Discussion by: stevens
A Brief Introduction:
Hello everyone, this is my first post on these boards despite my deep and extensive interest in secular and scientific triumph over the widespread religious nonsense that has plagued civilization since its inception. After having read books by the four hoursemen, and watching (probably all) of their debates, I decided to join this website in hopes of enriching my perspective and perhaps seeing a bit more from the opposing side.
I am a student at Stony Brook University with a degree in Biochemistry.
Throughout most of the debates held by Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Krauss, etc., theologians or religious proponents often invoke historical "events" such as the resurrection, virgin births, etc to back up their position. However, I understand that the veracity of these claims cannot be distinguished from other obviously made up stories that exist in culture based on purely scientific investigation because they cannot be reproduced or falsified. This idea has been difficult for me to circumvent.
Furthermore, I also began clumping these "events" with other historical events that actually did occur, such as the existance of Napolean. Simply put, how can we scientifically investigate the existance of, for example, Napolean? I suppose that the presence of historical artifacts, books, or other historical "evidence" confirms that he actually existed, but then the empty tomb of jesus is also invoked in the same breath. The obvious scientific approach to the empty tomb involves competing ideas of why the tomb is empty, perhaps somebody removed the body, perhaps he never even existed, etc. But the point still remains, we cannot falsify historical events – therefore I have trouble applying science to them. Any conversation or additional insight would be appreciated, Thank you.