Antidote to Dawkin's "God Delusion"

Can anybody suggest one? Especially with
scientific touch in it.

No. I find the best antidote is to just ignore it.

You might want to check out The Dawkins Letters by David Robertson. In it Robertson interacts specifically with The God Delusion.

A couple of other books I've found helpful on the subject of evolution generally are Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box and Philip Johnson's Darwin on Trial. Behe is a biochemist and looks at evolution from that standpoint, while Johnson examines its logic, evidence, and faith-commitment.

I haven't read Dawkins' book, but his tone in interviews is enough to drive the most ardent atheist to church, I think! You might find these scientists' tone a little more tolerable:

Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge by Edward O. Wilson

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins

Stephen Jay Gould. Not sure if he wrote a book on the subject but I seem to recall that he did touch on the relationship between religion and science in some of his essays.

Darwin's Cathedral by David Sloan Wilson

(I think that Collins is believer, and that D Wilson, EO Wilson, and Gould are not?)

A good artical on the topic appeared in the New York Times Magazine on March 4, 2007 under the title "Darwin's God," or "Heavenbound: A scientific exploration of how we have come to believe in God" by Robin Marantz Henig. It examines the relationship between human evolution and the capacity/need to believe in the supernatural, including whether a predisposition to religious belief is in itself an adaptive trait or a byproduct of other traits that helped humans to adapt and survive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?pagewanted=1&e...

Great article--thanks! I think that as social animals, we are hardwired to feel comfortable with hierarchy, and that the "great religions" that began to emerge as we shifted from small groups of hunter-gatherers to agriculture-based communities are adaptive in that they help direct our behaviors in directions that benefit the larger group. Dawkins and his counterparts on the religious front can have their arguments--I think the study of religion in humans is fascinating!

Foolishbrat (!), another book might be Robert Wright's The Moral Animal: the new science of evolutionary psychology. In the first half, Wright happily discusses probable biological roots of typical human behaviors (from sex to office politics). Then, as an atheist, he spent the second half of the book (plus his entire next book!) worrying how we might possibly live and work together in the absence of religion.

#6,
I think the study of religion in humans is fascinating!

But only after testing it extensively on animals first, right? ;)

I'll second The Language of God and also add Finding Darwin's God

I also like #3's suggestion Darwin on Trial, but as noted it's not a science book, but is written by a lawyer challenging the reasoning and argumentation of evolutionists.

Oh, #7, you're not going to like this (I didn't!), but scientists DO study superstitious behavior, at least, in animals. A psychology prof of mine many, many years ago had an entire wall of rats in cages who were shocked intermittently to determine if they would develop superstitious behavior (such as whacking their bottoms) to prevent/stop the shocks. That same semester we were called on to do other mean things to lab animals in comparative physiology. I wrote my psych paper on the calculated campaign to desensitize or flush out students who objected to the carnage. It didn't earn the best mark of my undergraduate career...{:

I haven't read The God Delusion or any of the other books by Dawkins, so I'm a little puzzled.

Can someone please tell me whether his nonbelief in a divinity (=atheism) is solely or primarily based upon his opinions about evolution?

Well, he is an evolutionary biologist, so you can bet that figures in. But he goes much farther than that, Evolution is not the centerpiece of that book, but it has been of others.

Thanks, Atomicmutant.

I've never understood all the fuss and feathers about evolution and science. If you believe in a god who is the author of all natural laws, and can suspend or break them at will, and you also believe that the activities of that god are accurately recorded in the collection of writings known as the Bible, all you need to say is "that's the way it looks, but god doesn't have to obey the rules discovered by science, and this is what he did."

Rather than looking for an "antidote" with a touch of science to counter Dawkins or any atheist, why not refute the arguments about the bottom line question --- the existence of god?

#14 - That wouldn't work to refute the arguments, because those arguments would only be convincing to someone who believes "in a god who is the author of all natural laws, and can suspend or break them at will, (who) also believe(s) that the activities of that god are accurately recorded in the collection of writings known as the Bible," as you put it. You can use the Bible to support your arguments until you're blue in the face, but if someone doesn't accept that there is a God or that "the activities of that god are accurately recorded in...the Bible," then by what method would you "refute the arguments about the bottom line question --- the existence of god?"

#15

Of course those arguments would only convince someone who believes "in a god who is the author . . . known as the Bible." (See full sentence in post 14.) So, that should be enough for Christians.

By what method do you refute the Dawkins et. al. arguments about the bottom line question, existence of god? Well, if you can't come up with a method, might as well throw in the towel and stop expecting people to believe it.

#16 - Wouldn't it be those who don't believe (insert your full sentence here) that would need to be convinced? What's the point in trying to convince people who already believe? To dust off a cliche, that's a bit like preaching to the choir.

#17

Depends on for whom you want the antidote. Is the worry that Dawkins might convince some Christians? Atheists already agree with him in lacking theistic belief.

In either case, evolution and science are side issues.

#18 - I guess I have nothing to add, then. Except, perhaps, that science & evolution would be more likely to turn a Baptist into a Lutheran than into an atheist, although I have no data to back that assertion.

The issue always comes back to truth and whether you can accept it as truth or not. For my part, I believe the resurrection of Jesus Christ to be a fact. If that is a fact, then it behooves me to examine His life and words closely. I may not be able to understand or explain all the facts, but I know that Jesus believed in Creation from his words. So I start from there, patiently watch people struggling to search out and understand the truth and wait. Full understanding will probably not come until after death, but that doesn't stop me from believing. I cannot make anyone else believe, that is their own responsibility. I can only present to them those facts which I believe to be true. They must decide for themselves whether they also believe them to be true.

#20

For my part, I believe the resurrection of Jesus Christ to be a fact. If that is a fact, then it behooves me to examine His life and words closely. I may not be able to understand or explain all the facts, but I know that Jesus believed in Creation from his words. So I start from there

If you start from there, I reckon that to "provide an antidote" to the Dawkins book you'd start by demonstrating why others should believe the resurrection to be a fact. In that case you couldn't use the NT as evidence, for you would first have to demonstate why someone should believe the authors of the NT.

#14 has it pretty well detailed.

You aren't going to "find" some "science" from which to counter Dawkins. There is Lamarkism, but that was discredited long ago. All other science support his general view of evolution. Yes there are holes, but unless you are a lifelong practising palo-biologist/genetist with a revolutionary new thoey and supporting evidence, the science is clear.

Dawkins' absolute position on gods is a different issue, not approachable by science.
Having thourgh some means persueded an athiest that Dawkins is wrong and that there is a god, how are you going to persuede them, that it is your god and not someone else's that is the "true" one?

Or is the point of this thread to refute Dawkin's arguments for the benefit of those of your faith who find them convincing and are now starting to doubt their faith? I can't help with that.

Let me pose a question. Unless I misread #6 there is at least a possibility that we are hard-wired for belief in a power outside of ourselves that transcends ordinary existence. For a Christian this power may be the Trinity, for an atheist it may be science or the interconnectedness of life. It seems that nearly every human being has this need to believe.

If, indeed, we are hard-wired how will anyone be able to prove or disprove God?

#23 geneg
But, science is not a "belief in a power outside of ourselves that transcends ordinary existence". I'm afraid to put a definition to it, but science is based on real observation. It's process of exploring, understanding and sometimes proving what we can observe, record, measure etc.

#23 no-body is ever able to disprove anything particularly not god

From Hitchiker's guide to the galaxy "proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing".

It can be demonstrated that (any) god, has not interveniend in this particular event. But even if you show that for every event in the entire history of the universe, it does not disprove gods existance. It might make it hard for you to have faith, but that is a very different question.

"hardwired for a belief in a power" isn't how I've understood the science.
That we have a larger capacity to impose patterns on random data certainly. That there are certain molecules that when present in the right areas of the brain stimulate a feeling of 'awe' - these can be generated through specific techniques, or ingested as active drugs, might mean that we have a capacity to appreciate we are not the biggest thing in the world, but it hardly adds up to a fundamental requirement of higher powers.

That's how I see it anyway.

#24

Read Order Out of Chaos by Illya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers (The book touchstone is wrong, but if you combine it with the authors you should get the correct book). These two scientists, in a series of controlled, scientific studies, showed that some natural systems have the ability to conserve energy by spontaneously reorganizing into more complex forms, more ordered forms. What causes this? At this point, no one can say. This leads to "power outside of ourselves that transcends ordinary existence". For a believer, this can be God, for a non-believer it just adds to the pile of things we don't know. At present it neither proves nor disproves God.

Another scientific question of this same sort is time's arrow. At the quantum level it does not exist, time can go backward as well as forward. I'm not sure it goes sideways. But in observed reality it goes one direction, toward into the future. No one can explain this, either. It has all the earmarks of "a power outside of ourselves that transcends ordinary existence".

#25

"we have a larger capacity to impose patterns on random data" Being able to impose patterns on random data begs the question, is the data truly random. Some would look at pi and say that's a random pattern, but I would say that the relative paucity of irrational numbers makes pi far less random than one might think. As far as molecules exciting areas of the brain in ways to stimulate awe, aren't you helping me make the case of being hard-wired? God had to start with us somewhere. There is no reason why he would not appear to us in nature (peyote, marijuana, Don Juan's "little smoke").

A book that attempts to answer this kind of problem is Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. This is an excellent take on man's first encounters with God. Once again, it neither attemps to prove or disprove God, just provide a possible mechanism for God to establish himself in us naturally as well as spiritually. "I will write my law in their hearts".

One not already mentioned is Andrew Wilson's Deluded by Dawkins? (Kingsway), probably only available in the UK currently. McGrath probably beats him if you have to choose though.

#23,#26 Geneg

I think understand your message #23 better now. If I’m correct, you are stating that an atheist fills their “religious” need with a belief in science (or, at least in something). Ok, maybe. I just want to make clear that science, in and of itself, is a tool, not a belief. It is not “a power outside ourselves” and does not “transcend ordinary existence.” It’s intended to be quite the opposite – to be a tool within our power that is used to understand ordinary existence.

I agree science is a set of techniques, methodologies, technologies, induction, deduction, reduction, theories, observations, measurements, etc. all geared to increasing human understanding of the present reality. Occasionally science bumps into the ineffable, the presently inexplicable, and elements beyond our current capabilities to even think about with our present scientific tools much less begin to approach understanding. I firmly believe these things are real in the sense what we objectively know is real. I like to think of them as manifestations of an objectively real God.

Having God hard-wired in our brains makes Him as objectively real as the color blue, or the square as a shape. It's just the perception of God in us may or may not be stimulated through the same set of senses with which we apprehend the world.

BTW, I am a great believer in science. I do not want to see us regress to a dark world of superstitions and ladders of being. God gave us minds with which to explore creation and does not want us to shy away from things that might seem contradictive to our limited understanding.

A "touch" of science is all you'll ever get from Christian apologists. Dawkins makes sense. The religious "right" (which is always WRONG) does not.

#30

A desire for answers may be hard-wired into all sufficiently advanced brains, but "God" is not hard-wired into them.

As best I can make out, you are saying that the fact that there are things that you don't understand constitutes objective proof of the existence of something else that is unknowable. I think. :-) All very well-written, and poetic, and circular, but with nothing "objective" about it.

Science isn't a religion. "Science" doesn't want believers, great or small. Science thrives when people use their brains to question the results of experiments, test whether they can be replicated, and examine the conclusions drawn.

Science and religion are not comparable. Science is a method of learning about the laws of nature; religion is a conclusion that there is a supernatural realm in which that method and those laws don't apply.

We look for "antidotes" to books like Dawkins' in order to be able to explain how he has misunderstood the Christian position. We can't very well say "he's wrong" until we have read what he thinks and then say "he's wrong, here's why".

Scientific topics, for the record, are embedded in Christianity. Job was the first to say the earth spins on its axis and is suspended by nothing. Job also discusses dinosaurs and people coexisting. And Job told us long before weathermen that the winds follow currents and patterns. Critical thinking and learning are essential to a firm belief.

Science, in this realm of origins and such, does indeed require believers. Belief in no God is nonetheless a belief. As is belief in chance. It's either "I believe in God," or "I believe in dumb luck," but belief is belief. We're all working with the same evidence. It's a matter of interpretation that is causing dissent. There isn't more "scientific evidence" for or against God--it's the same evidence, different conclusions.

misunderstood the Christian position

As I understand it, in this book Dawkins argues against the theistic position, which is, of course, an essential premise of any Christian positions, but is shared by other religions. Again, back to that bottom line.

"Belief in no God" is a nonsensical phrase, comparable to "belief in no centaurs" or "belief in no green aliens hiding under the bed" or "belief in no Easter Bunny" or "belief in no fairies." (Sorry, Tink.) The absence of belief is not a belief. If it were, we could waste a lot of time listing all of our "negative beliefs."

It's either "I believe in God," or "I believe in dumb luck,"

There's another position. It is "I don't know." Personally, a lot of things sure look like random dumb luck to me. But there may be some pattern that I'm not aware of. I'll just wait for more information.

I agree that there isn't scientific evidence "against god." Science deals with things that can be seen or tested or measured. There is scientific evidence running counter to a literal reading of the Bible, but a person who chooses to believe in an omnipotent God can explain it away. (As described in #14.)

#33 Job also discusses dinosaurs and people coexisting.

Ok, you got my attention with that line. Do you accept this as fact? (This certainly isn't what I picture as a typical Christine doctrine.)

#35
I was wondering what the ancient Hebrew word for "dinosaur" was, and who did the translating.

#36, I was thinking geologically. I'm picturing a God-like presence running Terry Pratchett style Strata machines. (In the late stages of planet building, just before colonists are introduced, all the surface rocks are laid in perfect geological sequence with the correct fossil assemblages)

Maybe #33 has been an early visitor to this museum it's a museum so its all true you know.?

#38 - which bits aren't purely allegorical? how do you know? why doesn't everyone agree? As we've already had a Terry Prachett reference I'll include another from Feet of Clay paraphrased - when you can all agree on which is the right religion I'll debate the matter with you.

from #38 "Most mainstream Biblical scholars regard the book of Job as being purely allegorical, anyway"

To which my questions "which bits (of the whole bible) aren't purely allegorical? how do you know? why doesn't everyone agree?"

seems clear enough? once I've clarified "bits" which was vague.

Science may be a process or method, but the people who practice it are human. A number of scientists I know say the word “Science” with reverence. It orders their world. They have equivalents to cathedrals (universities), sacraments (publication, peer review, "ordination" of PhDs), the Bible (journals), and world view (conservatism in science, liberalism in politics, ostracism of members who “break the rules”). No? That sounds like religion. Also like nationalism, environmentalism, conservatism, liberalism, atheism, etc.

I think with all the “isms” we rely on to order our understanding of the world, the problem isn’t the belief, but how it is applied. Virtually all can result in contributions to society, but they can also be used to oppress, especially when wielded by malevolent people (per The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements by Eric Hoffer). Didn't Hitler use social Darwinism as well as nationalism and 1st c gentile-Jewish disputes to fuel his eugenics programs?

Interesting though that we tend to attack beliefs (those conservatives!), even though such attacks preclude future (constructive) discussion on application to solve societal issues. I can’t imagine sitting through someone else’s national anthem and then trying to have a critical discussion with them!

(Just kidding about the conservatives, guys—really!)

#39 reading_fox
Wow, a creationist museum. That's surreal.

Isn't it just!. I'd probably go if I had nothing better to do and was in the area, just to see bizzare people can be. If there are others like me it will probably make more money than a "traditional" museum would. Sad reflection on the times we live in.

#42 Not really, to me its all allegorical/irrelevant. However I'm interested in why you think some of it isn't, and why others think other bits are/aren't, and most importantly why there is no agreement - hence the quote from pratchett in my#39

#43

I have longed believed that an entire semester of 10th grade should be devoted to Hofer.

#47 - I like that. Your blank space would be just as open to interpretation as the Bible itself.

I think the answer to the question posed by reading fox as to why there is not agreement as to which parts of the Bible, if any, are meant as allegory vs. to be understood as true accounts of actual events is a very difficult one. The disagreement lies in the fact that different biblical scholars approach the material from different perspectives or world views. How the differing views come about in the first place I've often wondered myself. I think it's probably the same thing that leads one to be politically Conservative or Liberal--something I also can't really explain, though I thnk it's partially genetic and can partially be explained by environmental factors. Someone who studies theology at a more liberal seminary may start from the position (before they even begin their studies) that some or all of the Bible is allegorical and base whatever conclusions they draw from the text on that idea. These scholars are more likely to take scientific discovery at face value: the fossil record is real and was not planted here by a supernatural being for the purpose of confusing mankind. There are those, on the other hand, who belong to fundamentalist churches who may start from the position that the entire Bible is meant to be a true account of actual events. They will take this as a given and the conclusions they draw from the study of biblical texts will all be based on that premise. These people are more likely to disregard science in whole or in part and will obviously be more rigid in their beliefs. How did these differences arise? I don't know. What I do know, though, is that I've spoken with Lutheran ministers who see much of the Bible as allegorical, particularly in areas where it doesn't square with science, and with people on the "religious right" who believe that the fossil record was falsified, either by scientists or God, or maybe even Satan.

#46, we should nominate Hoffer's True Believer for future threads such as "suggestions for graduation presents."

death was the result of Adam & Eve's disobedience or "fall," which occurred sometime afterwards, therefore no dinosaurs had died

I hadn't realized that. Adam & Eve were vegetarians?

The Book of Job always makes me think of Leigh Hunt's poem "The Glove and the Lions."

Aren't birds "the velociraptors among us"? {;>

#51, I don't see why not; why not?

#54

Well, why? Does the bible say that they didn't chow down on any of the land animals, fish, or birds? I guess I figured that went along with "dominion."

I had understood that humans weren't supposed to die before the "fall," but had never heard that animals had been immortal up to then, or that they had (why?!) been punished along with Adam & Eve. Sounds a bit like "collateral damage."

Reminds me . . . why were snakes punished because Satan impersonated or possessed one? And how did they get around before slithering on their bellies?

A bit of info on "Leviathan", who appears in several places in the bible, and occurs in other ancient mythologies as well (see Baal's defeat of Lothan, Marduk laying the smackdown on Tiamat in Babylonian literature, below)

Yahweh needed to conquer Leviathan.......

Isaiah 27:1--In that day the LORD will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, With His fierce and great and mighty sword, Even Leviathan the twisted serpent; And He will kill the dragon who lives in the sea.

The biblical references to the battle between Yahweh and Leviathan reflect the Syro-Palestinian version of a myth found throughout the ancient Near East. In this myth, creation is represented as the victory of the creator-god over a monster of chaos.

The closest parallel to the biblical versions of the story appears in the Canaanite texts from Ra’s Shamrah (14th century BC), in which Baal defeats a dragonlike monster: “You will crush Leviathan the fleeing serpent; you will consume the twisting serpent, the mighty one with seven heads.” (The wording of Isaiah 27:1 draws directly on this text.)

A more ancient version of the myth occurs in the Babylonian Creation Epic, in which the storm god Marduk defeats the sea monster Tiamat and creates the earth and sky by cleaving her corpse in two. The latter motif is reflected in a few biblical passages that extol Yahweh’s military valor: “Was it not you who split Rahab in half, who pierced the dragon through?” (Isaiah 51:9; see also Job 26:12; Psalm 74:13, 89:10).

#50 ER

What is your response to the vast physical evidence that consistently contradicts the bible(s)'s creation story(s)? ((I'm assuming you take the bible literally, and not symbolically)

#57 dchaikin, Off the top of my head I can't think of any physical evidence that contradicts the Bible's creation account. Yes, I take the Bible "literally" (by that I mean as ordinary speech, taken in its context, historical, cultural, literary, and grammatical context as well as in the immediate and general context of the entire body of scripture which cannot contradict itself, though it may appear to).

However, thanks to myshelves (#51, #55) whose comments prompted me to re-examine the issue from scripture-to-scripture comparisons and an English-Original Languages Concordance (Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance) and a Topical Bible (Nave's Topical Bible), I must be intellectually honest and soften my position expressed in #50, and in 2 ways at that:
(1) I no longer feel comfortable saying it is a "fact" that people and dinosaurs co-existed (not a fact required by scripture, just a very near certainty strongly implied by scripture), because
(2) I no longer feel comfortable saying that there were no animal deaths whatsoever before the "fall" of man with Adam's disobedience (although again, I think this is a very, very, almost required certainty from scripture, yet it seems to fall short of being explicit, and is just strongly implied)

So, myshelves, thanks for tweaking my understanding of scripture and the fall and the curse that resulted from it.

#55, myshelves,
-Yes, that humans didn't die before the fall is very clear from places like Romans 5:12-21 and I Cor 15:21-22
-Again, I have to thank you for teaching me something--this time regarding snakes. Up until today I never knew if pre-curse snakes flew or walked, and a few years ago I remember in a magazine (I think Biblical Archaeological Review) a discovery suggesting a flying snake type creature so kind of thought maybe that could be. But thanks to you I went back to the text, and there I saw what I'd overlooked so many times, verse Gen 3:1: "Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field..." which to be fair does not say the serpent was a beast of the field, but the comparison with beasts of the field (as opposed to flying or sea creatures) really strongly implies that the serpent was a beast of the field, that at least some snakes walked. Again, it's an implication, not a requirement, and it doesn't rule out flying snakes. (Thanks myshelves.) I have LOTS of thoughts (mostly from other Bible books other than Genesis) about the curse's effects ("collateral damage" as you say) on the animals, and even the plants and earth, but for brevity will just hit a few.

"EVERY" beast of the earth and bird were given "every green plant for food" in Gen 1:30, so it seems very likely all animals were vegetarians initially, which fits well with the rest of scripture (Is 11:6-9, 65:25, etc) that talks about lion and wolves lying down together, kids playing with snakes and in their dens, etc in the future "restoration" (implying a return to something, i.e., that this peaceful, nonviolent animal behavior existed initially).

What exactly "dominion" of man over animals means isn't clear to me, but whatever it was, we don't have it now (cf. Ps 8:4-9 with Hebrews 2:8-9), so it had to be something more than or other than eating animals.

Romans 8:21-22 says that "the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption" (to me that sounds like death) and that "the whole creation groans and suffers", again suggesting more than humans, but I won't be dogmatic.

As for the linkage of a curse on animals to the curse due to the sin of man, there are other examples in different Bible books of such linkages (for why I'd have to study more), for example, the global flood of Genesis 6:6-7 "The Lord was sorry that He had made man...said, 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the fact of the land, from man TO ANIMALS to creepig things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."

I found Skeptics and True Believers by Chet Raymo a very helpful attempt to reconcile science and religion.

#59, I hadn't thought before about the issue of the fall of man having such an impact on the rest of God's creation. Plants, animals, insects.....a global holocaust of life, with immeasurable suffering. I would be interested in what you could dig up on that issue. Even assuming that Noah was able to keep two of every single animal, plant, insect, bacteria, etc., species on the ark, does the saving of two representative individuals absolve the deaths of countless thousands, millions, or even billions of other creatures?

I wonder what specifically it was about His creation (aside from the fall of Man) that made Him "sorry that I have made them". And given that, why He thought it important that two of each of "them" be saved in order to repopulate the earth yet again. Why wouldn't He then have just put Noah on a boat, and re-created new kinds of creatures to populate the earth?

These are new questions, I hadn't thought of before, thanks for pointing that out, I look forward to what you find, and I'll go do some looking myself.

Of course, to some of us nitpickers it seems odd to be "sorry" you did something when
(1) you knew beforehand that you wouldn't like the results
(2) you knew that as a result of your displeasure you would unleash immeasurable suffering, and
(3) you had a choice.

Atomic, aren't you conflating the fall and the flood there? What ER suggests is that animals (but not plants) were immortal and vegetarian before the fall, and began to die of natural causes, or kill each other for food, after.

The flood was quite a while later, wasn't it? I've never heard that Noah had to take along plants. Just animals, which would include insects. And he wouldn't have known bacteria from computer chips, so any that went along hitched a ride in the humans or animals.

What did Utnapishtim have to take?

Btw, do check to see if Twain was right about Noah forgetting the pair of tsetse flies and having to go back for them. :-)

#58 ER Off the top of my head I can't think of any physical evidence that contradicts the Bible's creation account.

I'm not sure how to respond to that, because we are all aware of some examples. If the physical world never contradicted the bible, there would be no real science-Christianity debate. The earth's entire geologic record contradicts the bible's creation account. The rocks simply cannot be reconciled with a 6000 year old earth where humans at one time coexisted with dinosaurs (and presumably every other life form that ever existed). If the bible is correct, then our geologic record makes no sense.

Aren't the Adam & Eve and the Noah stories from Babylon / Iraq, and also mentioned in the Gilagamesh epics? And the flood story probably recalls the failure of isthmus between (higher water level) Mediterranean and Black Seas? (There are remains of villages (40 ft?) below current surface of Black Sea.) I should have paid more attention, but I seem to recall that failure of North American ice dams at end of last ice age caused huge pulses of waters through Mackenzie, Hudson, and St. Lawrence Rivers that not only changed currents & climates, but may have been implicated in failure of isthmus? I DO remember a Canadian oceanographer presenting maps of Lake Ontario that show ridges formed by failure of ice dams. No doubt some details have been added in centuries of retelling, but isn't there thought to be a real event behind the Noah stories?

#64: About the Noah (Gilgamesh and other flood) stories and the black sea: In Noah's Flood by William Ryan and Walter Pitman, the authors argue that the filling of the Black Sea occurred in recent human history and is the basis of all the flood stories. The argument is geology focused and, to me, both quite interesting and convincing. At some locations the Black Sea's black muddly sediments overlies sand dunes... which can't form in deep water. The authors attained carbon date at the boundary of these two sediment layers at ~7000 years ago. The implication is that at this time the Black Sea was much much smaller, and that the it filled to it's current size quickly (quickly meaning years, I can't recall how many, maybe 5 or 10).

Thanks #65 for Noah's Flood reference. I'm really curious now to check timing and magnitude of ice dam failures elsewhere! BTW, here is nice US Geological Survey circular on major floods, which cites Ryan and Pittman:

O’Connor, J.E., and Costa, J.E., 2004, The world’s largest floods, past and present—Their causes and magnitudes: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1254, 13 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1254/pdf/circ1254.pdf

Lake Ontario bathymetry can be viewed at
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakeontario_cdrom/html/gmorph.htm
What I saw years ago were remote sensing images of benthic ridges in Lake Ontario (such as those shown for Rochester Basin at NOAA website), that the Dalhousie U. oceanographer attributed to failure of ice dams.

On a finer scale, where Lake Ontario empties into the St Lawrence River, there are parallel tracks scratched into bedrock by ~8' boulders plus a horsehoe vortex (like snow makes around a pole) made of boulders. As I sip coffee at our cottage, watching the sun rise on happy waterfowl floating around such nearshore formations, I am amazed to think of the past power and violence of glaciers, icebergs, and flooding from failure of ice dams.

Duplicate deleted.

#62, sorry it sounds like I was mixing the two up. But I know the difference, in effect, the flood amounts to a "second creation", due to further transgressions of man, not the beasts (at least not that we are told, perhaps there was an insect Sodom and Gommorah as well).

And aren't the people so tragically afflicted with the intestinal Guinea Worm so glad that Noah didn't forget that one? I wonder which one of his family played happy host to it for 40 days and 40 nights?

#65, I have Noah's Flood but have only skimmed it, it is indeed fascinating. I just picked up The Biblical Flood : a Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence which deals specifically with the changing face of theology and exegesis surrounding the event as scientific discoveries have been promulgated. Haven't even cracked that one open yet, I just found it, but it looks interesting.

#70: I seriously don't understand why people could not have coexisted with dinosaurs, why not?

Apologies, I don't have time to give you a good answer. The quick answer is that it contradicts the geological record. Human and dinosaur fossils are never found in the same rocks, or in age-equivalent rocks. There is a distinct end to the presence of dinosaur fossils, then a long time gap and then the appearance of human fossils.

More specifically, dinosaur fossils are found in Cretaceous and older rocks (Jurassic, I think also the Triassic) and are not found in any younger rocks. Human fossils (or anything remotely similar to humans or primates) are not found in rocks that old. (I have no idea, to be honest, when human fossil show up, I think the oldest homoniods are only dated ~3 million years ago... which means they are found in Pliocene rocks.). The gap where neither is found covers most of the Tertiary.

Dates are not necessary for the argument. But, if you're curious, the end of the Cretaceous is dated something like 65-70 million years ago. The time gap between the dinosaur and human fossil records covers roughly 60-65 million years.

# 66: mdochoda: Thanks for link. Fascinating.

Yikes, you guys have been busy. I'm not sure where to start.

dchaikin, have you ever looked into how these dates are determined? You must assume an old-earth to get old-earth dates. The geological record is no fact. This site is a long discussion of the flood and the supposed column. Trueorigin.org, here, also talks about the column and how it seems to be accepted as the way to date fossils and rocks despite the circular reasoning necessary to use it.

You see, if you handed a fossil to a fossil expert, he could not tell you how old it was unless you told him in what layer you found the fossil. Therefore, the column is used to date the fossils, but the fossils are used to date the column. Also, when stuff of the "wrong" date are found alongside the index fossils, they are ignored. There is no distinct start or end. There is in the textbooks, but not in the fossil record.

Footprints and handprints, and various other human fossils, have been found in earlier layers. A human handprint has been found in Glen Rose limestone, which is supposed to be Middle Cretaceous. A hammer has been uncovered in Lower Cretaceous limestone. 10 modern, normal human skeletons have also been discovered in Dakota Sandstone, also Lower Cretaceous. And there are more discoveries like this. However, it does not follow popular opinion, and is therefore not highly publicized.

I'd like to reiterate that creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is interpretation. Neither side has yet come up with anything that completely belies the other side. Both sides require faith.

Thanks, ER, for jumping in for me. Glad to have you around, as usual. :)

(Not so good with links ... I may have to fix them. Patience if they don't work yet.)

Quote from #73:

>Footprints and handprints, and various other human fossils, have been found in >earlier layers. A human handprint has been found in Glen Rose limestone, which >is supposed to be Middle Cretaceous. A hammer has been uncovered in Lower >Cretaceous limestone. 10 modern, normal human skeletons have also been >discovered in Dakota Sandstone, also Lower Cretaceous. And there are more >discoveries like this. However, it does not follow popular opinion, and is >therefore not highly publicized.

Every single one of those examples has been roundly refuted multiple times. The problem with most of these evidences is they have been removed from their "in situ" state, making it impossible for anyone to say where they came from. The hammer in the rock is just in a mining calicification, the type that takes no time at all to form. Carl Baugh, the owner, won't let anyone examine it. The Glen Rose prints are a proven forgery.

Most importantly, if it was the case that human fossils were mixed into the various ages, they'd be found that way all over the place. Somehow or another, the only people who "find" these things are Creationists. And they somehow always remove them from their supposed "sites" before anyone else can get in and substantiate their claim.

#73: Those are strange examples. I think Atomicmutant's answer covers about everything regarding the specifics listed (Where do you come with these details AM?! You've amazed me several times, at least twice on this thread). Essentially there are no human remains (or other primates) in the Cretaceous or anywhere else in geologic record until much much later.

There is a lot of controversy in the geologic record, but not at the level you are discussing. At this lever, the arguments are actually clear. Specific dates aren't necessary, only relative dates. We know the cretaceous is older than the anything in the Tertiary because of the law of superposition -- the Cretaceous is always stratigraphically lower. In between the Cretaceous and the first human fossils, several more major rock eras are well defined. The fossil record can be used to correlate the rocks, because the fossils show the same sequence of assemblages in all locations, globally.

My point is not that the geology is correct, but that the geologic interpretation conforms with the physical evidence and contradicts the bible.

Apologies in advance, long post to follow............... :)

Here’s the thing. I haven’t run across any creationist arguments or evidences that don’t contain at least a small amount of fundamental misunderstanding, or misrepresentation of the scientific method. It’s not even about evidence, it’s about thinking. So often, the response to pseudo-scholarly articles by actual scientists amounts to “they just don’t get it”.

The point here is the oft-cited circular reasoning of biblical inerrancy. Take this quote: (with all due respect to EncompassedRunner, whose posts I enjoy and have learned a lot from)
“the reason I accept human-dinosaur coexistance as fact is because I believe the Bible (which self-authenticates itself in certain ways)”

This exposes the Creationist’s attempt at doing Science as an empty pursuit. It says, “well, the Bible is completely correct, some people claim the evidence doesn’t look like it. How can that be so?” And then begins some incredible mental gymnastic routine to make the square peg (Bible) fit the round hole (Evidence). Along the way, scientific terminology and data must be used. But because Science does not have a predetermined outcome, the way theological constructions must, at some point along the chain, you have to break the scientific rules, or at least contort them, to achieve the required result. You just keep thinking and thinking and thinking until it sounds like it fits.

