Wow.

[mapsedge]

...this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

Dr. Francis Collins

Full text here.

(Thanks Jeho)

Comments

[iarraidh.livejournal.com]

Nice article. I've heard this guy speak before, and gives some small hope that the war between science and fundamentalism in America might end some day.
If you get a chance to see him speak, he has a wonderfully calming way about him - easy to listen to.

I only have issue with one statement in the article -
"Here was a person (Jesus) with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life"
That is far from truthful. It is one of the widest spread disinformations out there.
Actual historical data of this person is non-existant outside of church documents generated centuries after the alleged incidents. I would not call church documents unbiased or accurate for historical documentation.
Sorry.

But that does not detract from the message of acceptance and co-existence he is bringing.

[jehosefatz.livejournal.com]

There are mentions of of Jesus in Tacitus, Seutonius, and Pliny the Younger -- all Roman, and non-Christian... in fact, not particularly sympathetic to Christians for that matter ... and writing within 70 yrs of the crucifixion. Not to mention Josephus, who was Jewish. Origen noted in his writings that Josephus did not accept that Jesus was the Christ (the Latinized Christus as translation of the Hebrew "Messiah").

I would quibble with "remarkably strong historical evidence" (there's not a lot of "remarkably strong" anything from 2000 yrs ago, but there is some historical evidence.

Personally, I think that Jesus was an historical figure who had a lot of interesting, applicable things to say. Unfortunately, I think a lot of what he had to say has been "remodelled" to the point that we don't really know what it was anymore. Very much like King Arthur -- probably based on the life of a real person and then co-opted in the service of something else by others.

- Jeho

[jehosefatz.livejournal.com]

Technically, anything not personally experienced is "hearsay". So, since neither of us read the original languages in their idiomatic form and/or have access to primary source documents or "smoking guns" (thus requiring interpretation of anything we might have access to), we're having a battle of "hearsay", anyway. And, so are the scholars. Primary sources are too scarce, all of them require interpretation, and there have been too many hands in the pots, all with agendas.

As stated, personally, I believe that he existed because I think it is as likely as not, and I err on the side of belief (see also, Paschal's Wager). There are a lot of things that have been attributed to him that I don't believe and I don't think are necessary to believe or to call oneself a Christian (which I don't.)

I also know that there are Christians that make assertions or justify bad behavior of all sorts based on "facts". There are also Wiccans, Pagans, and misc others who do the same. For example, show me proof that is any stronger that shows that any aspect of modern neo-paganism is an unbroken survival of pre-Christian nature religions. Or, if you'd rather show me the proof that Gerald Gardner is a true recipient of an ancient, survived Book of Shadows from an ancient, hereditary, working coven.

There are people who believe those things with no better "proof." And, so long as they are decent people who leave me alone and use their spiritual lives to enhance their experience of their temporal lives, I'm perfectly happy with that... be the Christian, Wiccan, Buddhist, Frisbetarian*... whatever.

- Jeho

* An obscure sect who believe that when one dies after living a good life, one's soul becomes a Frisbee stuck on the roof of a giant house until such time as a Savior with a great Ladder is born who will redeem them.

[jehosefatz.livejournal.com]

Dude. Lot of vitriol. I'm not sure where it's coming from, but I'm sorry for pushing those buttons.

Unless they can force everyone to accept that fact, then their mythos and their claim to divine authority (ever heard of Manifest Destiny?) is no more 'True' than anyone else's.

This was exactly my point. Sorry I didn't make it better.

I think I'll go back into lurking mode now.

- Jeho

[jehosefatz.livejournal.com]

Well, not being Christian (as I stated earlier) I'm not really comfortable being an apologist for them except to say that if one is going to demand unequivocal proof from one, one should demand unequivocal proof from all (this was the point of the Wicco/Pagan argument -- I never said *you* personally were either). Frankly, I can't think of a single spiritual path off the top of my head that is not founded on some critical tenet (or set of tenets) that is unprovable, if not unknowable.

Now, in short, the gist of what I was trying to say is that despite the fact that I am not Christian, I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that Jesus existed, albeit probably not in the form that we have come to know about him in the 21st century.

Now, if you want to continue this discussion which has taken a decidedly ad hominem sort of twist that I'm not particularly happy with, I'm happy to do so in private and get it out of William's comments log.

William has my personal email address. Ask him for it. I'm happy for you to have it.

- Jeho

[jehosefatz.livejournal.com]

Dunno.

It's hard to say exactly what Paul said because all we have are one side of a conversation (his letters to congregations in different places), not the correspondence that generated the response in the first place. He was also heavily edited after the fact by the same people that edited other things you mention. (For example, there are internal inconsistencies about the role/status of women.)

Don't get me wrong, Paul and the "Pauline Heresy" (preaching to gentiles and G-d as an airy, fairy, other-worldly presence, amongst other things) had horrible and far-reaching consequences. Reading the texts that we do have suggests that he apparently was very territorial and got pissy when people tried to replace him in whatever authority position he thought he had.

As an aside, it look like we broke Bill's comment page. :( Sorry Bill.

- Jeho

[jehosefatz.livejournal.com]

By the way, all this being said, I don't necessarily disagree with you on much.

But, I don't think that it matters all that much whether Jesus existed or not. Considering that "Christ" is a title, not a name, it's theoreticalloy possible (some might say even necessary) to be a follower of Christ (a Christian, if you will) whether there was an historical Jesus or not.

To me, there are more important questions like:

-- What does it mean to be a Christian, exactly? (Some people seem to be really confused on this point, based on their behavior.)
-- How should Christians deal with the apparently less than Christian legacy that has been created and continues to be created? (which you mention, above)
-- Why are arguments presented that literal inpretation is the only interpretation? Ancient people's were a lot smarter than we give them credit for and were perfectly comfortable dealing with metaphor and parable. What makes us so uncomfortable in the 21st century?
-- Why is it necessary to force change on others (for example, change laws to bolster particular religious views)? The description of Jesus' life in the Gospels didn't seem to suggest that necessity. Frankly, I think that in order to grow in any spiritual way it's necessary to have something against which to compete. It forces one to challenge assumptions and make personal decisions about how to implement abstractions.

I see some interesting things happening in the American Catholic church as a result of the pedophilia scandal that involve these sorts of questions. Eventually, I think they will spawn a movement that will go back to very early Christian roots -- smaller, community based, semi-insular groups of believers, less prosletyzing, less structure, and more Christianity.

Oddly enough, a more Jewish model.

- Jeho

[neemauri.livejournal.com]

generally, i prefer to keep my faith very private-i don't care for folks trying to argue me out of it. my faith is one of revelation and personal experience and needs no rational confirmation outside of myself-which is the thing that makes it "faith"-it is not argueable-away-able, nor can it be increased by argument. i love science, it is fascinating and many times well beyond my understanding, but still so beautifully intricate. i don't understand why religion is threatened by science. actually, i don't understand religion...and i'm babbling...thanks for sharing this article-i appreciate that Dr Collins is brave enough to share.