Are you saying that the
only things you accept without questions are things that can be replicated in science?.. Do you really believe science accounts for everything?
The assertion was made that I accept many things without questioning them (the examples that were given were from science). I made my case for accepting scientific facts. Other things either don’t require an objective answer, or don’t have one: love and beauty are really up to me (and when you’re the beholder, they’re up to you). Justice, freedom, and goodness are subjective but largely agreed upon constructs (with many divergent moot points in between). I can’t replicate the origin of matter and life (though some very ambitious scientists are always attempting to on a smaller scale). I trust that the science is providing a sound replication, if only in very crude terms, because I trust the methods of inquiry it uses (appropriate controls, elimination of extraneous variables, theoretical base from what has already been discovered, etc…). Science, largely, or philosophy can account for much - but not all science and philosophy; rigorous, peer-reviewed, replicated science, and philosophy that adopts the most stringent logical rules, not being too quick to make assumptions. I don’t, of course, base all I think and feel and know on science, because it’s not necessary. But for things for which I cannot draw on my immediate experience, there is science, and I trust it.
My point was not that you couldn’t replicate some of the things you accept to be true, but rather that you haven’t done so and that you can’t prove as true most of the things you believe to be true either because it would take more than a lifetime to prove all of it or you simply cannot prove them. You have probably never seen an atom or an electron and you will probably never see them. You have probably never seen outer space for yourself…concept of line or a triangle, etc.
Right. And I am comfortable taking for granted things that I haven’t seen replicated
personally, because I trust the
methods by which the facts were obtained. The methods by which facts are obtained in religion - any religion - don’t allow for testing or refutation. Anyone can claim revelation and we must take their word on it, or elsewise, ask for physical evidence (which religion, for the most part, can’t provide). If I cannot use my sense organs to comprehend it, or its effects, there’s no sense in my trying to understand it (“ahh but gravity!!..” I can see that things drop, and while I see that there is something rather than nothing, I can’t confirm in anyway shape or form that God is the cause).
Like any historical event, it cannot be duplicated. You simply believe it to be true, or you don’t. The same goes for any historical event: World War II, Korean War, the birth of Issac Newton, the birth of Albert Einstein, etc. You have nothing to base your belief of these events other than testimonies and we would probably think it foolish not to believe them. I think it’s the same with the Bible.
Of course, but we would refute many if not all of the events of World War II if it was alleged that people were riding on unicorns and shooting each other with ray-guns. We would be foolish to believe any account that had those elements in mind, because they simply don’t exist. We know, today, that people aren’t raised from the dead at a holy figure’s command (and we know a lot of other miracles would never happen today either), so we refute the historical accuracy of much of the bible. What history asks us to do is to consider what happened (and then consider corroboration and plausability). What the bible asks us to do, historically, is to make an exception for events that are
never whitnessed today.
Now regarding miracles. There are plenty of supernatural events (things contrary to the laws of science or out of the ordinary) that are well documented and have been tested by scientists. Read them if you are willing:
The image of
Our Lady of Guadalupe is one such thing. It has been stated by many scientists that the image could not have been painted. Many of the images within the image are too small to create with human hands. Furthermore, scientists have affirmed that there are no sketch marks and that this tilma has existed since its creation over 400 years ago. No tilma ordinarily lasts that long. In fact, *no * tilma has lasted that long.
The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano is another such event. It occurred in the 8th century and a scientist (probably not the only one) has verified that it is real cardiac tissue that he touched.
I can’t prove that historical events happened, but neither can you. That still doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. Yet, here for you are miracles for today. You can verify them yourself. Scientists have tested them and have considered them impossible by scientific standards. I would not so eagerly dismiss them.
It’s a matter of credibility. I have every reason in the world to believe that deceivers, charlatans, and people with an agenda would forge events like this, not only with relative ease, but also without the available tools to scrutinize whether the event was factual after it took place. Christians see Eucharistic miracles, Hindus see their idols drinking milk, Muslims have whatever they have. All this proves to me is that some religious people are duped by both zeal
and slight-of-hand
roar with laughter! Out of the blue you pontificate with the utmost dogmatism that:
