[Bored chemist]

the 2019 Templeton Prize winner

So, that's a prize from a fund created by an elder of the presbyterian church. It's a prize for affirming that there's a God, And the Winner says "there's a God".

Was that meant to be in some way informative?

Sh1t! if you offer me $1.5 million, maybe I will say there's a God.
It doesn't make it true.

[Bored chemist]

Does your bible include the N.T.?

I presume it does.
In which case it includes Matthew 5:18 about all the old laws- i.e. the OT, staying in force until all things have come to pass.
So, it reaffirms the stuff about slavery, killing witches , and so on.

[duffyd]

It is most sad to engage scientists in debate only to find they too refuse the scientific method which is widely available,

It would help if you would explain exactly which scientific method you think would apply, what experiment, what quantitive predictions. Remember, personal testimonials after the fact are not scientific method.

This should help.
MARCH 25, 2016
Can a scientist believe in the resurrection? Three hypotheses.
IAN HUTCHINSON
MIT

Hypothesis one:…
 
I’m a professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT, and I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead.  So do dozens of my colleagues. How can this be?

Hypothesis one: We’re not talking about a literal resurrection. Perhaps it is just an inspiring myth that served to justify the propagation of Jesus’ exalted ethical teachings. A literal resurrection contradicts the known laws of nature. Maybe scientists can celebrate the idea of Jesus’s spirit living on, while his body remained in the grave.

But the first disciples attested to a physical resurrection. How could an untruth logically support high moral character? How could it have sustained the apostles through the extremes of persecution they experienced founding Christianity? And is celebrating a myth consistent with scientific integrity?

Hypothesis two: We really believe in the bodily resurrection of the first century Jew known as Jesus of Nazareth. My Christian colleagues at MIT – and millions of other scientists worldwide – somehow think that a literal miracle like the resurrection of Jesus is possible. And we are following a long tradition. The founders of the scientific revolution and many of the greatest scientists of the intervening centuries were serious Christian believers. For Robert Boyle (of the ideal gas law, co-founder in 1660 of the Royal Society) the resurrection was a fact. For James Clerk Maxwell (whose Maxwell equations of 1862 govern electromagnetism) a deep philosophical analysis undergirded his belief in the resurrection. And for William Phillips (Nobel prize-winner in 1997 for methods to trap atoms with laser light) the resurrection is not discredited by science.

To explain how a scientist can be a Christian is actually quite simple. Science cannot and does not disprove the resurrection. Natural science describes the normal reproducible working of the world of nature. Indeed, the key meaning of “nature”, as Boyle emphasized, is “the normal course of events.” Miracles like the resurrection are inherently abnormal. It does not take modern science to tell us that humans don’t rise from the dead. People knew that perfectly well in the first century; just as they knew that the blind from birth don’t as adults regain their sight, or water doesn’t instantly turn into wine.

Maybe science has made the world seem more comprehensible – although in some respects it seems more wonderful and mysterious. Maybe superstition was more widespread in the first century than it is today – although the dreams of today’s sports fans and the widespread interest in the astrology pages sometimes make me wonder. Maybe people were more open then to the possibility of miracles than we are today. Still, the fact that the resurrection was impossible in the normal course of events was as obvious in the first century as it is for us. Indeed that is why it was seen as a great demonstration of God’s power.

Today’s widespread materialist view that events contrary to the laws of science just can’t happen is a metaphysical doctrine, not a scientific fact. What’s more, the doctrine that the laws of nature are “inviolable” is not necessary for science to function. Science offers natural explanations of natural events. It has no power or need to assert that only natural events happen.

Contrary to increasingly popular opinion, science is not our only means for accessing truth. In the case of Jesus’ resurrection, we must consider the historical evidence, and the historical evidence for the resurrection is as good as for almost any event of ancient history. The extraordinary character of the event, and its significance, provide a unique context, and ancient history is necessarily hard to establish. But a bare presumption that science has shown the resurrection to be impossible is an intellectual cop-out. Science shows no such thing.

