's talking about experiencing mystical consciousnesses,
Joe Hinman said…
you seem to be assuming that translation from Latin means there was some Latin world of SN thought that was just like the modern dichotomy between science and religious thought, waiting in the Latin experience to be brought into the church.He is just pitting it into Latin because the church spoke Latin at that point. It wasn't until the high middle ages that they began thinking about a divide between metaphysical reality. Before that point they are talking about human experience of God's presence.
Anonymous said…
JH: well that's pretty stupid, you are not a stupid guy so you are being a slouch. If you criticize an idea and you get the idea wrong your criticisms are wrong. If you don't care your criticisms don't matter, which is it,?

If I am wrong, how come you did not address my point? Why does it matter how we define supernatural when we consider whether God exists or not? Why do we need to use the term in the discussion?

JH: that's because we can warrant belief aside from proof so we don't need proof. One thing we can warrant is supernatural which is mystical experience,

Are you trying to prove the supernatural exists? Or God exists? I thought the later. Have I got that wrong?

If you have proof that ghosts exist, will you consider your goal to be achieved? I would guess not. As I understand it, you objective is to prove God, not the supernatural. So why get hung up on what supernatural means?

JH: wrong because science dedicate Mystical experience winch is SN is a valid reason to warrant brief,

Whether or not it is supernatural is irrelevent. What we care about is whether they come from God. If it turns out they come from ghosts, that would be a fail for you. You are no trying to prove the supernatural, you are trying to prove God.

Pix
im-skeptical said…
up have such bad reading comprehension. He talking about the development mysticism. Of course neo platonic influences meant emphasis o nonspiritual relativity but that does ntput the dividend between material and spiritual,not in the sense of realms, he's talking about experiencing mystical consciousnesses

- Joe, I read the article. Before supernatural, they talked about huper phusin, which is similar in some respect, but they did not use the term 'supernatural', and it did not mean supernatural. The word 'phusin' means 'growth'. THAT's what they meant by the term. Your reading comprehension sucks.

Here is the etymology of the word 'supernatural, from Oxford Etymology Dictionary:
early 15c. "of or given by God," from Medieval Latin supernaturalis "above or beyond nature, divine," from Latin super "above" (see super-) + natura "nature" (see nature (n.)). Originally with more of a religious sense, "of or given by God, divine; heavenly;" association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since 19c. Related: Supernaturalism.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the "supernatural order" is "the ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of the created universe and gratuitously produced by God for the purpose of raising the rational creature above its native sphere to a God-like life and destiny." It is contrasted with the "natural order", which is the "world of material beings to the exclusion of immaterial entities". So there is a relationship to the elevation of the human soul, but that elevation is not what they define as supernatural.

I know you think you are the possessor the true Christian belief, but everything I see, including the article you are using as a source, says otherwise. You need to set aside your biases and see things a little more objectively.
BK said…
Does it make a difference if we simply define supernatural as that which transcends nature? If that is the correct definition, then Pix's point (wrong as it is factually) falls regardless of the facts because that which is beyond nature cannot be measured by a discipline that tests and observes nature.
Anonymous said…
BK: Pix's point (wrong as it is factually) falls...

My point is the definition of supernatural is irrelevant to a discussion on whether God exists. Can you say why that is factually wrong?

It is interesting that the reason you give for why my point fail does not include the word "supernatural". Seems to me that is actually supporting my claim that the word is irrelevant to the discussion!
im-skeptical said…
Pix's point (wrong as it is factually) falls regardless of the facts because that which is beyond nature cannot be measured by a discipline that tests and observes nature.

- You have to hand it to religionists. No matter what point you make, they will find fault with it. At one moment, they complain that science deliberately ignores God and the immaterial realm. And in the next, they rope those things off, protecting them from any scientific scrutiny and declaring that they are out of reach of science.
BK said…
Pix, it (meaning your argument that the supernatural is irrelevant because no science points to the existence of God) falls because there is evidence of supernatural intervention in the form of the anthropic principle and the information found in DNA. I'm not quite sure how you are saying that my not using the specific word "supernatural" makes your point when it is obvious that it is the point of what I posted.
BK said…
im-skeptical, I am asking because Joe seems to be using a different definition of supernatural than I do. To me, my definition is very simple, and if it is the correct definition then it certainly does mean that sciences that measure nature wouldn't be able to test for it (getting back to Pix's original argument). I am not one who tries to rope off God, but it is certainly true that there is no way to test for God directly. Still, I am quite confident that we can see God's hand in nature even if you cannot (by scientific test) prove that it is God's hand. Science has clarified how incredibly unlikely it is that life was arise spontaneously or without direction. That is testable. God directly is not.
im-skeptical said…
Yes, Joe uses his own definition of supernatural that, as far as I know, nobody else shares. If anyone could say there is a "correct" definition, I think the dictionary would tell us what that is. But there may still be some question as to whether it is something that can be investigated by science. Here's a pretty good rule of thumb. Science doesn't rule anything out. But it does deal with things that are observable. If God or any supernatural entity has some visible effect on our world, then that effect is something that science can investigate.

Anyone who is familiar with science knows that many scientific theories are based on observation of the effects of things that are not directly seen. In fact, many would argue that we don't really sense anything directly. (Vision occurs when the eyes detect photons that have bounced off something. By detecting those photons, we infer that something is there.) We infer the existence of the Oort cloud without ever having seen it. So if God is leaving a detectable trace, we should be able to infer his presence.

