|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3404 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Non-scientific evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined:
|
Surprisingly, nobody has yet brought up Josh McDowell's fantastic book, 'More Than a Carpenter', which in chapter 4 addresses this. The book is online here
McDowell though, makes the case that historical events are themselves unprovable by the scientific method, and that historians themselves must of necessity go outside the scientific method to evaluate the accuracy of historical documents just as lawyers must to evaluate the accuracy of events which have occurred. As quoted from the book, pp. 38-39.
quote: Edited by Jzyehoshua, : fix tags Edited by Jzyehoshua, : fix typos, add last sentence Edited by Jzyehoshua, : removed bolding Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
quote: But does that scientist truly use the scientific method to do so? McDowell's point is that to do so, repeating it in a controlled environment, would allow you to show it COULD HAVE happened - it can prove possibility - but it can not go back in time and repeat the event itself. Therefore, the scientific method is often ineffective for evaluating past events - particularly those in the very distant past. History is by nature not something you can repeat in a controlled environment. Too many variables. Controlled environments try to minimize variables for isolated differentiation of what caused a given results. But with any historical event, there are many factors in play, and often limited ability to catalogue or track them afterward even if you wanted to try and perfectly repeat the event later in a controlled environment. Thus by the strict definition of the scientific method, repeating results via a controlled environment, it's tough to replicate historical events using solely the scientific method. After all, 'observation' is a key element of the scientific method, but without time travel, how can one do that for past historical events unless they were videotaped somehow? No one is saying the scientific method is useless. McDowell's point in the chapter is that it is merely not the method of choice when it comes to evaluating historical documents, and that historians rely on other methods for doing so. Though the online book I linked stopped at page 44, there is more info on this immediately after. McDowell in chapter 4, pp. 46-47, states:
quote: McDowell on pages 47-57 then details in depth how the Bible measures up to each of these tests for historicity. Some key points include: * Bibliographical test: According to McDowell, "The bibliographical test is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, not having the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copy?" (p. 47) To paraphrase, McDowell then points out that the History of Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) relies on just 8 MSS from about 900 A.D., 1,300 years after the writing of the original document. And yet, scholar F.F. Bruce states "No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals." Aristotle's poetics were written 343 B.C. is dated A.D. 1100, a 1400 year gap, with just 5 MSS existing. Caesar's history of the Gallic Wars, written 58-50 B.C., depend on 9 or 10 copies dating a milennia after he died. McDowell states, "When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is almost embarrassing in contrast. After the early papyri manuscript discoveries that bridged the gap between the times of Christ and the second century, an abundance of other MSS came to light. Over 20,000 copies of New Testament manuscripts are in existence today. The Iliad has 643 MSS and is second in manuscript authority after the New Testament." (p. 48) At any rate, McDowell's point is that the Bible is foremost in the world when it comes to existence of reliable manuscripts, and that the accuracy of the earliest in comparison to those now in existence shows they were as reliably transmitted over a period of at least 1900 years as for any historical document ever examined. * Internal Evidence Test: According to McDowell, "At this point the literary critic still follows Aristotle's dictum: 'The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself.' In other words, as John W. Montgomery summarrizes: 'One must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.'" (pp 49-50) McDowell afterwards references the known closeness to the events by the writers, citing Luke 1:1-3, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:3, John 19:35, and Luke 3:1. He then makes the point, based off earlier points (p. 44) that recent discoveries of accurate early N.T documents have since proved the New Testament's early date (e.g. John Ryland manuscript, A.D. 130), that "The New Testament accounts of Christ were being circulated within the lifetimes of those alive at the time of his life. These people could certainly confirm or deny the accuracy of the accounts. In advocating their case for the gospel, the apostles had appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning Jesus. They not only said, 'Look, we saw this' or 'We heard that...' but they turned the tables around and right in front of adverse critics said, 'You also know about these things... You saw them; you yourselves