Hypothesis 3: I was brainwashed as a child. If you’ve read this far and you are still wondering how an MIT professor could seriously believe in the resurrection, you might guess I was brainwashed to believe it as a child. But no, I did not grow up in a home where I was taught to believe in the resurrection. I came to faith in Jesus when I was an undergraduate at Cambridge University and was baptized in the chapel of Kings College on my 20th birthday. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are as compelling to me now as then.

* Professor, do not forget to acknowledge the value inherent in the proclamations of hundreds and hundreds of millions who found in HIM the GOD of Abe, Isaac, Jake, Dave,

[duffyd]

Many theologians emphasize religion’s empirical foundations, agreeing with the physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne:

“The question of truth is as central to [religion’s] concern as it is in science. Religious belief can guide one in life or strengthen one at the approach of death, but unless it is actually true it can do neither of these things and so would amount to no more than an illusory exercise in comforting fantasy.”

[Bored chemist]

Remember, personal testimonials after the fact are not scientific method.

I’m a professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT, and I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead.

Did you not understand  that a comment from a professor is a personal testimonial, and thus not actually scientific  evidence?

[Bored chemist]

The question of truth is as central to [religion’s] concern as it is in science.

And since the bible contradicts itself, it can not be true.
So we can't use it as reliable evidence.

[duffyd]

Tyler VanderWeele, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health, rocked the secular world when he published in May of 2016 a study that showed churchgoers live longer than people who eschew the pew.

“For the most part, I see the relationship between science and the Christian faith as not one of antagonism but one of mutual contribution,” VanderWeele said. “Science has given us tremendous insight into our world and how it works. It’s made clear the incredible order that’s manifest in Creation. It’s given us a better understanding of God’s work in the world.”

VanderWeele gently prods his unbelieving colleagues to consider the historical evidence of the empty tomb and the otherwise-inexplicable surge of courage in the disciples after they had seen Jesus resurrected.

“There are interesting historical arguments that provide some evidence for the resurrection,” VanderWeele said. “They are potent arguments worth considering that point you in the direction of Christianity.”

VanderWeele holds degrees in mathematics, philosophy, theology, finance and biostatics from Oxford University, the Pennsylvania University and Harvard. How does anyone get so many degrees in one lifetime? But it’s his math degree that has framed his life more than the others.

“Science gives us considerable insight into the world and how it works. The order in math is quite astounding,” he said. “For me it points to the beauty of God’s creation. It points to, as far as I can see, some Designer. Why do we find the complexity in all forms of life? It’s very difficult for me to look at our world and the discoveries in science and not to see a Designer behind it.”

[Bored chemist]

Remember, personal testimonials after the fact are not scientific method.

Even if they are from a man called Tyler VanderWeele.

rocked the secular world

Just not true.
I never even heard of him.

a study that showed churchgoers live longer than people who eschew the pew.

That's probably also true of gyms, but it doesn't mean that Mr Motivator is God.

Why do you post this silly stuff?
Don't you realise it makes you look dumb?

[duffyd]

“There are interesting historical arguments that provide some evidence for the resurrection,” VanderWeele said. “They are potent arguments worth considering that point you in the direction of Christianity.”

Dr. VW, I used to like you. I really did. I figured you were a pretty cool head.
That's all changed. When I read your comments about 35 times, I realized what happened to my initial good impression. To wit,
“There are interesting historical arguments that provide some evidence for the resurrection,” VanderWeele said. “They are potent arguments worth considering that point you in the direction of Christianity.” Pardon me, but do you have to be so tactful? Holy McMoly. Great job. Wow. Excellent phraseology. Not that I'm envious or anything.

BTW, weren't you in one of my classes I taught at Harvard? LOL

[duffyd]

Notice the level of education and intelligence HIS disciples possess. We ain't talkin corned beef. Of course, I've known about this but to hear the opponents talk one might get the wrong impression.