On the other hand, there are things that you might see as evidence of God, but there is actually a better explanation. Abiogenesis is an example of that. Science has most emphatically NOT "clarified how incredibly unlikely it is that life was arise spontaneously or without direction." That's a trope you hear from the same crowd that denies evolution. It simply isn't true. Take a look at this.
Anonymous said…
I tried to post earlier and my post got lost. Let us hope this is more successful...

BK: Pix, it (meaning your argument that the supernatural is irrelevant because no science points to the existence of God) falls because there is evidence of supernatural intervention in the form of the anthropic principle and the information found in DNA. I'm not quite sure how you are saying that my not using the specific word "supernatural" makes your point when it is obvious that it is the point of what I posted.

I am not saying the supernatural is irrelevant, I am saying the definition of the supernatural is irrelevant in a discussion about the existence of God.

We can discuss whether God exists without using the word "supernatural". You did that before when you said "that which is beyond nature cannot be measured by a discipline that tests and observes nature." The word "supernatural" does not appear in your reasoning - because it is not needed.

You talk about "evidence of supernatural intervention in the form of the anthropic principle and the information found in DNA". Why? We are discussing the existence of God. What you need to support your position is evidence of divine intervention. If evidence of ghosts doing genetic engineering comes to light, that will not help your case at all. Sure divine intervention could be considered supernatural, but why does that matter?

The whole question of what is supernatural is a red herring.

Pix
BK said…
Pix, okay, but when I said that which is beyond nature cannot be measured by a discipline that tests and observes nature," I didn't use the word supernatural because I was giving my effort to define supernatural. Using the word you are defining in the definition is circular and unhelpful. So, if that is the basis that you are saying that supernatural is superfluous, I beg to disagree.

And I do think it is helpful to define your terms.
BK said…
im-skeptical, yes, I agree that we can use the dictionary to get an basic definition of "supernatural," but I know from when I was in school, dictionary definitions are often just the starting point.

I agree that if God has intervened in the world, we can measure what he did by science (because what he did will be part of nature). You can reject what I am saying as a trope, but it isn't. The RNA hypothesis (as I understand it) has already been rejected as not sufficiently workable. One of the links I put up back when I was looking at the Infinite Monkeys Theorem was on scientific american trying to figure out a way to get around the failure of the use of RNA. So, we won't decide this here, but my money is on the fact that the information we see is explainable only by a creator.
JBsptfn said…
Good point, BK, about the RNA hypo. That article that Skep posted seemed to be beating around the bush somewhat.
im-skeptical said…
Beating around the bush? And why do you say that? There has been extensive scientific research into this area. Aside from actually creating living things from scratch, what we see is that all the pieces can be produced in nature, and that the probability of proto-life forming is not NEARLY as remote as the creationists want us to think.

Noe show me the scientific research that supports your case - not just "I don't see how it could happen, therefore God did it".
Anonymous said…
BK: Pix, okay, but when I said that which is beyond nature cannot be measured by a discipline that tests and observes nature," I didn't use the word supernatural because I was giving my effort to define supernatural. Using the word you are defining in the definition is circular and unhelpful. So, if that is the basis that you are saying that supernatural is superfluous, I beg to disagree.

Okay, my bad. It was an illustration, not the basis of my argument, but we only need to look at the quote below to see you discussing how we see God with science, and no sign of the word "supernatural", so now I can use that as an illustration. What we are interested is specifically God, not the supernatural in general.

BK: I agree that if God has intervened in the world, we can measure what he did by science (because what he did will be part of nature). You can reject what I am saying as a trope, but it isn't. The RNA hypothesis (as I understand it) has already been rejected as not sufficiently workable. One of the links I put up back when I was looking at the Infinite Monkeys Theorem was on scientific american trying to figure out a way to get around the failure of the use of RNA. So, we won't decide this here, but my money is on the fact that the information we see is explainable only by a creator.

So how does your hypothesis explain how humans, like other close relatives on the tree of evolution, cannot synthesis vitamin C? Mainstream science explains by saying that around 61 million years ago, a genetic mutation in the gene that codes for vitamin C caused it to stop working, but as the primates were prolific fruit eaters this had no deleterious effect, and the mutation spread through the population, and today the result non-functional gene is therefore present in apes - including humans - and monkeys. More details here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145266/

I would love to know why God gave us a faulty gene for vitamin C synthesis.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
8/31/2017 07:43:00 AM

im-skeptical said…
Beating around the bush? And why do you say that? There has been extensive scientific research into this area. Aside from actually creating living things from scratch, what we see is that all the pieces can be produced in nature, and that the probability of proto-life forming is not NEARLY as remote as the creationists want us to think.

Noe show me the scientific research that supports your case - not just "I don't see how it could happen, therefore God did it".
8/31/2017 08:26:00 AM
Anonymous said…
BK: Pix, okay, but when I said that which is beyond nature cannot be measured by a discipline that tests and observes nature," I didn't use the word supernatural because I was giving my effort to define supernatural. Using the word you are defining in the definition is circular and unhelpful. So, if that is the basis that you are saying that supernatural is superfluous, I beg to disagree.

Okay, my bad. It was an illustration, not the basis of my argument, but we only need to look at the quote below to see you discussing how we see God with science, and no sign of the word "supernatural", so now I can use that as an illustration. What we are interested is specifically God, not the supernatural in general.

