Resurrections and Apologetics

[Roger Pearse]

Spin may wish that science endorses his religious beliefs. It doesn't. Or anyone's. The inability of many atheists to understand this is perhaps linked to the fact that few scientists are atheists.

[spin]

Spin may wish that science endorses his religious beliefs. It doesn't. Or anyone's. The inability of many atheists to understand this is perhaps linked to the fact that few scientists are atheists.

Why Roger is falling over himself, rabbiting on about atheists is lost on me.

Wilfred Owen gives us a picture of Roger:

But someone still was yelling out and stumbling, And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . . -"Dulce et Decorum est"

[Roger Pearse]

I'm a very bad person.

[Ulan]

Science has nothing to say to things like "can miracles happen", or "is there such a thing as true love" or "is Obama honest", because these things fall outside the realm of scientific method. That's why we have the humanities.

This is a rather self-serving approach to the concept of the category error. While scientists may not be able to answer the question "can miracles happen" in a definite way, they can certainly answer the question "how likely is it that a miracle story is true", which is close to zero.

Spin may wish that science endorses his religious beliefs. It doesn't. Or anyone's. The inability of many atheists to understand this is perhaps linked to the fact that few scientists are atheists.

Which is probably dependent on a very specific definition of "atheist". The fraction of scientists who don't believe in God or any universal spirit or higher power is 41%, according to this Pew Research Center study, while 33% believe in God.

[Roger Pearse]

Re: science, read what I wrote earlier.

[Ulan]

Re: science, read what I wrote earlier.

I know what you wrote and how you misused it in the debate. Which I pointed out. Which mirrors your misuse of statements like the one concerning "the fact that few scientists are atheists", which is also bollocks.

A different question is why the question regarding belief in resurrection would be important to single out in a discussion forum like this one. I don't think that a forum divide along this line is a helpful distinction.

[Adam]

Re: science, read what I wrote earlier.

I know what you wrote and how you misused it in the debate. Which I pointed out. Which mirrors your misuse of statements like the one concerning "the fact that few scientists are atheists", which is also bollocks.

Earlier in this thread Roger wrote what I take to be your "what you wrote".
"Those of us with hard science degrees would like to point out that real science has no opinion on this question. This is a religious statement not a scientific one."
What is your problem? Roger affirmed an agnostic position, but you're so full of yourself that you can dictate to a scientist that he must subscribe to an atheist view?
I do admit that your dictate that a miracle claim has near-zero probability may not be so outlandishly prejudicial as it sounds, because in your favor is that of, say, a billion miracle claims in the last thousand years, maybe only a thousand were true miracles, God intervening against maybe His best judgment in answer to prayer. Yes, that's a 0.0001% probability, but nevertheless a proof positive of theism. I would rate the odds considerably higher myself.

[Ulan]

Earlier in this thread Roger wrote what I take to be your "what you wrote".
"Those of us with hard science degrees would like to point out that real science has no opinion on this question. This is a religious statement not a scientific one."
What is your problem? Roger affirmed an agnostic position, but you're so full of yourself that you can dictate to a scientist that he must subscribe to an atheist view?

I'm a scientist myself, so that doesn't matter in this discussion one way or the other. Roger specifically worded his examples in order to try to shift the issue out of reach of science. However, that's not how this works in a field, where we use probabilities all the time, which means assigning a probability to the issue whether a resurrection may have happened or not is completely okay as a scientific statement. You shift it out of the range of science when you talk about "belief in resurrection", which is a completely different point and indeed a religious question, not a scientific one. Nobody will take away your right to believe whatever you want, as a probability is not a proof. All scientific results are of this kind, as you can never be 100% sure about all circumstances. The only real scientific proofs exist for very limited, exactly defined if -> then relations. However, it's good scientific practice to use probability cutoffs to answer specific questions. The excuse that we deal with supernatural issues doesn't pass muster, as any effect on the real world is not supernatural anymore.

My issue with Roger was with obviously misleading statements, which became most obvious when he talked about scientists and belief. I have no issues with his personal religious beliefs. I have quite a few religious colleagues, and I have no intent to change their views in this regard. Therefore, it's not about him believing in resurrection. That's indeed not a scientific question. Lastly, we human beings are social animals. Religion has many functions.

I do admit that your dictate that a miracle claim has near-zero probability may not be so outlandishly prejudicial as it sounds, because in your favor is that of, say, a billion miracle claims in the last thousand years, maybe only a thousand were true miracles, God intervening against maybe His best judgment in answer to prayer. Yes, that's a 0.0001% probability, but nevertheless a proof positive of theism. I would rate the odds considerably higher myself.

There are no proven miracles, and there is not a single positive proof for theism available that fulfills the criteria of proof in a scientific sense. The reason why I don't put a big, fat zero on that probability is just an acknowledgement that it's not possible to prove a negative. However, a 0.0001% probability is not treated differently from zero without some positive proof, and this does not exist.

So I hope it's clear now that my post was about Roger's statements with regard to science, not whether anyone wants to discuss resurrection or not. There wouldn't be much left to discuss on this board if we would exclude everything that isn't proven.

[Adam]

Is the meaningfulness of a statement its verifiability?

[Ulan]

That obviously depends on the definition of "meaningfulness".

Maybe I can put my statement differently again and hope it becomes understandable. The reason why science isn't applicable here is not that it is not principally applicable, but because there is nothing to work on. We are dealing with vague hearsay that is very sparse on specifics, at least on that kind of specifics that would be applicable to the topic question.