Proving Christianity with Science
Written by ED on June 13, 2008 – 9:05 am - Posted in Christianity, Society |It’s always interesting to see how debates on the existence of Jesus Christ often beckoned for scientific evidences. Science is everything, we thought. Yet, science isn’t everything too. Compared to Mother Earth, our science today is still relatively primitive. Just imagine how much of the ocean have we not explored. Science has not pinned a definite answer to that yet.
This time, an ancient site had been discovered and is believed to be our World’s First Church. I am not too sure how they come up with that title, and how would they know if it’s the first? In the good old days, churches are built over churches, expanding in size and territory. In the ancient times, that’s precisely what they do. Finding another old church “buried” under an existing church is no surprising find, especially if that plot of land is considered holy.
Take for instance, the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem is known to be the only infrastructural remains of the Solomon’s original temple - Temple Mount. It was destroyed and built in its place, a second church. The wall survived and remain standing until this very day. So who knows under this newly discovered site, there is another first buried underneath? We wouldn’t know seriously.
Many of these buildings are either in ruins or have vanished from the surface of Earth completely. Thanks to the destruction of empires and subsequent environmental damage caused by us, the future generations, studying these buildings is no easy feat. Sometimes, I admire these archaeologists for their kind of persistence and commitment in uncovering our lost history.
Another example is The Spear of Destiny, some whom called it The Holy Lance. Skeptics had it, that the origins of this relic is untested and unproven. These skeptics said it too soon. The Spear of Destiny was sent for scientific test and was proven to be indeed consistent with the time-line of Jesus Christ’s crucification. Overnight, skepticism on the The Spear of Destiny went dead silent. However, there have been several different relics claiming to be The Spear of Destiny. Let’s just go with the “science-proven” spear, to satisfy the skeptics.
The only setback I see in The Spear of Destiny scientific test, is the lack of blood which can be used for DNA testing. It’s only expected. Why? DNA last only a certain period of time, and at times longer if preserved under the right environmental conditions. That explained why even though some dinosaurs are found, but their DNA with reference to each other is difficult to match. DNA does indeed erode with time.
I believe many Christians are often challenged, to prove Christianity with science. It’s actually quite interesting to use science as the benchmark for truth, when we know science can be equally flawed. Just think about the amount of engineering disasters we have seen in our lifetime due to improper science usage. I also often tell friends around me, our science is “advanced” but just look at how much things we still have not learnt about Earth.
I wouldn’t say the Bible ain’t flawed, for a simple fact. It had gone through countless translations across languages in an attempt to pin the most accurate version. Until today, changes in translations are still taking place. By the way, do you know the first Chinese Bible in China wasn’t penned by a Chinese. It was a western father who travelled to China, just to study Mandarin and subsequently translate the Bible. Given such circumstances, errors are inevitable and we can only continue to refine the Bible. Many of us don’t even study the language of Hebrews anyway.
It’s funny how skeptics often hold themselves back from acknowledging their own mistakes, while demanding for various parties to prove their case. They asked for science in this case, and we gave them science. But now that scientific evidences are slowly being presented, they choose to ignore the science they preached time and again. Is it a matter of not being proven scientifically, or is it just an issue of not choosing to believe anything at all?
It’s also mind-boggling at times, when skeptics all over the world choose not to discuss on events and episodes that they attempted to find some reasonings with science, but failed to uncover the secrets behind certain phenomenons.
I never fail to laugh when I am often ridiculed for being narrow-minded. Whenever I think of all these issues, it’s always a case of pot calling the kettle black. Who are the ones who are narrow-minded and refuse to acknowledge their very own scientific discoveries? While at the same time, we are often labelled as “narrow-minded” not to open up ourselves to other possibilities. My standard answer is always, there are no reasons convincing enough for me to change my grounds. I believe that time will tell, and indeed, time is beginning to come out of the shadows with the discovery of the buildings and relics like I mentioned above.
Mother Earth is considered relatively young, and most scientific studies dated back only to 70 millions years ago. Now comes the big question for those science-obsessed, how much does our science tells us about life before these 70 millions years? Well, science can’t. And when science can’t, is it really that reliable afterall?
Is proving “religions” with science really such a feasible idea? Perhaps, just enough to silence the skeptics and affirm God’s Words.
Hey, you wanted science, isn’t it?