BK: I agree that if God has intervened in the world, we can measure what he did by science (because what he did will be part of nature). You can reject what I am saying as a trope, but it isn't. The RNA hypothesis (as I understand it) has already been rejected as not sufficiently workable. One of the links I put up back when I was looking at the Infinite Monkeys Theorem was on scientific american trying to figure out a way to get around the failure of the use of RNA. So, we won't decide this here, but my money is on the fact that the information we see is explainable only by a creator.

So how does your hypothesis explain how humans, like other close relatives on the tree of evolution, cannot synthesis vitamin C? Mainstream science explains by saying that around 61 million years ago, a genetic mutation in the gene that codes for vitamin C caused it to stop working, but as the primates were prolific fruit eaters this had no deleterious effect, and the mutation spread through the population, and today the result non-functional gene is therefore present in apes - including humans - and monkeys. More details here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145266/

I would love to know why God gave us a faulty gene for vitamin C synthesis.

Pix
8/31/2017 09:29:00 AM
Post a Comment


That is not SN. That whole line of reasoning is wrong the topic itself is wrong,it's not SN
Joe Hinman said…
K said...
Pix, it (meaning your argument that the supernatural is irrelevant because no science points to the existence of God) falls because there is evidence of supernatural intervention in the form of the anthropic principle and the information found in DNA. I'm not quite sure how you are saying that my not using the specific word "supernatural" makes your point when it is obvious that it is the point of what I posted.

8/30/2017 04:02:00 PM Delete



Bill why do you thin k you are helping by perpetuating their hijack term? they changed the meaning of the term then keep saying Christianity is stupid for teaching it. But it's not the term Christianity taught before they changed it. Now Christianity is stupid to teach their term,why do that? That is just walking into their trap.
im-skeptical said…
That is not SN. That whole line of reasoning is wrong the topic itself is wrong,it's not SN

- Joe, if you are talking about mysticism, why don't you just say that, and allow the rest of the world to use that agreed-upon definition of the word 'supernatural'? Even the article you cite gives a definition of the word that is consistent with the standard definition. You are the one and only person who takes issue with it, as far as I know.
JBsptfn said…
IMS: Noe show me the scientific research that supports your case - not just "I don't see how it could happen, therefore God did it".

I put more trust in God than I do these science experiments (that can be biased and twisted). And again, you are showing that you are into scientism with how much faith you put into science.
JBsptfn said…
Check this out. This is a good critique of evolution:

Fred on Everything: Darwin Unhinged-The Bugs in Evolution
Anonymous said…
JBsptfn: I put more trust in God than I do these science experiments (that can be biased and twisted). And again, you are showing that you are into scientism with how much faith you put into science.

Because religion has a long history of objectivity, and we never see different sects burning each other at the stake over their differing opinions. Oh wait, we do.

In fact, I would suggest that there is far more consensus in science than in religion.

It will be interesting to see whether the response here is the knee-jerk shriek of "scientism" or if someone will actually confronts this issue.

Pix
Anonymous said…
JBsptfn: Check this out. This is a good critique of evolution:

Fred on Everything: Darwin Unhinged-The Bugs in Evolution


Got to long the irony of a rant against science (and the "forward of sorts" is surely that), published on the internet, using the heights of technology that science - and not religion - has given us.

We have to read a fair bit before we get to anything solid. This is the first:

"As an example, consider the view that life arose by chemical misadventure."

That is not a bug in evolution, it is not evolution at all! Furthermore, science is quite open about this being as yet unknown. In fact it becomes clear that this guy has a problem with science not being dogmatic:

"May have, perhaps, might. Somewhere, somewhere else, anywhere. Onward into the fog."

Science is not like religion. It does not just make up nonsense and present it as fact. It proposes what might have happened, and then looks for evidence. That means there can be a lot of uncertainty. See here too:

"The sciences, as I knew them, gave clear answers. Evolution involved intense faith in fuzzy principles."

What makes it especially odd is that later he says:

"Humans today are a puffed-up and overconfident species. We believe that we know everything, or shortly will. We have a sense of near-omniscience equaled only by that of teenagers."

Here he is complaining about over-confidence, just after objecting to evolution as being too tentative!

I gave up after that. If there is some part of it that you think particularly stands out, why not post about it, and we could debate it? The guy claims that getting evolutionists to confront his claims is "like giving a bobcat a prostate exam"; we can see how true that is (not that I am not a biologist).

Pix
JBsptfn said…
Pix Because religion has a long history of objectivity, and we never see different sects burning each other at the stake over their differing opinions. Oh wait, we do.

In fact, I would suggest that there is far more consensus in science than in religion.

It will be interesting to see whether the response here is the knee-jerk shriek of "scientism" or if someone will actually confronts this issue.


We do see that, but that isn't what Jesus (founder of Christianity) commanded. Those acts were carried out by loons (like Calvin) that cared more about law and control than Christ's love.

Also, I love how atheists always throw the word religion around. News flash: Christ didn't come to earth to start a new religion. He came to mend a broken relationship between man and God. That's why I don't consider myself to be religious.

Pix Science is not like religion. It does not just make up nonsense and present it as fact. It proposes what might have happened, and then looks for evidence. That means there can be a lot of uncertainty.

