Does Resurrection Contradict Science?

P

Perham1

2,500+ Posts
From Jerry Coyne's always interesting blog:

You’d think so, right? After all, in the last several thousand years there’s been a single dubious report of someone coming back to life after having been dead for several days. Other than that, bupkus.

Ah, but you’re neglecting the enormous creativity of accommodationists, especially Matt Rossano, a psychology professor at Southeastern Louisiana University (we’ve we’ve encountered him before). Over at PuffHo, Rossano tries to show that the resurrection and science are indeed compatible. The deed of reconciliation is accomplished by making two claims:

Link
 
If a resurrection were reported today, in south San Antonio, by a thirty-ish carpenter, who in their right mind would accept that report as factual?

Yet, many of us accept a 2,000 year-old report as gospel-truth.

texasflag.gif
 
How many accepted the resurrection of Jesus at the time? Probably not too many. We can thank Saul/Paul for spreading the story.

The same thing might happen today. Not very many would accept the story of the San Antonio guy being resurrected, but perhaps some would. And maybe there would be a great proselytizer who would then spread the word ala Paul? Then maybe 2,000 years from now we would have another religion claiming their man/god was resurrected.
 
It would not be accepted unless it appeared on a piece of toast or a tortilla. We all eat lots of tortillas in SA and they usually have more interesting revelations than a grilled cheese.
 
The bashing of Christian beliefs continues.

As does the whiny martydom.

Now merely posing a question is bashing?

Thin skinned. Is that from all the flaying?
 
I'm gonna thread **** on you now because you already have shown you are not interested in discourse or logical debate. Actually, I don't recall any evidence that you are capable of such.

Anyone that would attempt to engage you on this topic is ignorant or likely bored because I can guarantee you that unless your goal is to incite and obfuscate then neither party will be satisfied in this thread.
 
With that reasoning then, wouldn't the fact that most of the world does NOT believe in Jesus or a resurrection have to be considered just as strongly?

I really have no desire to dissuade anyone from their faith or philosophy. I just enjoy a discussion every once in a while and sometimes that means asking a conversation partner to examine the logic of their argument.
 
I'm gonna thread **** on you now because you already have shown you are not interested in discourse or logical debate. Actually, I don't recall any evidence that you are capable of such.

Anyone that would attempt to engage you on this topic is ignorant or likely bored because I can guarantee you that unless your goal is to incite and obfuscate then neither party will be satisfied in this thread.

Someone clearly has a difficult time understanding the question if the resurrection is supported by science.

I guess the "doc" in your handle means you're a chiropractor?
 
Perham,
I actually think it is a great question. You have had me thinking about it all day, and I haven't really formulated an answer yet. I mean I know what lines I think along, but I don't know how to really articulate the two. I thin it drives straight to the heart of the exchange and dialogue between science and religion. I believe you generally ask legitimate questions, even though we come to differing conclusions.
I will write a response to the actual question later, but thank you for the thread.
 
Science would corroborate that people have been revived. Death is a medical and legal event and one can come back from such, but only under narrow circumstances.

After a point it is not considered possible.

Dying on the cross makes it highly unlikely that a revival would occur, nevermind the question of whether or not revival techniques were used in the time of Christ or whether anyone has ever claimed he was revived.

Resurrection suggests coming back to a living state after suffering the cessation of life functions over a period of time beyond which revival would be possible. Three days, or two, depending on how your calendar works, is probably too long and a return from non-life lasting that long is likely unprecedented.

Which brings us to a crux: precedent and its meaning.

Science seeks to set precedent, to demonstrate that something is repeatable and there fore reliable.

Religion, including the story of Christ, is not. It's power would be lost if subjected to repetition, dissection, and controlled observation by humans. In fact, by definition, it is not possible for miracles to be assayed in that fashion. Aside from whether you believe Ernest Angley ever actually healed a deaf person by channeling the power of Christ, an explanation of how it was accomplished would kill the miraculous aspect of the event.

Does resurrection contradict science is another way of saying does science actually contemplate miracles? The answer is 'not as such.' The assumption is that the event or thing being studied can be corralled by human explanation and, given enough time and the formulation of the correct questions, answered without reliance upon fantastical assumptions about the unseen and unknown.

This is why religion, even christianity, which I believe abets science as a matter of the logic of some of its basic narrative cants, should not seek to meddle in the sciences. Such meddling can only corrupt both endeavors. God cannot be boxed or canned or swirled about in a solution over blue flickering flames.
 