[duffyd]

Using scientifically developed empirical data, scientists cite the advantages to being a follower of Christ. 

[Bored chemist]

Using scientifically developed empirical data, scientists cite the advantages to being a follower of Christ. 

Except that's not what they found.
https://time.com/5159848/do-religious-people-live-longer/
"worshippers were 55% less likely to die during the up to 18-year follow-up period than people who didn’t frequent the temple, church or mosque."

So, what happens is scientists do some work, and religious bigots lie about it.

Why do you do that?
Why bear false witness about what the science says?

[Bored chemist]

Notice the level of education and intelligence HIS disciples possess.

Yes, let's have a look at that.
It turns out that more intelligent people are less religious.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23921675
The corned beef is on your side.

[duffyd]

Using scientifically developed empirical data, scientists cite the advantages to being a follower of Christ.

Citing a world renown bible scholar reveals just how wrong he is:
"These ‘antifamily’ traditions are too widely attested in our sources to be ignored (they are found in Mark, Q, and Thomas, for example), and show that Jesus did not support what we today might think of as family values." Ehrman
Bart, when Jesus said His disciples cannot follow Him unless they hate their mothers and fathers, He was not suggesting that we actually hate our parents or family members or anyone else. He was emphasizing that our love for GOD needs to be more important to us than anything or anyone else. It is frightening to realize how far removed from proper biblical interpretation he is.

[duffyd]

Using scientifically developed empirical data, scientists cite the advantages to being a follower of Christ.

Citing a world renown bible scholar reveals just how wrong he is:
"These ‘antifamily’ traditions are too widely attested in our sources to be ignored (they are found in Mark, Q, and Thomas, for example), and show that Jesus did not support what we today might think of as family values." Ehrman
Bart, when Jesus said His disciples cannot follow Him unless they hate their mothers and fathers, He was not suggesting that we actually hate our parents or family members or anyone else. He was emphasizing that our love for GOD needs to be more important to us than anything or anyone else. It is frightening to realize how far removed from proper biblical interpretation he is.

“For me, at the time, it felt like an enormous relief, a lifting of burden, a sense of connecting with the universe in a way I never had before. Very powerful!”
“It makes sense that Jesus mattered to me as a late teenager, when I had a born-again experience and became a conservative evangelical."
 “At that point Jesus became not only my Lord and Savior, but also my best friend and closest ally.”
“Jesus was my model of self-giving love…”
Bart Ehrman

Who moved?
In your book you weren't in your late teens when Jesus became your best friend and instilled in you how Love was everything and He opened your eyes to a new relationship with the universe that was so powerful you've been unable to let go of all that He meant to you. In your late teens you were enrolled at Moody and Wheaten memorizing entire books of the bible you loved so well.

[Bored chemist]

You seem to be arguing with yourself.
Let us know who wins.

[Colin2B]

This should help.

Unfortunately, no.
Nothing you have provided is scientific evidence.
In a court of law if you produced 5 witnesses saying a car was red and you opponent had one witness saying green, it is likely the judge would find in your favour. However, that would not be scientific evidence that the car really was red.

Many theologians emphasize religion’s empirical foundations, agreeing with the physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne:

“The question of truth is as central to [religion’s] concern as it is in science. Religious belief can guide one in life or strengthen one at the approach of death, but unless it is actually true it can do neither of these things and so would amount to no more than an illusory exercise in comforting fantasy.”

I remember Polkinghorne and have attended some of his lectures. What is he referring to in the quote? If he is saying that religious belief is real and can guide one in life etc, then I agree with him. However, it is not in itself proof of the existence of a god.
We know that belief can play a significant part in people's recovery from illness and placebos are a well known phenomenon, but you wouldn’t claim a placebo is a drug.

Tyler VanderWeele, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health, rocked the secular world when he published in May of 2016 a study that showed churchgoers live longer than people who eschew the pew.