Dude, this is one of the dumbest comments I have ever read. That's why people don't take you and IMS seriously. You leave comments like this often.
BK said…
Here is the article I referenced: A Simpler Origin for Life. It says: "The hypothesis that life began with RNA was presented as a likely reality, rather than a speculation, in journals, textbooks and the media. Yet the clues I have cited only support the weaker conclusion that RNA preceded DNA and proteins; they provide no information about the origin of life, which may have involved stages prior to the RNA world in which other living entities ruled supreme. Just the same, and despite the difficulties that I will discuss in the next section, perhaps two-thirds of scientists publishing in the origin-of life field (as judged by a count of papers published in 2006 in the journal Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere) still support the idea that life began with the spontaneous formation of RNA or a related self-copying molecule."

It continues: "No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck."

So, I make a slight modification to what I said earlier, The RNA hypothesis (as I understand it) has already been rejected by many scientists as not sufficiently workable.
im-skeptical said…
The RNA hypothesis (as I understand it) has already been rejected by many scientists as not sufficiently workable.

- So you base your dismissal of abiogenesis based on one outdated article that found difficulties with one single hypothesis? What about the rest of the article that makes a thermodynemic-based hypothesis? What about the article I showed you? Here is an article showing newer research that reveals the formation of RNA isn't so out of reach after all?

A clear sign of confirmation bias is when you search until you find an answer you want to hear, and reject everything else.
JBsptfn said…
In the link Skep provided, I recognized a name (Jack Szostak). I remembered that from an article that Stan posted. He had a good write-up about an experiment that Szostak did here:

Atheism-Analyzed: Attempted Refutation of Difficulty in Producing First Life

Anonymous said…
JBsptfn: I put more trust in God than I do these science experiments (that can be biased and twisted). And again, you are showing that you are into scientism with how much faith you put into science.

Pix: In fact, I would suggest that there is far more consensus in science than in religion.

JBsptfn: We do see that, but that isn't what Jesus (founder of Christianity) commanded. Those acts were carried out by loons (like Calvin) that cared more about law and control than Christ's love.

Remember the context. You said you do not believe scientific experiements because they "can be biased and twisted". What Jesus commanded is not the issue here. The point is that the claims of religion are clearly far more biased and twisted than those of science.

And really your assertion of what Jesus commanded is just your opinion of what he might have said, potentially as twisted and biased as anyone else.

JBsptfn: Also, I love how atheists always throw the word religion around. News flash: Christ didn't come to earth to start a new religion. He came to mend a broken relationship between man and God. That's why I don't consider myself to be religious.

I can understand why you want to distance yourself as much as possible from the twists and biases inherit in religion, but your reasoning makes no sense.

Sure, Jesus did not come to start a new religion. That is because he was part of one that already existed. If you follow Jesus, you should not be non-religious, you should be the same religion as him - Jewish!

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Remember the context. You said you do not believe scientific experiements because they "can be biased and twisted". What Jesus commanded is not the issue here. The point is that the claims of religion are clearly far more biased and twisted than those of science.

Christians don;t follow anything called"The claims if religion: and yes what Jesus said does matter because this is a Christian apologetic site,we are talking about Jesus not about religion.

Moreover,In The USA most people imn science as a profession or who have degrees in science believe in and and define themselves as Christians. So there is more consensus on basic Christian belief, and science than you realize.


And really your assertion of what Jesus commanded is just your opinion of what he might have said, potentially as twisted and biased as anyone else.

BS. we have 8 levels of verification for the validity of the Gospels,
Joe Hinman said…
Sure, Jesus did not come to start a new religion. That is because he was part of one that already existed. If you follow Jesus, you should not be non-religious, you should be the same religion as him - Jewish!

fallacious reasoning, Jesus told his disciples he was leaving the Holy Spirit with them who would guide them into all truth,it was under that guidance that they morphed into another religion.At the end of his life Paul seemed to think it was the other way around they were the true faith of Judaism and the rest of Jews didn't get it.

in the OT God never says: this is a religion follow this religion: Israel was a nation and a religion, the Jews did not have the concept of being a religion and everyone had to join thier faith.
Joe Hinman said…
- So you base your dismissal of abiogenesis based on one outdated article that found difficulties with one single hypothesis? What about the rest of the article that makes a thermodynemic-based hypothesis? What about the article I showed you? Here is an article showing newer research that reveals the formation of RNA isn't so out of reach after all?

I think christians sometimes think they can prove things with science they don't realize how hard that is.It's not proven but it; not worth arguing about because it's not clear enough for proof wither way, But the real issue is so what if life emerged imn that manner? That doesn't prove that it did it independently of God. Still no basis for the claim that Universe can pop into existnece out of nothing.
Anonymous said…
Pix: Remember the context. You said you do not believe scientific experiements because they "can be biased and twisted". What Jesus commanded is not the issue here. The point is that the claims of religion are clearly far more biased and twisted than those of science.

JH: Christians don;t follow anything called"The claims if religion: and yes what Jesus said does matter because this is a Christian apologetic site,we are talking about Jesus not about religion.

You may not label them that, but religions make all sorts of claims. Jesus is the Son of God is a claim made by one religion. Even if we restrict the discussion to Christian religions, there are plenty of examples of disagreement, where claims have been twisted to one person's or one group's bias. This is very different to science, the vast majority of which is agreed upon by all concerned. Certainly there are areas of doubt and disagreement, but these are at the fringe, and furthermore they are recognised as such, rather than taken as dogmatic truths.

