Is there a scientific basis for Jesus Christ?
There was a very interesting development around the topic of religion a couple of weeks before the 4th of July payout and the massive influx of users onto the steemit platform.
It began with @danthemans post this was followed up by a rebuttal from his father @stan. Due to the popularity and discussion created around these two posts a lot of very interesting and mostly respectful posts ensued with the topic of religion and philosophy as their main element. Very uncharacteristically to what we are very used to on the web (that discussions involving religion or politics quickly descend into chaos and suffer an often heated and unpleasant demise) these resulted in robust but very respectful debates.
Due to the respectful nature of things I even ventured to mention some of my religious persuasions in my introduction
In that intro I hinted at perhaps sharing some of my mental gymnastics in future posts.
The Sunday night post
As Sunday is my Sabbath…
I’m going to experiment with taking a break from my usual everyday posts featuring authors to focus on something a little different.
I love complex problems and sometimes getting science and religious beliefs to “play nice” can be pretty intriguing and mind bending.
How I mix science and religion.
First up I want to examine some of the claims made by Jesus Christ to see if they hold any water from a scientific perspective.
Claim 1: Jesus Christ had power over death
Jesus, while yet alive and during his mortal ministry, claimed that he had power over life and death. “No man taketh it from me,"he said" but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.”
This is an extraordinary claim and so we would need to see some pretty extraordinary evidence.
That evidence was manifested in his raising a number from the dead during his ministry and from His resurrection three days after the crucifixion. There seem to be many claimed eyewitness accounts that these events indeed happened. These may be disputed or accepted depending from individual to individual.
Whether this resurrection did or did not take place is not the purpose of this post.
We cannot examine these claims on whether these event took place as documented for ourselves.
They occur in a time, place and culture far removed from or own. What we can examine is the veracity of the web of claims surrounding this central claim to see if they stack up scientifically.
We have learned a lot from science since Darwin to Modern studies in genetics. We now know quite a bit about heritability and inheritance. For all of us death is a certainty… we inherit that from our parents.
If Christ had claimed power over death without claiming some sort of special parentage that would be very inconsistent with what we understand regarding inheritance.
But indeed Christ did claim special parentage.
Claim 2: Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.
This second claim backs up the first from an inheritance perspective.
From his mother (a mortal) he inherited the ability to die.
From his Father (God, an immortal) he inherited the ability to live forever.
Claim 1 and Claim 2 are therefore consistent
But, some will protest, there is nothing extraordinary about this. The culture that Jesus was born to had been farming for millennia. It doesn’t take rocket science or even modern science to figure out inheritance when you are breeding plants and animals for a livelihood.
Good Point
Also, surrounding cultures had many myths of gods impregnating mortals to produce demigods and hero’s. So once again nothing very unique there in those two claims.
Good Point
So all we establish is consistency. Not uniqueness. We need more claims…
Claim 3: Jesus as Savior
Christ claims to save.
Save from what we ask?
Save from sin...
What is sin? Science does not have this concept.
So we give science a simple definition of sin. Sin is transgression of Law.
What Law the scientist asks?
In its simplest form that many are familiar with, “the ten commandment”
OK now we have something we can evaluate. If we evaluate the Ten Commandments we see that at least more than half of them are devoted to preventing some sort of societal disorder.
Disorder, Order. Now we have something to work with from a scientific perspective.
Evaluating Christ's teachings as a whole we see that sin is often about breaking down order and inviting disorder into our lives.
So if Christ saves from sin then he saves us from disorder and chaos.
By moving into the realms of order, disorder and chaos we start to open a huge can of worms in the form of order vs entropy and the laws of thermodynamics.
This post is getting long, so hopefully this is enough to spark a conversation. Based on that I will explore Jesus Christ and the laws of thermodynamics next week.
Thermodynamics is stuff, that unlike inheritance, the ancients would have been less privy too.
Science recuses itself from having an opinion on anything that is not testable and repeatable. So rare interventions from God are going to be beyond its realm.
However, many things that wind up in court concern one-time events that we cannot go back and repeat.
Yet our courts do not hesitate to reach conclusions based on the credibility of one or more eyewitnesses.
Some interventions from god should be testable. The biblical flood, for instance. If it really happened, it would have left a mark on our planet.
Eyewitness accounts are considered the most unreliable form of evidence, by the way. People get things wrong all the time. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
Yep. I have already stipulated that there is no intention to give your incontestable proof. But those eyewitness accounts have been enough for a billion or so people already.