know about it.' One had better be careful when he says to his opposition, 'You know this also,' because if he isn't right in the details, it will be shoved right back down his throat." (pp. 51-52) McDowell cites Acts 2:22 and Acts 26:24-28, and cites scholars who make the point of hostile opponents serving as a corrective to potential inaccuracies. * External Evidence Test: According to McDowell, "The issue here is whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony of the documents themselves. In other words, what sources are there, apart from the literature under analysis, that substantiate its accuracy, reliability, and authenticity?" (pp. 54-55) Without going in depth, the sources referenced by McDowell as corroboration of the New Testament events include Eusebius, Irenaeus, while citing numerous scholars (Joseph Free, William Ramsey, F.F. Bruce, A.N. Sherwin-White, and Clark Pinnock) in making the case that archeology decisively supports the Biblical records and has even vindicated it against accusations of historical inaccuracy by skeptics. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
quote: Yes, they can. But do they do so with the scientific method? I am suggesting they use other methods to prove this, per McDowell's point: "The other method of proof, the legal-historical proof, is based on showing that something is a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, we reach a verdict on the weight of the evidence and have no rational basis for doubting the decision. Legal-historical proof depends on three kinds of testimony: oral testimony, written testimony, and exhibits (such as a gun, a bullet, or a notebook). Using the legal-historical method to determine the facts, you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you went to lunch today. Your friends saw you there, the waiter remembers seeing you, and you have the restaurant receipt."
quote: Hence my point. If we don't have time travel, then the 'observation' part of the scientific method is tough to apply to historical events, right? And you'd have to use the legal-historical method McDowell refers to based on oral testimony, written testimony, and exhibits - correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined:
|
All I am saying is that I agree with McDowell. The scientific method needs observation and repeated results, yet this doesn't apply well to events in the distant past, since you can't repeat historical events perfectly under normal circumstances.
My point is that we should be using different criteria, namely the legal-historical method historians use when determining the accuracy of historical documents, for evaluating the accuracy of the Bible. The scientific method won't work for proving whether the events happened or whether they didn't; and thus can't evaluate the historicity or document reliability of a historical document, aka the Bible. Oral testimony, written testimony, and exhibits. Is the evidence there? That's a whole other debate - all I was doing was making the point that that's the evidence we should be evaluating the Bible by, and whether events written about by it occurred, not the scientific method.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
quote: Of course. Not debating that. Just quibbling I guess on what that involves. McDowell's point is just that rather than trying to decide in a controlled environment whether Jesus could turn water into wine, we should be looking at the manuscript evidence for the New Testament, the internal consistency for the Bible (does it contradict itself, and are the witnesses reliable?), and whether there are corroborating external sources supporting what it says, such as archeology or mentions in ancient literature. One way is to look at repeating results in a laboratory setting. Another way is to take the court room approach, and evaluate probable cause for doubt, giving benefit of the doubt (innocent until proven guilty), and looking at witnesses and exhibits to evaluate probability. McDowell would make the point that for such a court room approach you do not need 100% certainty, rather simply a weighing of likelihood and reasonable certainty. It's just different perspectives, and depends on what one's evaluating. If the likelihood of miracles, one might focus on the former - although if miracles are supernatural, one might question whether they can occur naturally merely by human effort. And if the accuracy of a document, probably the latter. I suppose different people might hone in on different approaches even. Whereas a scientist might demand convincing via the former, a lawyer or historian might well get convinced via the latter. Simply trying to evaluate perspectives. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
quote: Perhaps, but if so then Biblical belief is not by your definition 'religious belief' since evidence does indeed play some role. To prove my point, what better source than the Bible itself?
quote: The Bible calls 'noble' those who questioned the Scriptures and examined them firsthand to decide for themselves whether they were accurate. Evidence and a thought process is indeed Biblical, so long as done with "all readiness of mind" and given it a fair shot to prove itself. Paul himself stated he used different approaches based on his audience.
