Who told of this from the beginning, so we
could know, or beforehand, so we could say, ‘He was right’? No one told
of this, no one foretold it, no one heard any words from you. (Isaiah
41:26)
Over the past week or so, I’ve watched the weather forecast for Erie, PA and Beckley, WV as I anticipate our journey north. One day, it looks good, the next day, I wonder if we should put off the trip until after the next nor’easter finishes its rampage. Of course, I know it’s no good to fret over the forecast, because the models can’t really predict more than three days out with accuracy, and of course, I do fret and pray because I don’t want to face hours of snowy, unfamiliar, mountainous roads in Virginia and West Virginia. Right now, it’s looking pretty good.
This is one of the things I like about Judaism and Christianity. God tells the Jews early on that if anyone tells them something is going to happen, and it doesn’t, they are to stone the false prophet. We don’t do that today, but this is one of the proofs of a religion to which we should pay attention. Does the god of that religion tell his/her followers in advance what is going to happen? What is his/her track record?
Interestingly, Judaism and Christianity have gotten it right sufficiently that those their detractors have to claim that the prophecies weren’t really written before the events. No, someone came along later and forged the documents because there’s no other way they could have been even half as accurate. So, if the documents are forged, where is the proof of their forgery? Of course, the “answer” is either that that proof has been systematically destroyed or that the proof is the accuracy of the predictions themselves. Those aren’t real answers, because they don’t have proof that the proof was systematically destroyed, and there is a viable alternative: that they prophecies are accurate prophecies just as they claim to be.
And the answer of systematic destruction is plausible. It could be. Equally, the is no evidence that Sasquatch killed John F. Kennedy, but perhaps the evidence was destroyed. Should we then give credence to that theory? Or, should we follow the evidence until such time as the evidence is proven false? Do true historians, scientists and scholars reject evidence just because they don’t like the conclusion to which it points? Then again, I read an article in Biblical Archeological Review several years ago that says that evidence is not the point. The point is to propose a theory that creates such a big splash that people will fund the research. What creates that sort of interest? Something that is simultaneously conventional (to current scientific philosophies) and controversial, like that the evidence we have is false and the evidence to prove it is missing.
Over the past week or so, I’ve watched the weather forecast for Erie, PA and Beckley, WV as I anticipate our journey north. One day, it looks good, the next day, I wonder if we should put off the trip until after the next nor’easter finishes its rampage. Of course, I know it’s no good to fret over the forecast, because the models can’t really predict more than three days out with accuracy, and of course, I do fret and pray because I don’t want to face hours of snowy, unfamiliar, mountainous roads in Virginia and West Virginia. Right now, it’s looking pretty good.
This is one of the things I like about Judaism and Christianity. God tells the Jews early on that if anyone tells them something is going to happen, and it doesn’t, they are to stone the false prophet. We don’t do that today, but this is one of the proofs of a religion to which we should pay attention. Does the god of that religion tell his/her followers in advance what is going to happen? What is his/her track record?
Interestingly, Judaism and Christianity have gotten it right sufficiently that those their detractors have to claim that the prophecies weren’t really written before the events. No, someone came along later and forged the documents because there’s no other way they could have been even half as accurate. So, if the documents are forged, where is the proof of their forgery? Of course, the “answer” is either that that proof has been systematically destroyed or that the proof is the accuracy of the predictions themselves. Those aren’t real answers, because they don’t have proof that the proof was systematically destroyed, and there is a viable alternative: that they prophecies are accurate prophecies just as they claim to be.
And the answer of systematic destruction is plausible. It could be. Equally, the is no evidence that Sasquatch killed John F. Kennedy, but perhaps the evidence was destroyed. Should we then give credence to that theory? Or, should we follow the evidence until such time as the evidence is proven false? Do true historians, scientists and scholars reject evidence just because they don’t like the conclusion to which it points? Then again, I read an article in Biblical Archeological Review several years ago that says that evidence is not the point. The point is to propose a theory that creates such a big splash that people will fund the research. What creates that sort of interest? Something that is simultaneously conventional (to current scientific philosophies) and controversial, like that the evidence we have is false and the evidence to prove it is missing.
Comments
Post a Comment