A few weeks ago, I spent a solid 2 hours watching a feature on The History Channel. This feature was called
The Exodus Decoded. This feature spent the time looking at a story that is at the heart of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. A team of archaeologists, Egyptologists, geologists, theologians, etc, looked at this epic tale of pharaohs, plagues, miracles, Israelites and Moses. Looking at different artifacts and facts from each of these professionals and others in any number of they attempted to scientifically prove whether or not the tale told forth in Exodus happened. Throughout the feature, they were able to show evidence that was able to "prove" the Exodus.
While sitting there watching it, I didn't even know what to think. The scientists found any number of different explanations to things that I think true believers in the Bible and Exodus specifically shouldn't need proving. He found evidence of different phenomena that could explain everything from each and every plague of Egypt to Moses' parting of the Red Sea. The
miracles were shown to have scientific evidence of how they are possible.
To me, it seems like part of believing about religion is just that:
believing. We read through religious studies on these miracles – proofs of what we believe our God can do. Does showing how a volcano and plate tectonics could prove locusts, the blood red Nile, the death of the first-born, and parting seas take away from the miracle and belief aspect of religion?
I'm not the most believing person when it comes to religion. I was raised Catholic but after learning more into the history of the Catholic Church, I began to slowly lose my religion. Now I personally am agnostic, not sure what to believe. I'm curious as to what believers in the Exodus think.
Do you think that trying to historically and scientifically prove the Bible takes away from the belief aspects of religion?
Recommend
Comments (38)
Blindly following anything is a bad idea. Sure, faith is important and the basis for religion, but without questioning events portrayed as truth, individuals are potentially left with nothing but a series of lies.
I would think that finding proof would make belief stronger.
Faith doesn't have to be wholly blind. While proof won't take you all the way, that doesn't mean you shouldn't look for proof.
Modern history courses or programs almost always have an agenda. Biased history that separates students from their faith is an example of how newly budding faith can be stamped out of a person.
Disciples have to get to the point where they own their faith and are able to use their brain to understand when they are being had by destructive forces.
Studying Church history actually strengthened my faith. Taking a good, honest look at all the warts is actually salutory. It develops the ability to see human activity vs divine activity in an institution built by Christ but physically operated by people.
What about the Church's history brought you to agnosticism? Feel free to message me if it is somewhat private; I would be very interested in learning from you, if you are willing.
Should scientists everywhere stop doing their jobs because religious people want to have faith?
I think not. I don't see why proving things matters so much. Religious people also credit God when a woman gets pregnant but we all know how that really happens.
The only logical thing about God is that everything has to come from something... other than that, we should be searching for God with our heart, not our mind. If we were looking for him with our minds, we would never find him.
To a degree but there will always come a point where faith is needed. Even if you could look in G-d's face, that doesn't mean you would trust him.
@jmallory@xanga - The only logical thing about God is that everything has to come from something... other than that, we should be searching for God with our heart, not our mind.
Philosophy and ethics are huge intellectual endeavors that need the guidance of faith because they impact society down to its very fiber.
@LoBornlite@xanga - Ok...There is no doubt that you need to use your head in following scripture, but if you are actually searching for God, If you are using only your brain, you won't find Him. Which is my point. We are three in one, just as the Godhead- mind, body, spirit. The spirit is the only one that is eternal. It takes something eternal to understand something infinite. So we have to try to find understanding of God in our spirit rather than our minds... because if you use your head and not your heart, you are not living by faith as we are to do.
Questioning and finding answers will always strengthen your faith in anything, if not give you the sense that you can fend for yourself and not blindly believe....
[Because, as history tells us, blind faith is dangerous.]
@jmallory@xanga -
"everything has to come from something"
Actually, you don't get that with God, because following that line of logic then means that God has to come from something, which has to come from something, which has to come from something. And to say that God can exist without something creating it then puts a hole in the argument that everything -else- has to come from something.