Hardly rocked anything. This has been known for quite some time prior  to 2016.
A previous study in 1999 by Rogers, Hummer and Ellison, looked into this and even drew on even earlier studies.
However, nothing in that study, nor the comments made by Tyler VanderWeele are scientific evidence of the existence of a god.
There are many things which correlate with longevity; eg owning a dog, being educated, being well off, your zip/post code, being married.

Notice the level of education and intelligence HIS disciples possess. We ain't talkin corned beef. Of course, I've known about this but to hear the opponents talk one might get the wrong impression.

No, what you write gives the wrong impression. You have a very poor grasp of logic, verbal reasoning and scientific evidence. No evidence of a higher level of education or intelligence than average.

PS please stop quoting and answering yourself.

[alancalverd]

Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says...……………..
..................….Valued at just under $1.5 million, the award from the John Templeton Foundation annually recognizes an individual “who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension.” .

Every man has his price.

Even I would talk meaningless bollocks for $1.5M.

The scientific method is observe, hypothesise, test. If you haven't defined god, you can't apply the scientific method to test its existence, and every time you do define it, it fails.

[alancalverd]

 

women who went to any kind of religious service more than once a week had a 33% lower chance than their secular peers of dying during the 16-year study-follow-up period. .......................  worshippers were 55% less likely to die during the up to 18-year follow-up period than people who didn’t frequent the temple, church or mosque.

So it's nothing to do with Jesus, then. Or even monotheism. Indeed if you include Buddhism, any deities at all. Apologies for applying the scientific method.

[duffyd]

This should help.

Unfortunately, no.
Nothing you have provided is scientific evidence.
In a court of law if you produced 5 witnesses saying a car was red and you opponent had one witness saying green, it is likely the judge would find in your favour. However, that would not be scientific evidence that the car really was red.

Many theologians emphasize religion’s empirical foundations, agreeing with the physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne:

“The question of truth is as central to [religion’s] concern as it is in science. Religious belief can guide one in life or strengthen one at the approach of death, but unless it is actually true it can do neither of these things and so would amount to no more than an illusory exercise in comforting fantasy.”

I remember Polkinghorne and have attended some of his lectures. What is he referring to in the quote? If he is saying that religious belief is real and can guide one in life etc, then I agree with him. However, it is not in itself proof of the existence of a god.
We know that belief can play a significant part in people's recovery from illness and placebos are a well known phenomenon, but you wouldn’t claim a placebo is a drug.

Tyler VanderWeele, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health, rocked the secular world when he published in May of 2016 a study that showed churchgoers live longer than people who eschew the pew.

Hardly rocked anything. This has been known for quite some time prior  to 2016.
A previous study in 1999 by Rogers, Hummer and Ellison, looked into this and even drew on even earlier studies.
However, nothing in that study, nor the comments made by Tyler VanderWeele are scientific evidence of the existence of a god.
There are many things which correlate with longevity; eg owning a dog, being educated, being well off, your zip/post code, being married.

Notice the level of education and intelligence HIS disciples possess. We ain't talkin corned beef. Of course, I've known about this but to hear the opponents talk one might get the wrong impression.

No, what you write gives the wrong impression. You have a very poor grasp of logic, verbal reasoning and scientific evidence. No evidence of a higher level of education or intelligence than average.

PS please stop quoting and answering yourself.

 I will continue as I have. It is a shame you are unable to appreciate the significance of the information. 
Christ is real and the evidence is exceedingly abundant. I'll be sure to seek your counsel if I want it.

"I think the more we enter together into Christ’s work, He will have the more room to work His work in us. For He always desires us to be one that He may be one with us. Our worship is social, and Christ will be wherever two or three are gathered together in His name." True. Thanks James Clark Maxwell for your letter to your fiancé. 

"But having said this, we may well give thanks to God that our friend was what he was, a firm Christian believer, and that his powerful mind, after ranging at will through the illimitable spaces of Creation, and almost handling what he called “the foundation stones of the material universe,” found its true rest and happiness in the love and the mercy of Him whom the humblest Christian calls his Father." Friends of Maxwell