Some of the arguments are so dense as to require professional examination to refute, I’ll give them that. Witness Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” (Irreducible Complexity in bacterial flagellae), or D. Russell Humphreys’ “Starlight and Time” (big bang theory squashed and stretched to explain the “illusion” of an old universe). Both of these works are so detailed as to require professional refutation. A layperson or casual listener could easily miss the subtle contortions included in these apologetical hypotheses. In each case, though, diligent professionals have taken the time to point out the deficiencies.

You know, Christianity has had its share of schisms and reformations along the way. Luther broke with the Catholic church with heaviness in his heart, because he believed that there should have been one Holy and Apostolic Church. But he saw his beloved mother church selling indulgences and heaping ritual and requirement created by man upon a purely spiritual, and faith based Pauline Christianity. He advocated scripture alone, and to come to know Christ through scripture. Not through works, not through deeds, not through contributions, or rationality, but through faith. This attempt to force rationality into the mystery of Christianity seems entirely beside the point. If you’re going to go to all that length to “prove” that the Grand Canyon was laid down in one catastrophic flood, well then, could we also please have a physical theory of walking on water, a biological theory of immaculate conception, the mechanics of ascension, oh, and a quantum theory of the trinity while you’re at it? (Or would that be a psychological theory?) I mean, why not? If we’re going to do feasibility studies of Noah’s Ark, could we also get one for Gabriel’s chariot, people turning into salt, and Africa would really like to know about the loaves and fishes trick, too.

I’m being a bit glib, but I just don’t get all the pseudo-rational gyrations around this topic when it has nothing to do with core spirituality, and even less to do with Biblical Inerrancy. Why does the message have to be proclaimed as scientifically inerrant when what is really important is that it’s spiritually inerrant? Is the Bible a science textbook, or rather a message of love from our Creator? Isn’t that where the rubber meets the road? Isn’t individual salvation more potent than trying to find a dinosaur in Job? Is that what the book of Job is all about? I doubt that many would think so.

For those who think refuting science is necessary in order to turn people to Christ, lest they be tempted by scientific materialism, I’d just say, that tactic has served to diminish both religion and science, by degenerating into an empty shouting match. Show the truth of the religion and people will come to it. Or they won’t. Such is the free will endowed to us by the Creator. Or not, depending on your point of view. In either case, isn’t living a Christian life by example the best way to show this? Or are Creationist apologists going to continue to try to proselytize by peer-review? Folks aren’t buying it.

yet more cookies for AtomicMutant! There is nothing left to add.

#76 - "Why does the message have to be proclaimed as scientifically inerrant when what is really important is that it’s spiritually inerrant? Is the Bible a science textbook, or rather a message of love from our Creator?"

Well put, Atomicmutant. I agree with you completely.

But the divide will still be there between Christians who understand the truth of the bible in the light of exegesis, redaction, context, hermeneutics, linguistics and all the other tools that God has given us to discover the spiritual inerrancy in the context of a living Christian community (that last bit added with a nod to Dr Rowan Williams, whose recent lecture I referred to in a post on the other creationism thread on this group), and those who read it as literal and scientific truth. As one of the former I find it difficult to understand where the latter are coming from; but reading these posts (and endless books by the different parties) they obviously find it equally difficult to understand where we are coming from. It's quite difficult to hold a conversation when we all come from such different basic assumptions. And both sets of Christians are presumably equally sincere and are praying equally hard for discernment.

One of the great mysteries of life!

Oooh, cookies. Chocolate chip, I hope..another one of life's great mysteries.

Thanks......

No cookies for you Atomicmutant, back to remedial study of shapes!

Shapes? Like Lucky Charms? Stars, circles, green clovers....(remembers commercial from my youth)

Or more like "one of these things is not like the others"?

Or maybe Noah's animal crackers!

I do love cookies, so whatever work I need to do to get 'em, well, let's get crackin'!

*pulls up a study desk and sharpens pencil*

#76 - My heart is so troubled here, I don't know where to begin to respond to you. Why is the question of Creation important? If there is no Creator, then what right has anyone to say we are in need of a Saviour? A Saviour from what? Bad ideas? Buddha can answer that need. A Saviour from bad behavior? Allah is a pretty strict monitor of behavior.

The fact is, there is a Creator God who has the right to determine whether we have gone against Him or not (sinned). He has made this world and all that is in it. You and I may disagree on how this was done, but if we disagree on whether it was done or not, then we have no commonality in faith.

The fact that I can see millions of intricately designed creatures and ecosystems in this world leads me to a Designer, as well as the fact that He has caused His words to be written down in a book we call the Bible. Whether or not the Bible is the authentic word of God or not is for another subject. There are many experts who are more qualified than I to take you through that. Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell and others who have written on apologetics would be a good place for you to start. Better yet, be sure you have read the Bible for yourself first, rather than just taking other's words for it.

I do not believe that God has revealed everything about Himself in the Bible, only that which is necessary for us to know Him and believe. John said in his Gospel that if everything that Jesus said and did was written in books, the world could not contain them.

What I do believe is clear from the Bible, is that God is our Creator, he has the right to set the rules, we have broken them, He loves us so much that rather than letting us pay the penalty for that, He came Himself to pay that price. If I refuse His offer, then I pay the price myself. I am already paying it in fact, I stand condemned. The only way out of my situation is to say, "Thank you," and accept His offer.

So. If I am wrong, and there is no Creator, then I am misguided in trying to follow Christ and be like Him, unless it is only His humanity I am trying to emulate. I would be better off emulating one of the many other "good" people who have passed, because though following Jesus brings me peace and joy that I would not trade for anything, it does set me apart from the world and those in it. If I am wrong then when I die, I will become compost. No harm done.

If the Bible is correct however, I have much to look forward to. An eternity of knowing this marvelous, mysterious, intelligent and loving entity who has only given us a peek at His wonderful self.

This doesn't answer your "scientific" arguments, it is obvious that because we start from different positions, we will never agree about the facts or conclusions. Hopefully though, I have stated clearly enough why millions of believers think Creation is important, and you will not dismiss them out of hand. If I sound terse, I am sorry, I don't mean to.

Wait a minute, wait a minute...be not troubled, Mrs. Lee! You'll notice nothing in my last post that is an argument against a Creator. I don't think the question of creation unimportant, where we're at here is a question of exegesis. Remember, there are millions, if not billions of Christian faithful that do not take the earth to be young, or creation literally to be a six-day affair, nor do they see acceptance of such as being central to their faith. I'd be one of those who doesn't see the necessary connection, or contradiction.

You do sound a little distressed, which wasn't the intent. I'd like you to have another read of what I wrote, and see that much of what's plaguing you now doesn't apply here.