@jmallory@xanga - So we have to try to find understanding of God in our spirit rather than our minds... because if you use your head and not your heart, you are not living by faith as we are to do.
Deuteronomy 6:5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.
Actually the "heart" and "mind" you refer to are the active and passive intellects. These comprise the whole mind.
The "heart" or passive intellect is not to be confused with the emotions.
@Sir_Bissel@xanga - And to say that God can exist without something creating it then puts a hole in the argument that everything -else- has to come from something.
The "everything" that jmallory mentioned is well known to refer to contingent or created things. Contingent things depend on a non-contingent being.
God is non-contingent therefore he can exist without contingent things.
Not at all. Because one would find that there is more proof of the bible and not. I've known a few atheists that searched to prove Christianity wrong but came out born-again believers because of the proof they found. I've even needed help believing and as a Christian, looked for proof historically and scientifically. I was blown away by what I found.
BUT, although these things are awesome, a Christian cannot base their faith off facts. You have to base your faith off God. My favorite verse says, "Though you did not see Him, you still love Him. And though you do not see Him now, you still believe in Him." 1 Peter 1:8
Our belief is FAITH, and faith is hope in the unseen.
@Sir_Bissel@xanga - By his very existence and definition, God is eternal. That way, all other things have to have a beginning. So you were right, but only until you left out that important key factor that helps make God who he is.
@LoBornlite@xanga - That verse is talking about loving God, not about finding God. You would have to find him in order to love him. You can't proof text like that.
Anyway, I don't think you quite know what I am talking about. I am not sure how to make a more clear way to explain it though...
the only problem i have with shows such as this is that they have an agenda. you can prove almost any article of faith if you believe in it enough to begin with. i'm far more impressed and interested when scientists can look at things objectively.
@LoBornlite@xanga - To define "everything" as "less than every thing" creates a problem. Now, define what a contingent being is, and why God necessarily exists as one, whereas other things don't.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - That's under the definition of God supplied by God/whomever wrote the Bible. Are you also willing to say that Moksha exists because it is defined somewhere?
As someone else said before, I think scientific "proof" that these events could and have happened makes belief stronger. One must be careful not to need scientific proof as the basis of faith, though. I personally like watching those types of shows on The History Channel and I am a Christian. I believe that science describes the HOW but Christianity desribes the WHY.
Of course the History channel is going to find ways of explaining miracles that happened in the Bible. Most of all Cable channels and the media are agnostic or atheist-minded. Take the Discovery channel, for example. They are always talking about how evolution did this or did that. Seek out the truth for yourself, not through a television set. Also, keep in mind that believing in God means exercising a bit of FAITH. Don't look to other men in this world to explain God or his ways.
Assurance (faith, translated from the greek) is evidence and substance. I don't think proof of the bible is inconsistent with faith. Paul says that the existence of the cosmos is a proof of God to the common man, and points to eye-witness accounts of Jesus after his resurrection as evidence for his validity.
No.
Ah, let's see. There are plenty of people, myself included, who can't just believe something. They want to see proof that it's possible. It makes their faith stronger, because it is physically possible that certain things happened. For instance; I was watching the history channel, and they were trying to decide whether the Tower of Babel could have actually been built as it is said to have been built. They found out that yes, that story is very plausible. When Biblical stories get proven to be possible, that does help many people believe in it. People believe in science so much these days, they believe in the cold hard facts so much - that science can make their belief in the Bible stronger.
Sure, it takes away some things too. Instead of just believing for the sake of believing, many people are beginning to require some level of proof before doing so. Many more people have doubts on at least a semi regular basis.
@jmallory@xanga - That verse is talking about loving God, not about finding God. You would have to find him in order to love him.
Searching for God is an act of love. It is done with the same faculties of intellect and free will as the person who has found God.
@Sir_Bissel@xanga - To define "everything" as "less than every thing" creates a problem.
I didn't do that. God is uncreated and so in non-contingent. Created things are contingent. All that is created is everything, by definition. All created things depend upon a non-contingent being, God.