quote: This is seen from the book of Acts. Whereas Paul quotes scripture to make his points from prophecy to the Jews, he quotes philosophers, making points from reason and examination of the universe when talking to the Greeks.
quote: This is to be contrasted with Acts 13 or 26-27, where when speaking to those who believe the Scriptures, Paul quotes the Scripture and prophesy as well as Jewish history.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
I think this is actually a matter of faith built up over time. Christians tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Bible. They've seen God work in their lives and in their hearts, and how often the Bible is right about major truths of how the universe works. Thus when encountering a controversy surrounding the Bible, their inclination is to give it the benefit of the doubt unless all alternatives are exhausted, and even then to ascertain whether this is just an isolated case whereby they may not fully understand the whole picture and all alternatives.
Evolutionists give the benefit of the doubt to Darwin. He was indeed right about natural selection and adaptation to the environment in his book 'On the Origin of Species'. However, whether these alone are indeed reason to accept his admitted theorizings in the book about whether all species had a common ancestor (he himself admitted evidence for parent species - though he doesn't believe in them - can at times even be strong, and if shown true would render his theory wrong), or all life came about from a purely naturalistic basis (Lyell, who invented uniformitarianism and strongly influenced Darwin, the belief that the past was the same as the present and the basis for believing carbon 14 levels were the same then as now, did so to find an alternative to catastrophism and Noah's flood to deny that world-changing catastrophes occurred and suggesting long-term, purely naturalistic change over a long time period). Darwin himself stated, "Naturalists continually refer to external conditions, such as climate, food, etc., as the only possible cause of variation". In doing so as a naturalist, he excluded from the beginning the possibility of anything but external conditions resulting in his observations, and thus was engaging in circular reasoning, seeking to prove a naturalistic basis while excluding all possible alternatives. But I digress. Point is, Darwin related not only his findings, but also his personal theorizing in the book: "In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species." His theories were picked up as fact. While we can observe natural selection and adaptation to the environment, this theory, that all species had a common ancestor, or that a cosmic collision of particles created, via a purely naturalistic basis all that now is, rely on circumstantial evidence open to interpretation. Darwin's credited co-discoverer of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, was even blackballed by the scientific community later for his publicly stated views that a spiritual entity was responsible for the inbreathing of life and creation of spirit in human beings. While Wallace was certainly no Christian and believed in mediums, it showed the clear agenda in the scientific community to exclude all non-naturalistic alternatives from even being considered, and to discriminate against even the most qualified proponents of such beliefs. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : fixed broken link Edited by Jzyehoshua, : typo fixing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
I would be interested in hearing what this contrary evidence involves. As someone who follows recent scientific discoveries, I see this pointing the other way. For example, discoveries in recent years have shown that:
A) The world's ancient marine life was simultaneously extinguished by an underwater volcanic eruption near China. This is interesting since in Genesis it talks about 'the fountains of the deep breaking up' which to me has always been suggestive of underwater volcanic activity. Such a flood has always seemed to me a plausible possibility for the breaking up of Pangaea, and it's a shame scientists have refused to consider that or even mention its possibility.Sources: New York Times, Bloomberg.com B) The inner earth may hold more water than the seas.Source: National Geographic C) Huge ocean discovered inside the earth recently.Source: LiveScience, PhysOrg Additionally, there is the mere act of fossilization, which requires covering something so fast bacteria can't destroy it. Sinking down gradually into swamps doesn't allow for this. And how do you fossilize footprints if not covering them rapidly from above? Josh McDowell in his book 'Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity' addressed these points as well as others, including the mixing of fossil deposits worldwide from different strata (one example given is a quote by Wilfred Francis about the Amber beds of East Prussia, "Within the lumps of amber are found insects, snails, coral and small portions of plant life. These are of modern type that are now found in both tropical and cold temperature regions. Pine leaves are present, of the types now growing in Japan and North America..."). I personally have also found interesting the similarities in flood legends worldwide, particularly those in North America compared to the Middle East. Often there are doves or ravens mentioned, extinction of the human race, survival in an ark-like object, a giant deluge, and few survivors. Particularly with the book of Genesis, the events are world history, so one would expect to see them mentioned elsewhere in ancient cultures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
I really don't know of any evidence contrary to the Biblical basis for a flood. The only lines of reasoning I can ever recall even hearing were along the lines of "there couldn't be that much water" or "there couldn't be that many animals on the ark" or "the earth couldn't repopulate that fast".