So have a tea, or some cool water, and let's move on from there..... :)

Let's study the circle, Atomicmutant. To say I believe a Bible teaching is true because the Bible says it, fullstop, then that yes, would appear circular reasoning because it starts and stops with the Bible. However, to say I believe Bible teaching is true because the Bible says it PLUS it is self-authenticating, this goes a step more, and the logical thought would be "how can that be?" and not just to assume it circles back to the same point. So while I'm returning to the Bible as the final authority, true, I'm pointing elsewhere outside of the Bible for reliance on that authority, allow me to explain:

A circle is flat, 2-dimensional. Our existence (while not denying the probable existence of other dimensions), our everyday existence is within a space-time continuum, length-width-depth-time, and time is relative and related to matter. If the Bible were just another human book, then starting from it and pointing back to such a book would be circular, but the Bible (and it itself claims this) proves that it is not bound to our earthly dimensions, to time, in that it can do something no other book can do (prophecy), and that by doing this it proves itself to be extraterrestrially created and authoritative, not because it says so, but because it points to Something outside of itself and our dimensions, something that has the bigger picture and backs it up. So what I'm pointing to is stepping outside of the circle, outside of the orb even, or of the created universe altogether, outside of time. It takes a bit of humility to be able to examine this claim--most skeptics won't and they'll just brush it off and assume the prophecies are of the vague, Nostradamus, unverifiable type, without checking them out for themselves. But this is the claim and the God-given prophecy challenge:

"Present your case, the Lord says,...Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place...Declare the things that are going to come afterward, that we may know that you are gods..."(Is 41:21-23)

"Behold, the former things have come to pass, Now I declare new things; Before they spring forth I proclaim to you." (Is 42:9)

"Remember the former things long past, For I am God and there is no other; God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient ttimes things which have not been done..."(Is 46:9-10)

Good start! I agree that any conception of God has to place Him and His Word outside of space and time. This is problematic for science as we both know, but if God truly is as He is revealed to us, then, that's the way it is. Folks can backflip about it all they want, but if something exists outside of space and time, then it's (He's) got nothing to do with E=MC2. (Aside from having created it, lol)

The problem with prophecy is, we have several examples of "re-rigging the books" as it were, esp. with regards to Deuteronomy, the Priestly insets, and the places where Old and New Testament have been squashed together to create a messianic fulfillment. I have difficulty with the idea that even if God is guiding men to write these things, that he would guide them, then guide them to change it. (ack, I'm sure you're going to ask for specifics, which would take a lot of digging, but surely you're aware of some of these issues)
*gets ready to do some digging* :)

I do thank you for your point, which is well presented and interesting as always, but fails to address most of the substance of my windy presentation, though.

(Because I like your writing, I'm also still waiting for a response to my post #61....:)

Onwards.....we shan't stop until the dodecahedron....and beyond!

What MrsLee (#82) says is what concerns me about any "Christian evolutionist." A Christian is choosing God as top. The Bible, being God's word, should also take priority. And then the evolutionist takes science--a product of humans and all of their errors--over God and His Word. There is no reconciling evolution and God's creation. I know people are trying, but evolution is accepting science and man instead of God. Reason it out however you wish, but it comes to the same. Not that I'd say an evolutionist is hell-bound, understand. The point is still confession of sins and acceptance of grace.

And Christianity uses science to authenticate the Bible because, as ER says, the Bible gave us ways outside of itself to know its truth. And creation is one of them. Science fits well biblically. Just evolution doesn't.

#76 But because Science does not have a predetermined outcome, the way theological constructions must, at some point along the chain, you have to break the scientific rules, or at least contort them, to achieve the required result.

And spontaneous generation, which doesn't exist, doesn't break scientific rules because it fits with the evolutionist agenda? Both sides have distorted evidence, depending on the source. Both sides happily refute everything the other side says. So why trust people more than God?

why trust people more than God?

Unless you get a personal message from God, you have to trust people in order to believe the Bible. The Bible was written by people. It is people who have said that it was dictated by or inspired by God. Other people have made similar claims for other writings.

Like it or not, you are trusting people for the content of your beliefs.

#85 AtomicMutant,

I don't think science, or at least theoretical physics, has any particular problem with existence outside of time, I can't speak for space. Time is an emergent phenomenon. Complexity of existence must reach a certain point before time emerges. If God exists somewhere south of this level of existence, then He is outside of time. One of the problems we all have when thinking about God is the only frame of reference we have when thinking of intelligence is ourselves, so we tend to anthropomorphize God. In reality we know absolutely nothing about God other than what He has told us through His work and His creation. Denying the evidence of creation God has placed in front of us is to deny God.

To proclaim the Bible to be infallible in all particulars and details, to proclaim the Bible to be the infallible word of God is dangerous territory. This puts the believer on the slippery slope to idolatry.

#89

No, what I want is insight into the mentality of one who would create humans and animals knowing that he would end up inflicting suffering upon them, not to mention all but wiping them out.

I find much of the Bible, reflecting the manners and morals of an early and often brutal culture, to be the worst "press" a god could get.

Great discussion, here, people! (At least I'm enjoying it!)

I can only stop in for a second here tonight, but re #89, ER, the quote was:

Genesis 6:6-7 "The Lord was sorry that He had made man...said, 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the fact of the land, from man TO ANIMALS to creepig things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."

I'm wondering about Ladybugs and ferrets and luna moths and pronghorn antelope. Why would He be sorry He made them? I'm not talking about the degenerate party animals of Sodom and Gommorah, etc.

#91 - Atomicmutant, I can't answer your question, it is one you must reserve for God, I believe, He is always open to questions. However, the creation of all living things was for the benefit and use of man, see Genesis, creation stuff. So perhaps He was simply sorry about the whole kit and caboodle. This is one of the texts which points to God as an individual with personality. He is able to have sorrow, regret, anger, love, joy. Some say why the bother? Again, ask God I wondered for years, but one idea I've had, is that our eventual, eternal lives will be full of complete love because we know the depth of His love for us.

re #76

I especially like the last paragraph of this commentary as well as the observation that we don't need to prove the Bible inerrant as a science textbook. I have, however, found the Bible wonderfully inerrant as a spiritual guide.

The major question of Job--aside from this thread's interest in his co-habituation with dinosaurs--is why do the good and innocent suffer?

I had a major issue with this until one of my Biblical commentaries pointed out that Job was guilty of vertical sin (sin against God) as opposed to horizontal sin (sin against oneself or sin against one's neighbor). When Job worked through a better understanding of God, all good things were restored multiple-fold.

Working through a better understanding of God and our relationship to God is an enlightening and beneficial activity, but spiritual inerrancy, Biblical truth, God, and our relationship to God often seems foolish to those who put fundamental faith in other things.

I don't know that religious argument solves the disagreement. Indeed, it seems to me that there are many secular religions which can be just as dogmatic as some versions of theological religion.

If the Bible is the Spiritually Inspired Word of God, then it needs Spiritual Inspiration to be understood. If we listen and pray, such inspiration arrives, which is why the Bible has stood the test of time as a spiritual guide.

