Saturday, July 4, 2020

How Scientific Pretenders of Any Stripe May Well Be Caught with their Pants Down, Part 2

…On the Day They Face the Judgment of Jesus Whom they Naively Denied 


…that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” (Philippians 2:11)



            I highlight the word, “pretenders” (title, above)  for the reason that I reject the view that science is anti-theistic.  Science, according to its simple classical definition, is the study of physical entities and the occurrence of interactions between them.  In line with these parameters, every careful scientist:
o   Will acknowledge that scientific knowledge, although vital, is NOT the totality of either factual data or rationality.  Indeed scientific research as a discipline can only be rationally justified by means of non-scientific (religious and philosophical) reasons.[1]
o   Will acknowledge the boundaries within which science has authority to pronounce judgments.
o   Will thereby acknowledge that science cannot disprove or dismiss the possibility of miracle.  
o   Will assemble and analyze ALL evidence that is relevant to the given investigational program.
o   Grants that hypotheses about phenomenal relationships cannot be absolutely proved.
o   Will NOT settle for only disproving hypotheses posed by other parties; but rather seek to disprove their own as well.  
o   Will further employ the same scientific investigation strategy that was used in Charles Darwin’s research for his seminal work, On the Origin of Species, which is called “abductive reasoning.”  This positive methodology is defined as “beginning with an observation or set of observations, and then seeking to find the simplest and most likely conclusion from these observations.”  This methodology is most effective when applied in a context where the data is both acknowledged by all, and where a plurality of competing hypotheses are proposed, each of which seek to offer the best explanation of that data.  In summary, scientists do not settle for knocking down hypotheses, but attempt to explain them better than does their competition!
To the question then, “Was Jesus raised from the dead?” any reply which limits itself to merely denying that claim must, in light of especially the last point (just above), be judged amateurish and sub-scientific.  Authentic scientists will instead firstly face the following body of historically-sound facts:[2]
1) Jesus died due to the rigors of crucifixion, 2) Was buried, 3) His death caused the disciples to despair, 4) the tomb was found to be empty a few days later, 5) The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus,  6) They were transformed from fearful doubters into bold proclaimers who willingly died for their message, 7) This message was at the center of their preaching, 8) which was first proclaimed in Jerusalem, the very “scene of the crime,” 9) As a result of their preaching, the church was born and grew.  10) Sunday became the new primary day of worship, 11) James, Jesus’ own brother who had been a skeptic became converted and transformed by his experience of seeing the risen Jesus, and 12) Sometime later Paul, the great persecutor of the early Jesus movement, was converted and transformed by seeing the risen Jesus.



[1] Empirical scientific research began NOT in ancient Greece or Asia, but by Christians who assumed by their belief in God, that since He created nature, the latter too must have rational order at all levels.  Secondly, the validity of logical inference is grounded by philosophical arguments.
[2]Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? (Harper and Row, 1987), pp. 19-20.  In his debate against former atheist, the late Antony Flew, New Testament scholar Dr. Gary Habermas laid out twelve historical facts which are deemed to be historically sound by the vast majority of historians, many of whom don’t necessarily believe that they prove Jesus rose from the dead. Hence, they offer alternative hypotheses.

No comments:

Post a Comment