I agree that the Flood would certainly leave a mark ...if God wanted it to. But since it was clearly a supernatural event (where did all that extra water come from anyway?), it is just as likely that the scientific proof disappeared with the excess water.
It's a delicate balancing act... leaving just enough evidence to satisfy those who are looking for Him but not enough for those who require iron clad proof.
Those who require iron clad proof require said proof because they are looking for him. They just don't want to make a mistake. Examining facts before claiming something is true is what advanced science to where it is today.
The best way of thinking of this is your doctor says you have an infection and need a shot of antibiotics or you'll die. It's a good idea, maybe, to get a second opinion but holding out for iron clad proof is a good way to end up dead.
The difference is that doctors usually have a history of being correct in their diagnoses and there's plenty of scientific proof showing that antibiotics will help get rid of the infection. There's nothing like that when it comes to christianity.
Actually, no. George Washington died because his doctors bled him to death with leeches. The history of medicine is much worse than the history of Christianity. You pick a doctor carefully, you should pick a pastor carefully. Both can do you a lot of good or a lot of harm.
But you missed my point. In the case of your particular chosen doctor, you rely on the fact that he has studied hard and trained well and therefore your decision to accept what he prescribes does not involve going back and reviewing whether there is absolute proof available. You don't demand such evidence to save your physical life, why do you demand it to save your eternal life?
Eyewitnesses relate things from their perspective. There are always multiple perspectives. This needs to be born in mind when reviewing these types of accounts.
True. That's part of the credibility is the slight differences you find between the various accounts. But there are plenty of them and there was lots of communication between the early churches and the eyewitnesses were well known personally among most of them. So any falsehoods would have been quickly challenged by all the others in the early churches who had also witnessed these things.
Flood myths are very common in religion, it's been argued many times that there was a large flood but that it was in just the Middle East or a certain area of the middle east. I'm not sure how much work has been done on it recently, but it's certainly a common enough theory. These people didn't go very far, so it wouldn't take much to engulf their whole world.
That's right! :-)
As nicely explained here:
Modern courts do not just refer to testimony of "reliable" witnesses. They also take to account all physical evidence from investigation and ask for opinion of experts in the field.
True. But court's only weigh the evidence that is available. They don't fail to render a ruling because they don't have as much physical evidence or credible expert opinions as they would like..
That's why it is so common that courts make unjust sentences or false statements! They often have to rely on witness testimonies and little scientific evidence. Judges are also subject to personal bias.
Science does not care about someone's personal bias or opinion.
Alas, science has its self-imposed limits.
Don't get me wrong. I soak up all the scientific results I can find. Love it!
But where science declares it cannot go, I use whatever else I can find to learn things.
The only way to know what lies beyond the reach of Science is if Someone out there reveals it to me. I'm not closing my mind to that revelation because it doesn't come through science. Science is only a tool. It is not the only way to know something.
Interesting perspective, enjoyed reading your post.
I won't call any of this scientific though. There's no empirical basis to your arguments. For example, thermodynamics are related to heat and temperature, not sins and resurrections. I understand I may come off as pedantic about semantics, but the point is - scientific study done on an empirical basis simply does not apply to theological or philosophical quandaries.
All that said, it does make for interesting analogies. :) I welcome them as thought experiments.
Personally, I don't think it's possible to reconcile science with Christianity.
I plan to develop this in more detail next week... look forward to you feedback on the "though experiments" then.
One of the biggest issues that people need to decide on is whether the bible is fact, fiction, or a bit of both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics (obviously not a reliable source, but a brief overview of what it is). Regardless of the stance and position you believe in, the book I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist is a very interesting read. Hope that is helpful for your further posts
@liberosist and @gavvet, I wanted to comment, but then the comment became too long for the comment section. Please have a look at my argument in the post Does the Teleological argument prove the existence of God
Well that's a much nicer way than I put it.
I wholeheartedly agree with your post and have thought about posting about some of the things christians believe/disbelieve. I think steemit is one of the few places that religion and other polarizing debates can be held without hatred. It's not up to you to force someone into believing anything, but to simply lay out what you believe and why and others are free to accept or refute this. Along with all religions, a select few can ruin the whole name for everyone. A group like the westboro baptist church that preaches hate towards soldiers and homosexuals does not practice the Love that Jesus preached about. Just because you may not agree on those issues doesn't mean you can't respect those with opposing beliefs. The same can be said of Isis or other Muslim affiliated groups shaming the many positive friendly Muslims throughout the US and world. The most controversial groups receive the most attention from the media and that is how people tend to perceive the stated group as a whole. Thank you for bringing this up in a place where everyone has the chance to make meaningful comments and those who post hate or are disrespectful can be silenced by the community as a whole.