Let's see...

1. Does Resurrection Contradict Science
2. Why do we doubt science?
3. What happens when a Christian accepts science?
4. Does Jesus Love You? Hate Your [sic]? Conditionally So?
5. Catholics, I want your take
6. Religious views on medical treatment
7. Misotheism
8. God, evolution, & theodicy

Eight threads on the first page dedicated to revisiting a certain something they can't quite drag to light. A great bonfire of words to warm the guilty conscience.

Jesus is in your head.
 
PM me immediately the next time (i.e. the first time) those proselytizing Christian ******** start a thread criticizing atheism.

Of course we all know who's going to finish the thread.
 
What exactly about me questioning whether the resurrection violates science shows that my "internal logic" is awry?
 
Perham,
I guess I would have to say that the Resurrection contradicts science. I would say it does so, because it is not really a reproducible outcome. Not saying it hasn't happened again. There are reports that I know of of people coming back to life after being dead. Is there in some or all of those cases a scientific explanation? Was it really that they were revived and never really dead? Surely a thinking person would have to consider that very very real possibility.
I think that the point of Christianity that makes the resurrection at all believable is really two fold.
1) Historical evidences. There are those who report having seen Jesus alive after his death. And no one can deny that real or faked, the life, death, and 'resurrection' of Jesus has changed the history of the globe. You also have in the Gospel stories themselves these kind of cowardly disciples who all abandon Jesus as he goes to the cross, and then 50 days later on Penecost, their attitude TOTALLY changes. You have Peter who denies even knowing him, to being willing to testify before the religious leaders of the day? What changed? Seems that something changed in his life, and the coming of the Holy Spirit after seeing Jesus resurrected seems consistent with the Christian story.
2)Theological. Did God create all that exists? If so, doesn't God dictate or set up the rules or laws of science? If Jesus IS God, doesn't he have control over the laws? Who is this guy that even the wind and the waves obey him? How can he turn water into wine? Cure diseases? There are other evidences of Jesus having power over the natural world if the story is true.

Been thinking for two days about how to talk about science and the resurrection. Don't know if my response is perfect or close to it. But I hope it helps explain from a Christian perspective.
 
I imagine there are many so-called scientific laws that may be completely disproved in other parts of our vast universe. We are probably looked upon as nothing more cave dwellers by others in our universe. The arrogance of the little atheist group is comical. You have basically won your war against chritianity to some extent in this country. Why don't you go somewhere and preach your belief somewhere they could really use it. Where religious groups pass the laws and operate the government...somewhere like Saudi Arabia? Don't be scared, I'm sure they would welcome your word with open arms. After all, they are the religion of peace. Stop picking on polite, westernized christians. i don't know if jesus rose again from the grave or not. There are many theological studies on jesus. regardless of your belief system, he was a great man. how could you possibly make fun of the teachings of a man that gave the sermon on the mount? a philosophy that all should live by and one that was taken and used by some of the great philosophers that came after him. religions are based on faith, just like your religion, and yes you have one, you just don't realize it.
 
Sure, a dead guy rising from the dead can comport with the laws of the physical universe. It just takes faith. But, it's also truth. But you need faith to know it's the truth. Which makes it truth. God created science. Therefore, science is inevitably truth. Science > zombie Jesus.

"Jesus is the truth, he is God, etc." - I can say this, because I'm entitled to my faith and all other faiths are ********

"Show me proof" - OMG, why must you attack my religion, this is Amercurrrrrr go to Saudi Arabia and worship the Muslims you stinkin' liberals
 
"Where religious groups pass the laws and operate the government...somewhere like Saudi Arabia? Don't be scared, I'm sure they would welcome your word with open arms. After all, they are the religion of peace. Stop picking on polite, westernized christians." Are you ******* kidding me? I don't follow your posts (or anyone much) enough to know if you are being tongue in cheek, but the absurd notion that the laws in most areas of the US aren't passed in the name of Christian ideals is mind-boggling beyond belief. The idea that the Christian fan-base is "polite", especially when you consider that we are presently waging holy wars against muslims, homosexuals, Harry Potter, etc. simply passes all understanding.

FWIW, I believe that many of the teachings ascribed to Jesus are pretty cool and that I would definitely like the dude if I didn't have to give him a psch evaluation, but I'm also pretty sure he wouldn't want anything to do with people who harbor opinions like the ones you appear to profess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top