With the first, new discoveries are of course removing basis for such doubts. Not to mention the growth of mountains in recent years. Land would've been flatter then, right? So, less water height needed. Given no ice caps, an atmosphere disposing itself fully, and lower mountains, I could see this being explained readily. With the second, I believe in microevolution, the idea Darwin ponders on pages 16-17 of 'On the Origin of Species', and parent species being the reality, as opposed to all species having a common ancestor. As Darwin there states,
quote:Therefore, with these original parent species, you would not need many animals on the ark. You would need just these core parent species which then branch out into all the known varieties seen today, following the flood. Perhaps continental drift even occurred following the flood, so that animals went onto land masses as they were separating during that time after the flood. And thirdly, population growth occurs much faster when there is more land and room to grow. For example, large families were more common in America's early days, with many having 10 or more children. I'd read before on how different factors affect this, but don't recall that well what all went into it. By all means feel free to elaborate on this. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : typo Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
quote: Both clearly state it was 'marine life'.
quote: The Aramaic translated 'fountains of the great deep broken up' in Genesis 7:11 has following definitions according to Strong's Greek Dictionary (these can be seen readily by downloading a demo of PowerBible which has an interlinear tool showing the original Greek/Hebrew):
quote: So basically you're talking about big fountains surging out of the subterranean. It's even possible to search the Bible for each root Hebrew word individually to see how it's used in each sentence in the Bible, a tactic I've used on occasion when really confused about meaning. While I suppose it could mean just a rip in the ocean floor, I think it logical that big fountains erupting brings to mind volcanoes. It could go either way though, but it's a reasonable alternative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
The problem is, this is differing about the age of the earth, not probability of a flood. And archeology does acknowledge a flood, correct? You would just say it's around several million years ago I believe (another news discovery I read about somewhere - need to dig it up).
While I don't think the earth 6000 years old, neither do I consider life billions of years old either. We are relying on the assumption that carbon 14 aged at the same rate, again off of Lyell's concept of Uniformitarianism and "the present is the key to the past", which originally rejected catastrophism - even though even Evolutionists now believe world-changing catastrophes altered the global environment. Furthermore, why could the speed with which carbon 14 decays have been affected by such things as a global flood, meteor shower-induced dust storms blotting out the sun, or an ice age(s)? One would think such atmosphere-affecting catastrophes might affect carbon decay rates and possibly tree ring growth levels, yet we are assuming they stayed the same. Why? I did google channeled scablands. I get the idea. It would leave behind structures like the Grand Canyon, right? Or mass fossilization? Some of this McDowell addressed, such as the Hamilton Sandstone at Mount Marion, NY, which preserved casts of over 400 starfish, some of which died hovering over clams they were in the act of devouring. (p. 206, 'Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity'). Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
quote: Please state where in the article you've decided the Bloomberg article says it wasn't underwater. These articles by ScienceDaily and Discover Magazine specifically state the eruptions occurred in a 'shallow sea'. Here's another by National Geographic. I believe it's referenced on Wikipedia as the 'Permian-Triassic extinction event', in which case they have another 100 sources related to this. In the Volcanism section there, it also mentions other news about the flood basalt events (has also been in the news lately) and below that, drops in the C12/C13 levels due to a massive release of methane documented. Interestingly, I haven't seen mention of C14 yet, which makes me wonder if they're trying to avoid examining that particular minefield. Oh well. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024