June 13th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Interesting article, Ed, but I have an issue with one of your statements:
The Bible is NOT flawed at all. Translations might be, but NOT the Bible itself. Today we have an increase in knowledge where many scholars and layman are able to read Greek and Hebrew and therefore validate translations.
To make a sweeping statement that the Bible is flawed is dangerous. Again, I reiterate, the Bible is NOT flawed, but translations can be. Hopefully you are addressing the translations themselves, but it isn’t quite clear. At the present moment, it’s quite misleading if that’s your initial point.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I’m not very well versed with the Bible so anyone mind telling me who wrote the Bible? Just a curiosity…
June 20th, 2008 at 5:47 am
Sorry you are right, I am skeptical. As for the ‘proof’ you presented, it just shows the existence of the earliest church. It doesn’t prove the divinity of any supreme being.
Regarding the spear. There are two logical gaps which you need to overcome first in order to present it as evidence. You did show the age of the spear but you still need to prove that the blood of Christ existed on the spear. I would think that the blood of a supreme being would last forever and not be perishable like normal human blood.
In the absence of any blood, all you can rigourously say is that the spear is this amount of years old which is consistent with the time line of Jesus. But I would call that ‘evidence’ circumstantial at best.
Second logical gap is that even if you showed a ‘religious teacher/rabbi’ (as the Jews of old used to call him) like Jesus existed, you need even stronger proof to show that he is God. Testimony and writings isn’t good enough because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I find it strange that there were many Jesus sightings reported immediately after his cruxifiction but no real evidence of his sightings in the modern real world. I am not talking about vague ’sightings’ and testimony like stains on a wall or the shape of a cloud. Those are subjective- when I look at a cloud I sometimes see a ship or a dog but that doesn’t mean I believe a cloud is a ship or a cloud. In this age of video recorders and you-tube, it is so strange that no one has showed Jesus appearing. (unlike the sightings reported in the bible)
There also should be more evidence than just archaeological ‘evidence’. Why? Because God didn’t merely live 2000 years ago but he is suppose to live in the here and now too. (I am talking about objective evidence, not subjective evidence that is due to wishful thinking).
I think you have a misconception between a skeptic an a cynic. A cynic is one who closes his mind regardless of the evidence and arguments. A skeptic is one with an open mind to any possibility but he demands to be convinced first and requires rigourous proof.
I am open to the idea of Jesus as God, just as I am open to the idea of Thor or Zeus as God. But first I need convincing proof. Thats why I am a skeptic.
You want to prove God exists and listens to prayers. Simple. Show that praying to God heals amputees. Then there will be no room for doubt and I will be convinced to his existence.
I am open to other forms of proof and I invite you to come up with other forms of proof.
But please make sure they are as rigourous as scientific proofs. Which should be no difficulty for you since science is primitive.
Thank you qwerty for your extensive comment.
I am indeed addressing skeptics because many skeptics do not realized they have their mind closed. Cynics on the other hand, are natural skeptics otherwise they will not be skeptic. In general, skeptics do not accept any other forms of evidence except to see evidences in physical form, circumstantial or not. Just try and think about physical law that you can see in our courts, you can still convict someone based on circumstantial evidences. Have our courts been wrong?
The blood of Christ is something that has been demanded by many skeptics. Yet, the skeptics has blatantly forgotten the fact that Jesus was born as a human baby, in human body, both flesh and blood. That’s to say, like any of us, the DNA may and will erode over time.
A matter of scientific fact, scientists are already having a hard time trying to extract DNA from Egyptian Mummies, supposedly to be “well preserved”. This is another good comparison to tell us that, yes, such biological evidences can vanish.
The second logical gap is pretty wide open. Whenever someone asks me about sightings, they are often relating to the point where Jesus was crucified. Do take note, you are basing first century sightings with modern-day tools like Youtube & video cameras. My question in return is extremely layman, do video cameras or broadcasting stations exist in the 1st century to document Jesus’s existence other than written records? The answer is pretty straightforward.
In modern-world, stigmata(s) that appeared on human bodies are by far, fake, in the majority of sightings. Some of them are just self-inflicted and claimed as stigmata. There are still a very very small handful of genuine stigmata(s) which medical science is unable to rebutt. They just cannot pin a logical medical explanation to the bleeding marks.
