Q. So this is my two cents on this… In science a law is a statement with predictive qualities about nature. These laws are formulated from repeated experimental observations. Let us take an example of Ohm’s law: V=IR (Voltage drop is the product of Current and Resistance). This is repeatable (as many high school physics students know). Religious dogmas are however not repeatable.
A. I have no objection to that as long as you don’t assert that a fact has to be repeatable for it to be true whether in science or in history. Take the Big Bang (science) for instance or your own birth (history)... So too with many religious dogmas. Though some are repeated and repeatable such as the fact or dogma that every human has a soul.
Q. We’ll come to that soul story a bit later on… My second objection was that religious dogmas are not verifiable. Let us take the dogma of the virgin birth of Jesus. This is not a descriptive statement on nature nor does it have any predictive property.
A. Why do you not consider it descriptive?
Isn't the dogma of your own birth descriptive (of something that happened in nature)?
I'm willing to agree they are not predictive if only because being unique (Christ's birth or your own) they are consequently unrepeatable for which reason no other instance can be predicted.
Q. But sticking to the virgin birth. This cannot be taken to be in the same league as a scientific law as it is a matter that is taken purely on Faith.
A. Let me cut you off there… I agree with that very much. Many religious truths are not in the same league as scientific laws just like your mother’s love for you is not in the same league as scientific laws. My argument is that that fact alone does not therefore render the religious truths or your mother’s love for you any less true or certain.
That there was a man called Socrates is a truth you take purely on faith. What he did and said and all you know about him is also all on faith in what has been handed down to you. Does not make it any less certain than a “scientific” truth. So too with Christ.
But you were going to say something before I cut you off…
Q. Yes… That the virgin conception of Jesus is not in line with Ockham's Razor which is that the simplest solution tends to be the correct one.
Let us take Mary's pregnancy. In our reality we know that humans get pregnant through sexual intercourse with other humans. So the simplest possible answers to the question of who the father was are:
A. Joseph
B. Another man other than Joseph
Now let us take the case of God being the father. The following assumptions will have to be true:
1. God exists
2. God actually takes interest in the affairs of the world
3. God is able to synthesise sperm and fuse it with an ovum (I guess if he is omnipotent then that can happen. However this can only be the case if assumption number 1 is true i.e. he exists)
A. I’m happy you see all these truths as interconnected, for they really are. Fortunately for us also, these “simplest solutions” are not new. The Jews of Jesus’ timed precisely put them to Him when he asserted that He was the Son of God. And Jesus response generally was “If you don’t believe me, at least believe the works that I do” i.e. the miracles he performed. Faced with this option, some of his followers found it incredulous and refused to believe, others - on the evidence of the miracles he performed - chose to believe.
And this is a choice every person has to make on their own - including you. Every person will have to decide whether Christ was Lord, liar or lunatic.
Happy Sunday!
9th Dec 2018