Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!gargoyle!stuart From: stuart@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Stuart Kurtz) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: Can a thinking man accept the Bible? (various authors) Message-ID: <144@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Jun-84 18:17:08 EDT Article-I.D.: gargoyle.144 Posted: Tue Jun 5 18:17:08 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 06:15:17 EDT References: <897@ihuxi.UUCP> <153@mako.UUCP> Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science Lines: 46 > CAN ANYONE GIVE SOME EXAMINABLE, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE > CHRISTIANITY? There have been any number of challenges for evidence for Christianity recently. I'd like to speak from my own perspective: Lutheran (LCA -- for those who understand such detail), intellectual, and egalitarian. No, I can't give you any examinable, verifiable evidence to substantiate christianity, any more than you can give me examinable, verifiable evidence refuting christianity. To answer another question, I don't believe the objective evidence for christianity is obviously better than that for most of the other major religions of the world, or (as is implicit in the last sentence) no religion. This is not a concession. I simply think that you are asking the wrong questions. Science and theology are orthogonal. Using one in an attempt to analyze the other is misguided. Thus, I believe attempted "scientific" proofs and disproofs of the existence of God are as relevant to theology as the creation myth of Genesis is to explaining the origin of species. In the final analysis, you either believe or don't. The evidence in my life which leads me to my faith is neither examinable nor verifiable by a third party. I simply find my own life's experiences take meaning in the existence of God. The fact that I am Lutheran and not Jewish or Hindu is in all probability a historical accident; but I do find the teachings of Christ immediately relevant to *me*. I find the Christian theology intellectually exciting -- and to the extent I understand other religions, no other theology satisfies *me* so well. I scarcely expect that this will be the final word on the subject, but I would like to add my own plea for rationality. None of us are going to win any converts (to God/Humanism/Reason) over this net. This whole exercise in Christian/Atheist baiting does nothing but polish our ability to offend one another. I find discussions which explore the logical consequences of various beliefs more interesting than attacking those beliefs. For example: "Assuming Christ is raised, is his resurrection bodily or spiritual?" or even "Is the representation of Kalmari (sp?) in 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' accurate to Hindu beliefs?" ---------------------------------------- Stuart Kurtz : Department of Computer Science ihnp4!gargoyle!stuart : The University of Chicago