A Scientist Explains Why He Believes in the Resurrection

[mikegriffith1]

On this Easter Sunday, when we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I thought it would be interesting to hear a scientist explain why he believes in the resurrection.

A Scientist Looks at the Resurrection

A Scientist Looks at the Resurrection​

A physicist confesses that the electron is round and that Jesus rose from the dead. My own faith is informed by the evidence, but it is much more.

peacefulscience.org
EXCERPT:

When asked to believe in something, scientists often ask questions about evidence. There certainly is evidence for the Resurrection, which can be summarized around three historical claims: 1) Jesus was crucified and died, 2) his body was buried in a tomb that was found empty a few days later, and 3) his disciples experienced encounters with who they believed to be the newly resurrected body. I will show that these three claims, backed by historical evidence and scholarly consensus, together constitute a compelling case for the Resurrection.

The first claim is the least controversial. Almost no historian disputes that Jesus lived in the first century AD, carried out a ministry for a few years and was crucified to death by the Romans. Even a skeptical scholar such as Bart Ehrman argues vigorously for the historical veracity of these basic facts, based on both Christian and non-Christian sources. . . .

More comprehensive examinations of Roman crucifixion and Jewish burial practices by specialist scholars show us that the gospel account of Jesus’ burial in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea is historically credible.<a href="A Scientist Looks at the Resurrection">3</a> Similarly, there are strong arguments to support the claim that the tomb was found empty a few days later.<a href="A Scientist Looks at the Resurrection">4</a> A commonly cited reason is that the gospel accounts are rendered more credible by their agreement that women were the first witnesses to the empty tomb. More recently, John Granger Cook has argued that based on linguistic, historical, and cultural reasons, it is unlikely Paul mentions a burial and resurrection ( 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 ) without presupposing an empty tomb.

 

[Darat]

My goodness, not seen such hogwash for many a year. Where did you resurrect that pile of nonsense from?

 

[zooterkin]

A fun exercise: try to reconcile the different accounts of the resurrection in the four Gospels. How many women, how many angels, was the stone in place or moved away, etc?

Certainly some Christian apologists have tried, dancing around the issues with footwork that would make Michael Flatley jealous.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I gave the first link a quick look, and from what I saw it's using the Bible to prove the Bible type stuff.

 

[theprestige]

I stalled out on "the electron is round", and had to check.

TIL mainstream physics considers the electron to be spherically symmetrical.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So the usual complete bollocks

 

[Norman Alexander]

Why does a scientist have to "confess" that an electron is round? It either is or isn't, surely. Or did he previously know that it was round but tried to vigorously insist it wasn't? For money or personal gain? Or because Jesus had told him personally? Or for Satan?

Silly from the outset.

There are plenty of Christian inculcated children who grow up to become scientists. Many of them lose their faith when reality strikes them. Some, like the chap referenced in the OP, don't.

Mike, enjoy your religion, don't suffer from it. Happy Easter from an atheist.

 

[mikegriffith1]

A fun exercise: try to reconcile the different accounts of the resurrection in the four Gospels. How many women, how many angels, was the stone in place or moved away, etc? Certainly some Christian apologists have tried, dancing around the issues with footwork that would make Michael Flatley jealous.

The resurrection accounts are virtually identical. The fact that they vary in a few details is just further proof that they were not fabricated.

Not one of the accounts says the stone was in place when the women arrived. All four accounts say the stone was moved away before the women arrived. The only difference is that one of them explains how the stone was moved.

People's perceptions of the same event can vary and still be sincere and reliable. Some of the witnesses may have focused on one of the two angels, while others mentioned both of them. If there were two, there was certainly one. If authors were trying to concoct a fiction, they would have ensured all the accounts matched perfectly.

 

[Norman Alexander]

The resurrection accounts are virtually identical. The fact that they vary in a few details is just further proof that they were not fabricated.

Not one of the accounts says the stone was in place when the women arrived. All four accounts say the stone was moved away before the women arrived. The only difference is that one of them explains how the stone was moved.

People's perceptions of the same event can vary and still be sincere and reliable. Some of the witnesses may have focused on one of the two angels, while others mentioned both of them. If there were two, there was certainly one. If authors were trying to concoct a fiction, they would have ensured all the accounts matched perfectly.

Don't remember reading this in Harry Potter. Which book again?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Eric Lyons of Apologetics Press address the issue of the variances in the resurrection accounts as follows:

Many fail to recognize in their critique of the Bible that additional information is not necessarily contradictory information. Was it essential for the apostle John to mention every woman who came to the tomb of Jesus on the morning of His resurrection, or was he at liberty to mention as few as he wanted (John 20:1)? If Mary Magdalene was at the tomb on that Sunday morning, and John recorded that she was there, without ever denying the presence of others (some of whom were mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke), could his record of the events be truthful? Of course. Differences exist among the Gospel writers’ accounts, but no one has proven that they are discrepant. Just as a person might say, “I went to the ball game with Bill, Bob, and Bubba,” he might also truthfully say, “I went to the game with Bill and Betty.” These statements are not necessarily contradictory. One can easily (and honestly) supplement the other. A person may only mention Bill and Betty in one setting when talking to one group (e.g., at worship where the church knows the married couple), while at another setting when talking to a different group (e.g., at the office where only the men are known), he may truthfully just mention the men. We must keep in mind that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote at different times, to different people, for different reasons.