That's what it was like last time... lets see how it goes this time around... not much downvoting was required because the importance of reputation led to restraint and demonstrations of respect even where strong feelings were involved. I hope things haven't changed too much...
I'm not religious myself but I respect people's opinions on religion
While I respect your right to believe however you choose I differ with you tagging this in the Science category. Basing something as having scientific proof or value by saying it is in the Bible just doesn't pass muster. Its the same thing as saying because something is in a Superman comic it must be true.
There are many different religious, historical and scientific texts that were written thousands of years ago. Some are true, partly true or not true at all. I think using the Bible as a basis for scientific argument is a losing one.
If you want to discuss Jesus and faith. Go for it! If you have other scientific evidence to base you arguments on please go forth. But using the Bible as a book of science is not such a good idea. There are way too many scientific holes in the text.
That said I appreciate your post and point of view. It has obviously stimulated a conversation.
Agreed. This shouldn't be under the science category.
I'm evaluating its claims against well known scientific priciples for consistency... Just laying the groundwork so far perhaps you will find more science to your liking next week.
I understand where you are coming from. I saw it as an invitation to debate. When you are offering such an invitation would you not offer it to those you would like to debate with? In such a case it would be appropriate for science. Religion is typically a HANDS OFF topic because people can be irrational, and emotional and it can get pretty hostile. He seems to be approaching it from a fairly respectful and civil perspective.
Since the reply was directed at my comment, I believe I was civil and respectful. But I've always thought there were certain topics you should discuss on your home turf and religion is one of them. Nobody wants to go to a stripper club and have some evangelist ruin the fun by telling everybody they are going to hell if they don't repent and see the error of their ways.
The OP said he was going to get whoop out some science but all he did was quote some Bible on us. Boring. That's not being hostile, it's just wasting time our time.
Please use #Jesus #Religion #Bible #Christianity, etc. When somebody tags #puppies in their post and the post I end up reading is about quantum physics it is a disservice to puppies and physics.
Yeah. I do like to persuade people. Often you encounter such things. Yet you never persuade someone if you don't make the attempt. :) I like to be persuaded too. It happens sometimes. Not so much with religion it is hard for me to look at written religions and not shake my head. Some of the things people can believe and still claim to know science. A big one for me... I loved Noah's Ark as a story as a child. Was probably my favorite bible story, and I had toys of it, and coloring books, and all of that jazz. Then I get older learn science, learn about gene pools, how many friggin animals exist, and the fact that two of anything is insufficient for a gene pool to survive, let alone the space would need to be far more massive than that design. I kind of look at everything that way now. Religions feel like human simplistic writing to me now. The ideas feel simple, and not very well thought out. Of course it is hard to even start thinking that way until I stopped listening to appeals to authority. "Why is XYZ?" "You need to have faith", or "God wants it that way" just don't work once you no longer have an appeal to authority and you view asking questions as a positive thing.
So I get it... I do. I am willing to talk to people, and I do realize some people are not. That is fine and a choice each person should be able to make.
The Bibble
@gavvet how i mix science and faith or religion? faith is the truth while science is the living proof. So theyre basically in bond. Great article though.
"Without Proof" is literally in the definition of faith.
That's an interesting take I don't think I have heard before! What is your belief about the bible/christ if I may ask?
as it says in the Bible, God is within us
I think those looking for physical proof of something that happened about 2 thousand years ago will surely be disappointed. The problem with such "proof" is that it can be interpreted in any way that suits the observer. What do they want? DNA evidence? Most people looking for proof have only a limited understanding of what they are even looking for.
No, the Bible isn't a history book, and is full of parables. As Galileo said, (I paraphrase) "The Bible tells us HOW to get to Heaven, not how the Heavens were made." The Bible doesn't prove God exists, neither does Science prove God doesn't exist. (I am planning a post about this.)
The proof is in the lives of people who try to do good in this world. I have seen enough miracles this past year to see clearly God's hand in my life.
Atheists look up at the night sky and see emptiness; I see the soul of God.