From the transition from a borned human to a holy spiritual being, it is perfectly logical that sightings will not be easy. Not something like you walking into a wet market and… ahhhh there it is! That’s why it’s holy.
I am sure we know about high society individuals who are rich because of their money laundering activities. They pretty much stay out of sight, and not known to the public. Can we therefore say, they (or money laundering activities) do not exist? We know that’s not possible.
Just like how skeptics often ask for physical evidences all the time, what evidences do skeptics have to prove the non-existence of Jesus (and his world) without any doubts?
The circumstantial evidences and archeological discoveries over the years are just a good head-start to affirm His existence.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Oh one more thing, could you show me the link to the peer reviewed article/journal that describes the age of the spear.
I have been unsuccessfully looking for it on google scholar. I would be happy if you could provide me a link. I want to know more about the origin and study of the relic.
Here are some that you might want to read, mostly brief coverages by publications. Like you, I am still trying to locate the full scientific report.
My heart is telling me the full report will not be easily available, just like Princess Diana’s accident report.
1. Spear of Destiny: The art and legend of the lance of Longinus
2. Piercing an ancient tale
You might want to search along the line based on the names provided in these articles. My search has not been fruitful.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
[...] 1:40 pm - Posted in Christianity, Life | Qwerty’s comment in where I discussed about proving Christianity with Science, aroused my attention to another issue which I long wanted to talk about. This is not to rebutt [...]
June 20th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Dear ED. Thank you for your reply.
To be honest, arriving at a conclusion is more important to me than the conclusion itself. (must be my training as a physicist). That is why I squirm whenever I encounter other atheists who reach their conclusions without being able to justify their decision although I am an atheist myself.
In my first post, I showed how skepticism and cynicism are two different concepts. So by definition those ’skeptics’ you mentioned are really cynics and not skeptics which is different.
I am using the definition of evidence in science which is far more rigourous than that in courts. When you are dealing with fundamental questions like reality and a supreme being, you have to be more rigourous.
But you want to use the examples of courts, even in courts there would have to be other circumstantial evidences to back other circumstantial evidence. There is only one evidence leading to its age but there are no other circumstantial evidence showing it pierced christ. Considering the fact, that spears were very common at that time makes it even more unlikely.
Despite even evidence used in courts, the courts make mistake, what more for religious claims which rely on no evidence at all.. I think more mistakes will be made.
‘In general, skeptics do not accept any other forms of evidence except to see evidences in physical form, circumstantial or not’
I am sorry but proof, by definition, has to be objective and real otherwise it cannot be considered proof.
Say for example, I tell you that I have proof in a sphagetti monster but the proof is not physical but spiritual to me and that you’ll have to open your mind to experience it. Would you believe me? Why not? Because such claims are neither objective nor physical. It is instead a subjective point of view I am putting forward.
My point about the cameras is not about the writings(or medium of transmission) but the inconsistencies of frequency when you compare 2000 years ago and now. Since God transcends time, we should also be seeing non archaelogical evidence as well and all the more so in this modern age(because of modern recording). But why were sightings so common back then and non-existent now. That seems fishy to me.
I am highly skeptical about stigmatas because I couldn’t find any medical journal that did a study on stigmatas. You have to understand that scientists by nature are very curious people and if there is an interesting mystery like stigmatas a lot of scientists would be studying them but I have yet to find any of the cases you mentioned ‘that medical science has been unable to refute’. We don’t close our eyes each time we find something that confounds us.
‘Just like how skeptics often ask for physical evidences all the time, what evidences do skeptics have to prove the non-existence of Jesus (and his world) without any doubts?’
Using the same logic, I cannot disprove unicorns so they must exist? When you make a claim, the onus is for you to prove it and not for me to disprove it. This are some of the rules of logic/arguments I learnt when I was an undergrad.
For example, when pharmecutical companies introduce a new drug into the market, it is up to them to prove its use and safety and not for the public to disprove it.
So even if people are laundering money, it is still up to you who make the claim to bear the burden of proof. That said money launders are more plausible because their existence doesn’t violate our natural understanding of the universe.
But even so, you still need proof for their existence. Do you know there are special detectives who investigate money launders. How do they do that? They look for evidence in balance sheets, income statements and receipts etc…
Anyway, in your post you were talking about evidence and not faith.