 

[acbytesla]

On this Easter Sunday, when we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I thought it would be interesting to hear a scientist explain why he believes in the resurrection.

A Scientist Looks at the Resurrection

A Scientist Looks at the Resurrection​

A physicist confesses that the electron is round and that Jesus rose from the dead. My own faith is informed by the evidence, but it is much more.

peacefulscience.org
EXCERPT:

When asked to believe in something, scientists often ask questions about evidence. There certainly is evidence for the Resurrection, which can be summarized around three historical claims: 1) Jesus was crucified and died, 2) his body was buried in a tomb that was found empty a few days later, and 3) his disciples experienced encounters with who they believed to be the newly resurrected body. I will show that these three claims, backed by historical evidence and scholarly consensus, together constitute a compelling case for the Resurrection.

The first claim is the least controversial. Almost no historian disputes that Jesus lived in the first century AD, carried out a ministry for a few years and was crucified to death by the Romans. Even a skeptical scholar such as Bart Ehrman argues vigorously for the historical veracity of these basic facts, based on both Christian and non-Christian sources. . . .

More comprehensive examinations of Roman crucifixion and Jewish burial practices by specialist scholars show us that the gospel account of Jesus’ burial in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea is historically credible.<a href="A Scientist Looks at the Resurrection">3</a> Similarly, there are strong arguments to support the claim that the tomb was found empty a few days later.<a href="A Scientist Looks at the Resurrection">4</a> A commonly cited reason is that the gospel accounts are rendered more credible by their agreement that women were the first witnesses to the empty tomb. More recently, John Granger Cook has argued that based on linguistic, historical, and cultural reasons, it is unlikely Paul mentions a burial and resurrection ( 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 ) without presupposing an empty tomb.

There is historical evidence in that there was a story that proliferated in the first century for a human being named Jesus that was crucified. This is not controversial since one, we know that human beings are real, and two, human beings at that time were sometimes crucified. Bart Ehrmann believes this probably happened because Paul wrote about this and because of the Gospels. But nothing about that is an extraordinary claim.

Neither is it extraordinary that in the story, this person was buried in a tomb. People are buried in tombs. .

And while it would be unusual that the body was no longer there after that, I wouldn't argue that is extraordinary either. Unusual, yes. Extraordinary no.

Even if the Gospels agreed on the resurrection story (They don't) the resurrection story is just that, a story. And an unbelievable story at that. It should be noted by you that NONE of the Gospel resurrection stories were eyewitness accounts. They were written 20 to 70 years later. Do you really believe miraculous stories should be believed on such weak sauce?

 

[p0lka]

I stalled out on "the electron is round", and had to check.

TIL mainstream physics considers the electron to be spherically symmetrical.

It is fuzzy at the edges though.

 

[Steve]

Just another christian expressing belief without evidence. His vocation is irrelevant.

 

[acbytesla]

I've never quite understood why such stories are believed by anyone.
The Bible also says, the Sun revolves around the Earth.
That there is a dome over the Earth.
That you can climb the highest mountain and see every nation on the Earth.
That a snake spoke to Eve.
And a donkey spoke to Absalom.
That Lot's wife turned in an instant to a pillar of salt. And later his daughters raped him.
That Adam and Methusala lived 900 plus years.
That Noah lived 800+ years.
That Aaron's staff turned into a snake.
That a man with super human strength lost his strength because of a haircut.
That stone walls were knocked down because of the sound of horns.
That Jonah was swallowed by a big fish and lived inside of it for three days.
And so on.
Sorry Mike, those of us that view the world with a modicum of skepticism and logic roll our eyes at these suggestions.

Still as Christopher Hitchens has said, we can grant that it is possible that his disciples saw a man alive that they thought to have died. None of that proves this person was divine or that his teachings were correct and good.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

He can believe what he wants as long as he does peer reviewed science.
The fact that he is also a scientist doesn't add or subtract from the fact that he is just believing, not using any science whatsoever when it comes to the J-man.

 

[acbytesla]

He can believe what he wants as long as he does peer reviewed science.
The fact that he is also a scientist doesn't add or subtract from the fact that he is just believing, not using any science whatsoever when it comes to the J-man.

Here we have a scientist presenting a very unscientific opinion. It's like relying on a dentist to repair an engine. Maybe he is good with a wrench. And maybe, he's not.

 

[EHocking]

I love the irony of a bleever attempting to assert science proves their bleef.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The first claim is the least controversial. Almost no historian disputes that Jesus lived in the first century AD, carried out a ministry for a few years and was crucified to death by the Romans.

"Almost no historian disputes..." Nonsense. We had a long thread way back that discussed the question of did an historical Jesus exist. My conclusion from this debate was no, there was no historical Jesus.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The resurrection accounts are virtually identical. The fact that they vary in a few details is just further proof that they were not fabricated.

Not one of the accounts says the stone was in place when the women arrived. All four accounts say the stone was moved away before the women arrived.

Matthew 28 does not say this, and strongly suggests that the women were there when the stone was moved.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Mike, are you attempting to re-ignite the topic of "Was there a real Jesus"? If so, perhaps you should take it to the proper thread that already exists?