By the way, I said that what Jesus commanded was not the issue because we were discussing how claims in science are twisted and biased and comparing that to the claims of religion.

JH: Moreover,In The USA most people imn science as a profession or who have degrees in science believe in and and define themselves as Christians. So there is more consensus on basic Christian belief, and science than you realize.

Of those Christians in the US perhaps half are Catholic so believe salvation is through faith, baptism, keeping the commandments and participation in the sacraments whilst the other half think it is by faith alone. Half consider Mary to be exalted, half merely blessed. Half consider the Pope infallible, half do not (and some even think he is the anti-Christ!). And if you go into the individual sects, you will find far more differences. Some will say homosexuality is a sin, some will say it is not. Some believe in demonic possession. Some believe in angels. Some believe women should not preach. Some believe in Premillennialism, or Amillennialism, or Postmillennialism, or Futurism, or Preterism, or Historicism, or Calvinism...

However, all those scientists accept germ theory, the laws of thermodynamics, relativity, and all the rest.

JH: BS. we have 8 levels of verification for the validity of the Gospels,

What does that mean? Can you name a single person whose eye witness account of Jesus' death and resurrection we have? I know you have looked at this in detail, and I know that you know the authors of Matthew and Luke were not eye witnesses. Even if the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark, he was not a witness, and based his text on an earlier account. That might be an eye witness account, but it might not. The Gospel of Peter, which I know you like, was severely redacted later, so much that we have little idea what was in the original, even supposing that was an eye witness (and if it was based on the pre-Markan passion narrative presumably was not). The Gospel of John could possibly have been authored by an eye witness, but the late writing argues strongly against that.

Your "8 levels of verification for the validity" sounds fancy, but really does not amount to much at all.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
H: Christians don;t follow anything called"The claims if religion: and yes what Jesus said does matter because this is a Christian apologetic site,we are talking about Jesus not about religion.

You may not label them that, but religions make all sorts of claims. Jesus is the Son of God is a claim made by one religion. Even if we restrict the discussion to Christian religions, there are plenty of examples of disagreement, where claims have been twisted to one person's or one group's bias.

yes but don't be like those people be like me,



This is very different to science, the vast majority of which is agreed upon by all concerned. Certainly there are areas of doubt and disagreement, but these are at the fringe, and furthermore they are recognised as such, rather than taken as dogmatic truths.

again you imply only science is the true knowledge that is scientism and it is ideology,Otherwise you need to accept there are other forms of knowledge and religion is one of them, it is not science,

By the way, I said that what Jesus commanded was not the issue because we were discussing how claims in science are twisted and biased and comparing that to the claims of religion.

that is not what we are discussing,This is the comment section for my post, not yours

JH: Moreover,In The USA most people imn science as a profession or who have degrees in science believe in and and define themselves as Christians. So there is more consensus on basic Christian belief, and science than you realize.

Of those Christians in the US perhaps half are Catholic so believe salvation is through faith, baptism, keeping the commandments and participation in the sacraments whilst the other half think it is by faith alone. Half consider Mary to be exalted, half merely blessed.

Not true Hans Kung earned his reputation initially by a paper proving that protestants and Catholics have the same concept of Slavonic and grace, They have different forms of piety.


Half consider the Pope infallible, half do not (and some even think he is the anti-Christ!). And if you go into the individual sects, you will find far more differences. Some will say homosexuality is a sin, some will say it is not. Some believe in demonic possession. Some believe in angels. Some believe women should not preach. Some believe in Premillennialism, or Amillennialism, or Postmillennialism, or Futurism, or Preterism, or Historicism, or Calvinism...

you are still trying to make the assumption that the physic's protocol of one paradigm is the only form of valid knowledge and it;s not'.Besides not all sciences use that model, social sciences have more than one paradigm,

However, all those scientists accept germ theory, the laws of thermodynamics, relativity, and all the rest.

that is all empirical but theology includes philosophical,experiential,existential,phenomenological, spiritualist and so on. different kinds of knowledge require different methods,

JH: BS. we have 8 levels of verification for the validity of the Gospels,

What does that mean? Can you name a single person whose eye witness account of Jesus' death and resurrection we have?

Gospel of john
Joe Hinman said…
I know you have looked at this in detail, and I know that you know the authors of Matthew and Luke were not eye witnesses. Even if the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark, he was not a witness, and based his text on an earlier account. That might be an eye witness account, but it might not. The Gospel of Peter, which I know you like, was severely redacted later, so much that we have little idea what was in the original, even supposing that was an eye witness (and if it was based on the pre-Markan passion narrative presumably was not). The Gospel of John could possibly have been authored by an eye witness, but the late writing argues strongly against that.

Jhoun was not written late,the new trend set's it in the 60s. But it was written before that and existed within the community for decades, Bauckham (Jesus and the eyewitnesses)supports the community as author concept and shows the Gospel of John is full of eye witnesses,

Your "8 levels of verification for the validity" sounds fancy, but really does not amount to much at all.

yes it does. 8 different sources from which the gospel story is verified,

Look at my chart's on Paul and Jesus Is how he alludes to about 12 Gospel stories and about 12 or more teachings of Jesus this was at least a decade before Mark. Koester (he's dead now btw very sad) argues upon this basis Paul had a saying source, That makes Paul a reliable level so he;s one of the levels.



except all teh dtea are beigmoved up, so now they arfeallputithe 6s,



1) The original pre Mark redaction

Sources of proof include Koester's book Ancient Christian Gospels, Jurgen denker,
John D. Crosson,
Ray Brown,
Hennecke-
Schneemelcher-
Wilson,
Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte, 646
Peter kirby says its consensus in the field.