I think it is alright if one talks about one’s belief as a statement of faith and how it makes one a better person.
But as for evidence, it seems to be not compelling at all.
Circumstantial evidences are very interesting, because the way most lawyers and prosecutors use them, is in the manner where no other logic or motion in reality can explain a certain result or phenomenon. Courts may be wrong, but standing records still tell us they are mostly right. One mistake is insufficient to say all others are also mistakes, right?
Sightings and stigmatas are in rarity, that’s one thing I feel most people must understand. Being such holy occurrences, it is perfectly logical that the true phenomenons are little. Just like blood diamonds which are rare on Earth, the only reason why it’s so much more expensive and hard to get than other diamonds is due to the rarity. Again, it’s circumstantial and perfectly logical on its “prestige”. So if we apply this similar school of thoughts to sightings and stigmatas, well, it is natural that they are hard to find.
Regarding stigmatas, you are right. Doctors and professors (and even priests) have already moved in on investigating them. Most of which are pretty much explainable by medical examination, but there are a tiny fraction that doctors just can’t pin a medical conclusion. They’re happening, but science just can’t explain it.
Science itself is also interesting like I said. Expertise like archaeology has told us that our discoveries until this day is like a needle in the haysack. The evidences are not absolute, but at least the presence of circumstantial evidences is good enough to tell us this is something worth looking into.
It may be proven, it may not be. The question is, will we still be living and witnessing it even if it’s proven eventually? The rise of artifacts and real building monuments give me a good feeling.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Thanks for the last link. I still have difficulty finding his name as a peer reviewed author but I’ll keep searching as I like learning about historical artifacts.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
BTW a search on wikipedia shows there are several claims to the divine spear. The one you showed me is but one of the claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear_of_Destiny
Like I wrote, there are several claims of which one is the real spear. I am using the one I showed in my post, because that’s the one scientifically tested and proven.
If I were to show another one which is not the one factually tested, it will be my misrepresentation of what the scientific test is truly about.
Hope that sheds some light on my choice of picture.
Feel free to let me know of any interesting articles regarding these relics.
June 21st, 2008 at 4:13 am
My main point is beliefs are about faith and not about evidence. Which is alright by me.
The spear is not really evidence if you think about it carefully all you can say is its age.
Which was why I was disputing your definition of evidence.
As for the idea of court cases, you are right circumstantial evidence strictly speaking is not really evidence in the scientific sense. So even its age,on its own, should not even be considered evidence to prove it was used to pierce christ.
As for rarity of cases, even if one case exists. Scientist will be able to study it carefully. There are a lot of instances in science where people study rare cases. For example rare diseases. So the rarity of cases doesn’t lead to the rarity of proper documentation/study. But the absence of real cases lead to the absence of proper documentation.
When I talk about documentation, I am talking about peer reviewed articles where the methology and conclusions are scrutinised deeply by other scientists and not some report from the media because reporters are not as careful in their investigation.
Anyway even without evidence if you feel you benefit from beliefs and it doesn’t harm other people than everyone is free to believe whatever they choose; even in the absence of evidence.
And I think you and I both agree in the freedom to choose.
Since you’re a keen person, here’s something to share with you again. Doesn’t matter if you believe in it or not, I ain’t gonna force it on you.
Just for your reading pleasure…
Early Christian Writings
August 27th, 2008 at 3:52 am
The fact of the matter is that currently there is no hard, physical evidence to prove or disprove Christianity, which I think qwerty is relating to. I can see why the number of atheists around the world is increasing. If I look to try to defend some of my opinions and beliefs as a Christian, I find that there is little or no supporting hard evidence to back them up. As a Christian, I have to use faith based logic. Even though I have never seen God, I still believe there is one. Now whether you call that sheer ignorance is up for anyone to decide. I as well as other Christians stand by our beliefs and are not swayed by any type of ‘evidence’ that could prove us wrong. On the other hand, science provides with answers as to how we originated, how the universe came to be, etc. I do agree with you ed that as science progresses, more truths will be revealed. I don’t need to justify my belief that Jesus came on the Earth and was crucified for our sins. If I start to doubt the bible, it will open up doubt for God’s existence, and eventually doubt why I am even here in the first place. I just can’t believe that I came into this world to live for 80 years and rot in the dirt forever. There has to be more to it.