Posted on 04/03/2015 8:05:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
WASHINGTON — Was the resurrection of Jesus Christ an anti-scientific event? This question was discussed at a March 13 conference on science and religion hosted by The American Association for the Advancement of Science's Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion.
At the end of a panel on "Science Engagement in Congregations," an audience member who identified himself as a rabbi said "the elephant in the room has not been discussed," which he identified as, "that the fundamental basis of Christianity is a violation of nature."
He began his remarks by recalling another event he attended at a Presbyterian church. An audience member at that event asked one of the panelists, a Presbyterian, about the resurrection. "Do you really believe that?" he asked. The panelist replied, "no, we understand [the resurrection] metaphorically," the rabbi recalled him saying.
Another panelist then turned to the pastor of the congregation and said, "did you hear that? Your congregant just said he doesn't believe literally in the resurrection of Jesus." To which the minister replied, "where do you think he learned it from?"
The resurrection, the rabbi continued, is "an anti-scientific event [in which] the laws of nature get suspended. So, it shouldn't surprise that, historically, there's a tension between science and religion in the Christian community."
Of the panelists, which included four Christians and one Jewish rabbi, the question was directed to Walter Kim, associate minister at Park Street Church in Boston.
"You are hitting the crux of the matter about the relationship between domains of knowledge," Kim said.
The resurrection does not deny the laws of nature, he continued, it assumes the laws of nature, because a belief that the laws of nature have been broken must be built upon a belief that there are laws of nature to be broken.
"To say that the laws of nature were suspended at a particular moment is not to deny the laws of nature," Kim said. "The actual predication of a miracle is dependent upon a worldview that presumes regularity, scientific exactitude. So, Jesus' resurrection from the dead wouldn't actually be noticeable if people were popping from the dead."
The Christian worldview necessarily assumes principles that are necessary for science, he continued.
"The very fact of a miracle is predicated on the notion that the Christian worldview affirms principles that are essential to scientific endeavor, [such as the] regularity of the laws of nature [and the] predictability of the laws of nature. And the fact that Jesus' resurrection contravened those things is in fact predicated on a wider worldview," he said.
Kim also noted that the resurrection points to the fact that the natural world is not all that exists.
"But it does introduce the fact that the laws of nature are not the only aspect of reality," he said.
Therefore, while the resurrection does not presume that the Christian faith is opposed to science, it does raise the question of whether science is the only domain of knowledge, Kim explained.
"And the Christian response would be, no," Kim answered. "Jesus' resurrection actually indicates that, while the regularity of the universe is something to be studied, it is not the only thing to be studied."
Another panelist, Greg Cootsona, director of science for students and emerging young adults, recommended a 2007 lecture by Tom Wright, bishop of Durham, on the Faraday Institute website called, "Can a Scientist Believe the Resurrection?"
Cootsona also made clear that the Presbyterians the rabbi in the audience mentioned did not represent his or Kim's view. They believe, he said, "that the resurrection is an actual event, not just a metaphorical one."
The conference was part of DoSER's "The Perceptions Project," which aims to promote better understanding between scientific and religious communities, especially Evangelicals. The National Association of Evangelicals was one of the partner organizations at the conference.
Other topics discussed at the conference were the origins of humankind, environmental stewardship, global health and how the media covers science and religion. Videos of the panels will be posted later to the AAAS website.
Neither of them are subject to the scientific method by means of experimental disingenuous. Perhaps by analogy at best.
No idea why autocorrect would give me “disingenuous”. Should have been design.
“The scientific method was created by men in an attempt to define the universe created by God. The scientific method is limited, God is not.”
Do you even know what the scientific method is?
LOL. You described modern science perfectly.
Now they claim the big bang theory doesn't work. For decades the Christians knew the evolution theory didn't work either, but Science politics allows it to stand as fact anyway.
“There is no “supernatural”
That is an atheist premise.
“Don’t people get tired of this brain-dead 19th century style rationalism?”
That’s what strikes me. It is so sophomoric.
It’s the sort of thing a Jr High student might think is a new idea.
What actually happens with predictable regularity, and therefore can be tested, is what drives science. The singular event with an unexpected cause, be it miraculous or a matter of coincidence(s) or simply observed only once and unrepeated, is beyond the realm of science, since there is no way of testing it. Historical facts (even so mundane as “George Washington was the first President of the United States under the Constitution”) are outside the realms of science.
hmmm... the wording of the phrase “believe in science” is telling.
Almost a millennia later, CS Lewis commented on his personal aversion to the terms, "supernatural," "paranormal," and the like, pointing out that, while many regard God as a, "supernatural," being, nothing could possibly more, "natural," than the Creator of all things. Lewis further went on to point out that it is nothing but human vanity and hubris to call something "supernatural," merely because it escapes our comprehension. He pointed out that is wasn't too many centuries ago when people thought an eclipse was a dragon devouring the sun or moon, and in terms of the history of humanity, it's only been a pretty recent development that we've come to (better) understand the movements of the celestial bodies. We hate to think that a few centuries down the road, our posterity will look back on us as ignorant and superstitious about a great many things, but assuredly, they will.
As an aside, one of the great explorations of the relationship, tension and reconciliation between faith and scients from an artistic standpoint was in the series, "The X-Files." Mulder, "wanted to believe," and sought the truth that was, "out there," chasing cryptids, aliens and ghosts, while expressing skepticism about Scully's devout Catholicism, when in fact, she was the scientist sent to debunk his pursuits. A lot of people watch the show for the well written stories and production value, but entirely miss out on that aspect of it's exploration of the nature of faith and science.
There is no supernatural
Do you?
“Do you?”
Yes.
Interesting quote by Lewis. But I think his argument is purely semantic with respect to what is meant by “natural”.
Explain your question to the other guy then.
What color is hatred? Is courage rough textured or smooth? Please tell me what they look like when you observe them, or do such things as hatred or courage not exist?
No. Brain-dead 19th century style rationalism gives them permission to sin.
an audience member who identified himself as a rabbi said "the elephant in the room has not been discussed," which he identified as, "that the fundamental basis of Christianity is a violation of nature."
Yes, yet it is. That's why we call it a miracle. I don't see what's so difficult about that concept.
They believe, he said, "that the resurrection is an actual event, not just a metaphorical one."
It better be.
"If we have been united to him in a death like his, we will be united to him in a resurrection like his."
Hi MrB. Your not being 100% clear, but I think I figured out what you mean and think agree.
The atheist is hubristic and ultimately, ironically, anti science.
I’m not declaring they don’t exist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.