(2)the Pauline corups
....(a) what he got form people who were there
Quoting Paul himself: quotes James, the Jerusalem church's creedal formula and hymns.

....(b) his saying source.
Koester documents
synoptic saying source

........(c) the chruch tradition he learned in Jerusalem

(3) extra canonical Gospels such as Peter and Thomas
Koester documents
Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, NT Apocrypha 1.96

Charles Hendrick and Paul Mirecki

Ron Cameron, ed., The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press 1982), pp. 23-37.)

Peter KIrby's site "Gosepel of Thoams"
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

Stephen J. Patterson, Gospel of Thomas and Jesus

Stevan L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated and Explained (Skylight Paths Pub 2002)


(4) Oral tradition
Papias (from Eusebius)
Robert C. Cully,Oral Tradition and Biblical Studies

(5)The Gospels themselves which reflect the community as a whole, a whole community full of people who were there.

(6) writers who write about their relationships with those who were there.
1 Clement (the source)
Richardson and Fairweather, et al. Early Christian Fathers, New York: MacMillian, 1970 p.45-46).
F.F. Bruce, NT documents
Irenaeus, Agaisnt heresies and missing fragment supplied by Calvin ....college

Eusebius Ecclesiastic histories
Papias, fragments (Peter Kirby, Early Christian Writings, site:http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html
Schoedel 1967: 91-92;
Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).
Documents of the Christian Church, edited by Henry Bettonson, Oxford University press 1963, 27).

Ante-Nicene Fathers vol 1
Calvin College

Iranaeus describes works of Papis

Seteven Carlson's site:http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm


these face statements like "the Gospels have no backing" and telling me I haven't done anything to prove anything, this is not good enough see? It's' an untruth.

Here are three pages on religious A priori that apply the above outline and flesh it out with the actual quotations.

Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
Joe Hinman said…
I list six but there are three levels tied up with Paul his saying source his testimony from Peter and the gang and his creedl statements,
Anonymous said…
JH: yes but don't be like those people be like me,

That is kind of the point. Each religioniost is convinced their own opion on religion is absolutely right, and everyone else has it wrong. Compare to science, where there is a consensus across the vast majority of it.

JH: again you imply only science is the true knowledge that is scientism and it is ideology,Otherwise you need to accept there are other forms of knowledge and religion is one of them, it is not science,

That is your own bias putting words in my mouth. I have not said science is the only form of science, and only said that its proponents agree with each other about the vast majority, and that is patently not the case for proponents of religion, which clearly refutes JBsptfn's claim that it is a good idea to "put more trust in God than I do these science experiments (that can be biased and twisted)."

JH: Not true Hans Kung earned his reputation initially by a paper proving that protestants and Catholics have the same concept of Slavonic and grace, They have different forms of piety.

Joe, people have been burned to death over the differences in beliefs between Catholic and Protestant. It may be your opinion (and Kung's) that really they are the same, but plenty of others vehemently disagree (just go to CARM and see the fundamentalists and Catholics at each others throats). Religious people even disagree on what they disagree on!

JH: you are still trying to make the assumption that the physic's protocol of one paradigm is the only form of valid knowledge and it;s not'.Besides not all sciences use that model, social sciences have more than one paradigm,

I am making the point that we have more reason to trust science where the proponents agree with each other, rather than religion, where the proponents do not.

JH: that is all empirical but theology includes philosophical,experiential,existential,phenomenological, spiritualist and so on. different kinds of knowledge require different methods,

Yes, science is based on evidence. That is why the proponents all agree on what mainstream science is.

Compare to religion, which draws from who knows where, and has no need to back up its claims, and is it any wonder its proponants are so dogmatic that they are right, and so convinced all the others are wrong?

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: yes but don't be like those people be like me,

That is kind of the point. Each religioniost is convinced their own opion on religion is absolutely right, and everyone else has it wrong. Compare to science, where there is a consensus across the vast majority of it.

yes it's quite a failing of those other guys not to see that I'm the one,

JH: again you imply only science is the true knowledge that is scientism and it is ideology,Otherwise you need to accept there are other forms of knowledge and religion is one of them, it is not science,

That is your own bias putting words in my mouth. I have not said science is the only form of science, and only said that its proponents agree with each other about the vast majority,


That's the obvious implication of your statement otherwise your observation has no impact,


and that is patently not the case for proponents of religion, which clearly refutes JBsptfn's claim that it is a good idea to "put more trust in God than I do these science experiments (that can be biased and twisted)."

I did not see JB's comment so I don't know what he was getting at,

JH: Not true Hans Kung earned his reputation initially by a paper proving that protestants and Catholics have the same concept of Slavonic and grace, They have different forms of piety.

Joe, people have been burned to death over the differences in beliefs between Catholic and Protestant.

who? where? when what city?who ordered it? what were the actual charges? Servtus was not burned for Catatonic idea but for denying the Trinity, which was common to both. The point about Kung's discovery coming way up in the 1960's rather than the 1500s is that it took a long time to realize they weren't so far apart, the fact they thought they were does not prove they were it only means they weren't willing to listen to each other. The religious wars were not fought by scholars.



