.

Dear Dan,

.

You wrote :

« The gospel message has found me. The invitation to believe has been given and undergirded with ample and sufficient grounds. »

That’s fine, Dan. I understand that scientists operate pretty much on the same basis. Science offers us the “best possible explanation”, or should I say the “most credible explanation” for something at a particular point of time. We “accept” or “believe” the explanation because we consider that it is “ undergirded with ample and sufficient grounds”.

We believe that explanation until we discover new evidence that either contradicts the explanation or obliges us to modify it to take into account the new evidence.

Science is a flexible process that evolves along with advances in new or more advanced research and technology, sometimes in domains not directly concerned with the matter in question.

A few examples are the invention in 1949 of radiocarbon dating by Willard Libby, as well as the invention of DNA sequencing by Frederick Sanger in 1975 and the considerable development since the 1990s of forensic anthropology and archaeology techniques.

The Dead Sea scrolls were discovered accidentally by a Bedouin boy in Israel's Judean Desert in eleven caves along the northwest shore of the Dead Sea between the years 1947 and 1956.

Archaeologists have barely scratched the surface of the immense potential of historical evidence that remains to be discovered. Nothing seems to be cast in stone so far as our knowledge of the past is concerned.

You indicated on page 9 of this thread:

« … speaking for myself and most believers I relate with, what we are more concerned with is finding truth. If we're pleasantly living a fantasy or a lie, then we'd rather opt for something else. »

That being the case, as I have just come across the following article in Wikipedia, I thought you might be interested in reading it as it seems to be a reasonably well-balanced, scholarly approach to “the historical reliability of the gospels” :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

.

Religion is not about explaining the world, but about transcending that illusion as if the world is real and discovering that despite that façade, the only Reality is God.

Religion should also be a flexible process that evolves along with advances in new or more advanced research and technology - but instead of researching what exists, religion researches what is good and instead of developing material technology, religion develops spiritual technology that provides us with the best means to reach God, appropriately adjusted to the times and situations.

I thought I had already clarified this, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, You ask me for justification for a biblical position on origins.<<

Not really. You have no need whatsoever to justify your conclusions to me, they are entirely personal to you. I am simply attempting to understand better the process by which you arrive at that justification.

>>You keep saying I'm rejecting all this 'evidence' or 'knowledge'. Perhaps you could give an example of what you're talking about.<<

The expansion of our understanding of the universe came about over a number of centuries. I randomly picked three breakthrough events: the use of the telescope to refine our understanding of the positioning of the stars; the adoption of Newton's Principia to guide our thought processes ("We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."), and the use of the electromagnetic spectrum to explore the earliest phases of the cosmos.

It is of interest to me that the strength of your belief system can happily override the masses of contrary evidence that has accumulated over the past five or so centuries through the use of these discoveries.

The same tools are currently employed to send a man-made device to examine the surface of Pluto, after a journey of some nine years and three billion miles. So far, the results being sent back to us support our understanding of the origins of the universe, none of which involve the creation of our planet a mere handful of millennia ago, via a divine force.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/14/pluto_new_horizons_science/

"...it now seems that Pluto's moons were formed in much the same way as ours were, according to current data. Pluto appears to have suffered a massive impact from another body, causing its moons to form. Knowing this sort of data is crucial to cosmological theory about how the Solar System was formed."

To reject the entire body of science involved, in favour of the simplistic "God did it", seems to me to illustrate an inordinately narrow view, and a substantial absence of natural curiosity.

Dear Pericles,

<<To reject the entire body of science involved, in favour of the simplistic "God did it", seems to me to illustrate an inordinately narrow view, and a substantial absence of natural curiosity.>>

There is a difference between rejecting and being indifferent. Though simplistic, being content with "God did it" is virtuous; though narrow I prefer the straight-and-narrow over the crooked; and though natural, not everyone needs to be afflicted with curiosity.

Dear YuYutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Religion is not about explaining the world, but about transcending that illusion as if the world is real and discovering that despite that façade, the only Reality is God. »
.

You may, perhaps recall, Yuyutsu, that when you first expressed that idea in reaction to one of my posts, some years back, I took you at your word and became quite concerned at what might happen to you when crossing a busy street if you really believed that the world is only an illusion and that” the only reality is God”.

Since then, I must say that, happily, I am completely reassured by your constant presence here on the OLO forum, apparently still in one piece and in reasonably good spirits. I no longer fear for your safety and wish you a continued long and healthy life.

I guess the moral of the story is that, when all is said and done, there is some good in the much decried gap between theory and practice. – even when it is the preacher himself who does not put into practice what he preaches.

.

Very well put, Banjo.

Pericles,
You accuse me of rejecting five hundred years of modern science. This is not true. I very much appreciate the benefits and insights gained from modern science.

But before elaborating, I'm wondering about what you meant when talking about justification. You challenge me to justify my position, but then turn around and say that I don't have to justify my position to you. So to whom am I addressing my justification?