by jimwalton » Tue May 19, 2015 4:18 pm
> Many different religious texts fit this description.
Actually and realistically, I'm not sure that many do. The Hindu texts don't. Nor do Buddhist or Confucian texts. Even the Qur'an is not really the story of God's intervention in and interaction with the history of humanity, though it is more so than the other holy books. In truth, very few religious texts deal with God's historical interactions and interventions.
> Any prophesy that is more clear and specific than a horoscope should be subject to scientific evaluation.
Well, sort of, depending on the prophecy. There are prophecies, for instance, that say the Messiah would be from Bethlehem, that he would do miraculous things, that he would ride a donkey into Jerusalem, that men would gamble for his clothes, that he would be pierced, but no bones broken. Are these subject to scientific evaluation as they relate to Jesus? But if you want scientific evaluation, for instance, can you prove to me, scientifically, that Paul Revere rode from town to town declaring that the British were coming? Can you prove to me scientifically that Crispus Attucks was the first man killed in the Revolutionary War? Science can only take us so far in historical matters. And what of prophecy? Several years ago I said that the Seattle Seahawks would soon win the Super Bowl. Was I right? Yep. Can I prove it to you scientifically? Nope. Does that mean I didn't say it? Nope, but it's not subject to scientific verification. You're demanding the wrong evidence for the issue at hand.
> The resurrection of Jesus
You want scientific evaluation. What does that even mean? You want a scientific study on a body that isn't there? You want proof that people claim they saw something? A few years back I was in Vermont, walking down a road with some friends, and we all saw a catamount cross the road. The scientists will tell you there are no catamounts in Vermont, and yet we all saw it. Is this sighting subject to scientific evaluation? Nope. I can't prove it to you, but we all saw it. Did those people 2000 years ago see Jesus in his resurrection body? What "scientific evaluation" are you looking for?
> If you can articulate a specific significant effect God has on other things, that can be identified and anticipated, this effect can be evaluated.
I know a man named Roberto. He used to be a drug runner. He was a violent man, and was often in trouble with the police. He had been involved in robberies and you name it. In prison he became a Christian. He's a completely different person: kind, soft-spoken, caring, peaceful, honest and you name it. I say God produced a specific significant effect on him. Is that subject to scientific evaluation? Nope, but it's as real as real can be. Can his change in personality and character be evaluated? Absolutely. It's one example of millions around the world.
Lots of people I talk to denigrate anecdotal evidence, but not only do our courts accept such evidence in the prosecution of cases, we as normal human beings accept such evidence all the time pertaining to classes, professors, movies, restaurants, concerts, etc. To me it's a double standard to go by anecdotal evidence in so many areas of life, but to forbid it in questions of religion. A friend of mine just got back from Afghanistan and was telling us about it. Should I say, "I don't believe any of what you're telling me, because it's just anecdotal. I'll only believe it if you can give me the scientific evidence for what you're saying?" Of course not. That's absurd. We have to use the correct measure for the appropriate conversations.