It may be your opinion (and Kung's) that really they are the same, but plenty of others vehemently disagree (just go to CARM and see the fundamentalists and Catholics at each others throats). Religious people even disagree on what they disagree on!


plenty of people think science is wrong,a lot of people don't believe in evolution,the people of whom you speak are not endemic to the theological process, they are ignorant of it,
Joe Hinman said…
JH: you are still trying to make the assumption that the physic's protocol of one paradigm is the only form of valid knowledge and it;s not'.Besides not all sciences use that model, social sciences have more than one paradigm,

I am making the point that we have more reason to trust science where the proponents agree with each other, rather than religion, where the proponents do not.

we have no reason to trust science for the kind of knowledge theology supplies,as I said before the only reason we can have that kind of agreement in hard science is because the kind of knowledge sought is not as complex or as beyond us as theology or social sciences, In social sciences you don't have that kind of certainty either,

JH: that is all empirical but theology includes philosophical,experiential,existential,phenomenological, spiritualist and so on. different kinds of knowledge require different methods,

Yes, science is based on evidence. That is why the proponents all agree on what mainstream science is.

NO no no junior you are translating "different kinds of knowledge" as thought it means "only this one kind," that's wrong,that proves my point about your scinetisim, you taking different kinds to mean only my kind has evidence, All those other kinds have evidence it's just that they are different kinds of undecided,

Compare to religion, which draws from who knows where, and has no need to back up its claims, and is it any wonder its proponants are so dogmatic that they are right, and so convinced all the others are wrong?

that is utter bullshit, you have to back up what you say in theology, just because you are ignorant of how it's done doesn't mean it;snot dome at all.you really stupid enough to think students in seminar class at Harvard will just sit there and let you say real stupid things in graduate school? They are just as anxious to prove their superiority as any other graduate students. Of course you have to back up what you say,

Joe Hinman said…
you are assuming that only a certain kind of physical sciences is valid knowledge and after that there's no way to know anything,It escapes your reason that in theology a lot of emphasis is placed on a text,so one of the obvious methods that is premium in theology is textual criticism. That is very scientific. In fact it's quite empirical having dealt with that then theology itself will use the text as a spring board.So deductive logic will be of great use there, and so on, Clearly there are methods it's absurd to say there's no way to back anything.
Anonymous said…
JH: who? where? when what city?who ordered it? what were the actual charges? Servtus was not burned for Catatonic idea but for denying the Trinity, which was common to both. The point about Kung's discovery coming way up in the 1960's rather than the 1500s is that it took a long time to realize they weren't so far apart, the fact they thought they were does not prove they were it only means they weren't willing to listen to each other. The religious wars were not fought by scholars.

Here is a convenient list of people burned as heretics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics

My understanding is that is all cases these would have been done after a trial by the relevant authorities. That may not be scholars (and then again it may be), but as far as I know all were sanctioned by the church, whichever church that may be. And all were Christians burning Christians they disagreed with.

JH: plenty of people think science is wrong,a lot of people don't believe in evolution,the people of whom you speak are not endemic to the theological process, they are ignorant of it,

I specifically said the proponents of science. Sure a lot of people are ignorant, and so do not believe in evolution. But of those people who know the disciple - i.e., bilogists - over 99% readily accept evolution.

The proponents of religion include preachers, rabbis and imams; how far do you think they agree?

JH: we have no reason to trust science for the kind of knowledge theology supplies,as I said before the only reason we can have that kind of agreement in hard science is because the kind of knowledge sought is not as complex or as beyond us as theology or social sciences, In social sciences you don't have that kind of certainty either,

What knowledge does theology supply, Joe? What makes it different from opinion? Why should we trust it? If it really is knowledge we can trust, why is it so disputed?

This discussion is sparked by comments about whether we can trust science, and I think we have far more reason to trust science than religion.

JH: NO no no junior you are translating "different kinds of knowledge" as thought it means "only this one kind," that's wrong,that proves my point about your scinetisim, you taking different kinds to mean only my kind has evidence, All those other kinds have evidence it's just that they are different kinds of undecided,

Well then show me the evidence that all proponents of religion agree on. Should be easy - if religious knowledge has any meaning.

JH: that is utter bullshit, you have to back up what you say in theology, just because you are ignorant of how it's done doesn't mean it;snot dome at all.you really stupid enough to think students in seminar class at Harvard will just sit there and let you say real stupid things in graduate school? They are just as anxious to prove their superiority as any other graduate students. Of course you have to back up what you say,

Oh, my bad. I am just ignorant of how it is done. Do please enlighten me as to how someone supports a thesis in theology, Joe.

Then we can compare to how it is done in science, and see if we can say which will be more trustworthy.

Pix
im-skeptical said…
you are assuming that only a certain kind of physical sciences is valid knowledge and after that there's no way to know anything,It escapes your reason that in theology a lot of emphasis is placed on a text,so one of the obvious methods that is premium in theology is textual criticism. That is very scientific.

- I agree it is scientific. That's why people like you are so bad at it. If you actually followed the established methods of textual criticism, you would understand how bad the bible is as a source of historical knowledge.
Joe Hinman said…
I agree it is scientific. That's why people like you are so bad at it. If you actually followed the established methods of textual criticism, you would understand how bad the bible is as a source of historical knowledge.

I studied Greek several years it was my undergraduate langue. I have read the NNew Testament in Greek. you don't even know how to look up words in a lexicon,which is about to become apparent on Monday's post.

