AJ,
You're saying that scepticism is an integral part of the scientific process. So if others make the claim that dinosaurs morphed into birds at some time in the past, or some other animal at some point unseen changed into a completely different form, am I allowed to be a bit sceptical towards that claim?

Rhian,
When I asked what you thought happened to Jesus' body, I took it as given that you would have thought that his friends took his body from the cross and laid it in a tomb. Why? Because that what the Scriptures say. I would have thought you'd have read that far.

If you're not able to follow the plain account of Scripture, then I don't know how we could have any meaningful discussion about anything found therein. It's not my modern, post enlightenment, skewed reading that I'm imposing onto Scripture to say simply this: Jesus died on a Roman cross. His friends took his body down, and laid it in a tomb. Over subsequent days and weeks Jesus appeared to numerous of his followers on several occasions, sufficient to convince them that he had risen from the dead.

This isn't me making up something that isn't plainly written there. I think that once you start doubting the basics, you may as well toss the whole thing out. I can't keep track of which bits you're wanting to keep.

Even Swiss cheese can only have so many holes before it stops being viable.

That is correct, Dan.

<<You're saying that scepticism is an integral part of the scientific process.>>

Just bear in mind my distinction between scepticism and denialism. It will save a lot of confusion.

<<So if others make the claim that dinosaurs morphed into birds at some time in the past…>>

Not morphed, evolved. Morphing is done with computers on the same object, and no one dinosaur morphed into a bird - as the word 'morph' would imply. Please choose less emotive language if you want to be taken seriously.

<<…or some other animal at some point unseen changed into a completely different form, am I allowed to be a bit sceptical towards that claim?>>

Absolutely. I would be sceptical too, as this would completely contradict evolution and turn biology on its head. This would be worldview-altering stuff.

SDM: This isn't me making up something that isn't plainly written there. I think that once you start doubting the basics, you may as well toss the whole thing out.

The Gospels were written by four different people who had never met or knew Joshua, aka Jesus. They were written 60 to 160 years after the death of Joshua, aka Jesus. The authors compiled their stories based on what they had heard from various sources, who had heard the stories from other people. Therefore they are all Hear-say, which accounts for the huge differences.

I doubt very much that Joshua, aka Jesus died on the Cross. He couldn't have. Not in that short of time.

Hi Banjo

The concise OED (I don’t have access to the full version) gives more than one definition of “real”. It also gives “relating to something as it is, not merely as it may be described”, “not artificial”, “genuine”. These are closer to my meaning, and also I think widely accepted in everyday language. Few people would find the statements “she really loves me” or “Elgar’s cello concerto is really beautiful” logically incoherent, even though neither accords with your definition of “real”.

Likewise, “experience” has more than one meaning. OED also gives “feel”. Chambers Dictionary gives “the practical acquaintance of anything gained by trial” (similar to the OED definition you quote) but also includes “wisdom derived from the changes and trials of life”, “anything received by the mind, such as sensation, perception and knowledge” and “to feel, suffer or undergo”. It is in these latter senses that the church experiences the risen Christ.

Hi Dan

I have read the scriptures, and continue to read them regularly. But I do not take them all literally. I certainly don’t accuse you of making things up, and I respect the seriousness with which you take scripture. But what you call doubting the basics may be a different form of belief. I don’t deny the resurrection, I just don’t think it means the same thing you think it means. Or more accurately; we probably both agree on the most important things that it means, but disagree on whether it took bodily form.

If you peer in the holes of your Swiss cheese, you might find a world worth exploring.

.

Dear Rhian,

.

Thanks for indicating your choice among the numerous OED definitions of the words you employ, in particular for “real” and “experience”.

You didn’t mention which edition of the Concise OED you refer to. The most recent edition is the 12th edition, published in 2011.

Might I suggest you consult the online edition which is frequently up-dated. It was last up-dated in August 2015.

There is usually one main definition and supplementary definitions depending on particular contexts. The dictionary provides a practical example of the context in which each definition applies.

The context in which you employed the word “experience” was: « The church experiences the risen Christ and tries to understand, live, and communicate that experience ».

The main OED definition of the verb “experience” is “encounter or undergo (an event or occurrence). The supplementary definition is: “feel (an emotion or sensation)”, as, for example: “an opportunity to experience the excitement of New York”.

It seems to me you are employing the word “experience” out of context if, as you write, you mean “feel (an emotion or sensation)”. I doubt that anybody would understand that you are referring to the emotions of “the church” (as the OED example refers to “the excitement of New York”).

The context in which you employ the word “experience”, (“the church experiences the risen Christ and tries to understand, live, and communicate that experience”) is about trying to understand something, putting it into practice and communicating it.

There is no hint of “feeling” in that context.

The more appropriate word is “belief”, not “experience”.
.

Also, your definition of “real” is fine in the contexts you indicate (She really loves me. Elgar’s cello concerto is really beautiful) but not so for the word “reality” when you write: “Christian liturgy … celebrates and symbolises a present reality … Perhaps the most important thing is not that Jesus was resurrected, but that he is resurrected”.

The reality of the resurrection of Jesus has never been established. It is not “reality”. It is “religious doctrine” (c.f., the OED definition of “reality) :

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/

.

.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

.

You observe :

« You sound very French. I've heard that the typical Frenchman thinks of himself as a Catholic atheist. I also like your next definition of yourself as simply "a very ordinary person". That sounds quite appealing, if I could borrow it for myself. I like to think of myself like that ... »

I might sound French, Dan, but I’m afraid I haven’t quite got there yet, despite having lived in France for half a century – with a French wife, French children and French grand-children. I’m the only foreigner in the family.

With a name like that, you are probably more French than I am – but obviously, not a “typical Frenchman”.
.

You add :

« … but I feel I have to add the word 'believer'. It's what God has made me »

I’m sorry about that, Dan. That’s a heavy cross to bear. I’m glad it didn’t fall on my shoulders.
.

Then remark :

« So the gospels require faith of a particular type, which is difficult. You presumably wouldn't believe something so out of this world without good reason »

That’s correct, Dan. I usually try to keep my beliefs to a strict minimum. They tend to cloud my vision. I’ve got enough on my hands trying to fathom out all the con men who cross my path on this God-forsaken earth, let alone all the invisible creatures that might be hovering around somewhere promising and threatening this, that and whatever.

It’s a little too much for me to handle, Dan. As I said, I’m just a very ordinary person.

But I could do with a little company if you’d like to join me. By all means, please do.

.