I have a Masters in theology from a major liberal seminary and I took classes in textual criticism of which you know nothing. You try to claim that this proves the bible is:"no good" you know so little about it you can't tell me what you mean by "no good,"

all you know is your atheist masters tell you Bible is not inerrant you no idea where to g from there, you don't know a liberalism you don't kn ow what liberals say you have no idea that a body of liberal theologians like the bible or why,ignorant supercilious arrogant prick who thinks he knows it all knows nothing,
Joe Hinman said…
Oh, my bad. I am just ignorant of how it is done. Do please enlighten me as to how someone supports a thesis in theology, Joe.

Then we can compare to how it is done in science, and see if we can say which will be more trustworthy.


how do you think they do masters egress And doctorates if they they don't defend a thesis? I can't believe you are a professor you are so ignorant of the history of academia yo don't know that advanced degrees in theology existed way before science,
Joe Hinman said…
Pix do you think no one defends a thesis in philosophy or history or English? do it the same way,
Joe Hinman said…
skep put your money where your ignorant know nothing little cake hole is and show me how I am so bad at textual criticism. Where have I ever done any that you have seen?
Joe Hinman said…
Pixie is not stupid but he keeps making this absurd mistake,I say:


JH: NO no no junior you are translating "different kinds of knowledge" as thought it means "only this one kind," that's wrong,that proves my point about your scinetisim, you taking different kinds to mean only my kind has evidence, All those other kinds have evidence it's just that they are different kinds of undecided,

he sys: Well then show me the evidence that all proponents of religion agree on. Should be easy - if religious knowledge has any meaning.

see? I say other forms of knowledge don't have to go by that model of eveyone agrees on the one thing, He says show me how those other forms have every one agreeing so he can't turn his mind to consider anything else,it has to be science or nothing,

that is scienism that's ideology.

ideology is a socialization process into which one is indoctrinated and essentially brain washed so that they can't see things any other way,that is not the ideal of scientific inquiry,
Anonymous said…
JH: how do you think they do masters egress And doctorates if they they don't defend a thesis? I can't believe you are a professor you are so ignorant of the history of academia yo don't know that advanced degrees in theology existed way before science,

Odd, that when I ask you to tell me all you can do is ask the question back to me!

I can only conclude neither of us know.

JH: Pix do you think no one defends a thesis in philosophy or history or English? do it the same way,

And again.

Common Joe, you have a masters in this stuff, you should be able to tell me. Why so shy?

JH: see? I say other forms of knowledge don't have to go by that model of eveyone agrees on the one thing, He says show me how those other forms have every one agreeing so he can't turn his mind to consider anything else,it has to be science or nothing,

JB claimed science should not be trusted because it is subject to being twisted and biased. My point here is that is far more likely to be true of religion, and argument is that the vast majority of scientists agree on all science and all scientists agree on the vast majority of science. Compared to religion, where the religious leaders are dogmatic in their faith, and yet agree on very little.

Okay, you are claiming "other forms of knowledge don't have to go by that model of everyone agrees on the one thing", but how does that support the claim that science is more open to twisting and bias than religion, Joe?

How can you claim to have true knowledge from religion when the majority of religious leaders disagree with you? Why should I think your opinion is any more valid than theirs.

By the way, this is called scepticism, not scientism.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Here is the update post where I dispel the BS Skep laid down with his etymology and his Catholic dictionary, I want you both to read it.
Joe Hinman said…
Odd, that when I ask you to tell me all you can do is ask the question back to me!

no I answered you you should know by what I said,

I can only conclude neither of us know.

yes real intelligent I guess you never wrote a paper for college

JH: Pix do you think no one defends a thesis in philosophy or history or English? do it the same way,

And again.

Common Joe, you have a masters in this stuff, you should be able to tell me. Why so shy?

do you know what I go through to make a post legeable?

JH: see? I say other forms of knowledge don't have to go by that model of eveyone agrees on the one thing, He says show me how those other forms have every one agreeing so he can't turn his mind to consider anything else,it has to be science or nothing,

JB claimed science should not be trusted because it is subject to being twisted and biased. My point here is that is far more likely to be true of religion, and argument is that the vast majority of scientists agree on all science and all scientists agree on the vast majority of science. Compared to religion, where the religious leaders are dogmatic in their faith, and yet agree on very little.

Okay, you are claiming "other forms of knowledge don't have to go by that model of everyone agrees on the one thing", but how does that support the claim that science is more open to twisting and bias than religion, Joe?

more open to it? I don't think I said that,

How can you claim to have true knowledge from religion when the majority of religious leaders disagree with you? Why should I think your opinion is any more valid than theirs.

I don't know that is true,you are only outing media figures,most religious leaders are not in that group. Even so it matters why they say it. There's no guarantee that just because they are leaders they are right,

By the way, this is called scepticism, not scientism.

no the idea that scinece is the only fom of valid knowledge is asceticism,
Joe Hinman said…
I'll say it agam

every time he denies that science is the only form of knowledge then he turns right around and says "show some other form of knowledge that does what science does." So he really does think that,every single time he disproves his own assertions by insisting that no other form of knowledge does what science does.
Joe Hinman said…
Pixie I'm going to answer your question about methods next time so next Monday,main blog.

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

The Meaning of the Manger

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?

The Origin of Life and the Fallacy of Composition