Without spiritual receptivity and inspiration, the Bible is just pages of words. The Word, devoid of the Spirit, is neither very helpful nor enlightening.

The most effective witness is not raging arguments, but shining, radiant examples of the benefits of living in Unity with God.

We are told to work out our own salvation and to bear the fruit of the Spirit. If we concentrate on our work, and give other people the freedom--and guidance when asked--to do their own work, we would, perhaps, be less frustrated by doctrinal disagreement.

As ER says, "Mutual edification is a wondrous thing."

Doré

re: 93

And I, especially, like the last part of your post as well.

If the Bible is the Spiritually Inspired Word of God, then it needs Spiritual Inspiration to be understood. If we listen and pray, such inspiration arrives, which is why the Bible has stood the test of time as a spiritual guide.

Without spiritual receptivity and inspiration, the Bible is just pages of words. The Word, devoid of the Spirit, is neither very helpful nor enlightening.

The most effective witness is not raging arguments, but shining, radiant examples of the benefits of living in Unity with God.

#93

Do I sense joy shining through the fog of inerrancy?

Kinda long, I tried to shorten it, but I guess I'm a bad self-editor. This is in response to the Bible's authority.

The Bible is not simply written by people. Physically written by people, but not invented by people.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

It is God's breath. Not the ramblings of a human.

2 Peter 1:16 We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Here, not random people, but eyewitnesses to Jesus. But Peter continues:

vs 19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention ... 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

So we are told to examine the prophecies to see the Bible's truth. Here are a couple of my favorites: Zechariah speaks of a world ruler who will smash the enemies of Israel. Ezekiel and other prophets give exact detail about which cities would be destroyed, how they would be destroyed, which ones would be rebuilt and which ones won't be, and then almost 300 YEARS later, the prophecies are fulfilled in Alexander the Great.

Some scientific prophecies include: Earth is a sphere, there is a hydrological cycle, balanced earth, wind circuits (not random blowing), solar system travels through the universe, axis rotation, etc. How do the ancient writings know about these things? They claim God told them.

Other people who claim God told them to write something are, bluntly put, liars. The difference between what anyone else has said is God-inspired and the Bible is that the Bible can be proved through its prophecies. And Revelation 22:18-19 (the end of the NT) tells us God has spoken to us for the last time. The Bible is it, no one is to add or subtract from it. (Saving AM's question for later on this idea.) Prophesy, tongues, and knowledge (coming directly from the Holy Spirit, not general knowledge) is finished. 1 Corinthians 13:8 tells us this clearly. When the perfect comes (a written NT), the partial (prophecy, tongues, knowledge) ends.

lol #96...."(Saving AM's question for later on this idea.) "

I'm the question guy, I guess.... :) That's ok by me......

It's all good, Lefty....so instead of questions, let's consider these couple of points.........

But wait a minute......Nebuchadrezzar is supposed to have leveled Tyre, according to Ezekiel, not Alexander. "For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon..... (26:7)" What follows is much crushing and wrecking and tower destruction and stomping promised. But....he never did destroy Tyre. There was a siege of 13 years, then he backed off. But then, in 26:14, we get "thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD." (KJV)

But Tyre was rebuilt. And then Alexander sacked it. As a matter of fact, it's been sacked, and rebuilt several times. In fact the city of Tyre was even referred to, by that name, in the New Testament (Mark 7:24, Acts 12:20)

12,000 people still live there today and would love to have your tourist dollars:

http://www.middleeast.com/tyre.htm

More fun to ponder:

I know the Bible says the Earth is a "circle".....not a "sphere". (where's that verse again?) And we know that the Greek Eratosthenes figured out the circumference of the earth somewhere around 225 BC. So that's not that remarkable.

(I hope I'm not being obnoxious.....I'm just looking into all these questions the same as all of you.....)

re 94

Thanks for the comments. I appreciate the thought you gave them.

re 95
Is this a rhetorical question or a incredulous question, or, perhaps, both rhetorical and incredulous?

Inerrancy can have several levels; coming to terms with some of the difficulties of the Bible is an exercise in spiritual development. Some people live with levels of interpretation more than comfortably than do others.

One of the most fundamental principles of language study is that the "word is not the thing"; i.e. words have representative truth, not literal truth. It is a principle that doesn't seem to be well understood.

In some languages, there are several words for the same thing. Biblical Greek, for instance, has at least 3 words for different kinds of love. Eskimos, I am told, have an extraordinary number of words for snow. English, on the other hand, tends to have one word that covers a multitude of definitions.

Inerrancy of the Bible is frequently bound up in this difficulty. The Bible can be an inerrant, composite whole with God as the Interpreter. Or, we can argue endlessly about the literal truth of certain words.

I don't mean to be dismissive or irreverent toward Biblical words, just to point out that levels of meaning to those words is an on-going revelation.

We have all reread a poem, a Biblical section, or something else several times over our years of experience and found that the meaning changed over time.

Let's take a different example, Santa Clause. Some (many?) Christians are opposed to Santa Clause for a variety of reasons: Santa Clause may be considered a substitution for Christ or God; nobody lives at the North Pole and flies around the world in one night on a sled pulled by flying reindeer. This chubby fellow could never get down those chimneys (what if you don't have a chimney) leaving presents for good little boys and girls; what if you aren't good, no presents? Is Santa Clause a judge sentencing and condemning children?

A good, Christian woman said to me, "When I found out there was no Santa Clause, I felt my mother had lied to me."

This presents a difficult question: Are all fictional characters lies?
Is all fictional literature--all story-telling—inherently deceitful and misleading? Fiction has no redeeming value, and we should ban--or burn--all books, or, at the very least, the ones with which we disagree?

Perhaps we need to mediate some of the difficulties with Santa Clause, but I, for one, am very fond of the toy factory at the North Pole and the flying reindeer, all of whom have wonderful names, and who had to learn to welcome into their midst, as lead reindeer, Rudolph with his glowing nose.

I do not put the Bible on the level of Santa Clause, nor do I think the Bible is fiction.

There are, however, a number of difficulties with literal interpretation. I have found these mediated by understanding different levels of meaning and different varieties of literature in the Bible. When I did so, the Bible became a revelatory, composite, spiritually inerrant whole.

Hope this helps. Doré

Quick question because I'm short on time (but I'll be back--bwa ha ha ha ha): Dore, do you then ignore the prophecies and proofs the Bible included for our benefit?

#96,

Atomic has already made good points, as usual, but it takes me longer to compose. :-)

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Pardon me for being blunt, but who says so? Answer: the person who wrote Timothy 3:16. You can choose to believe him, but his statement doesn't constitute "proof" of anything.

2 Peter 1:16
That's the epistle which appears to have been written around 250 A.D., right? But whoever wrote it, and whenever, it is merely the statement of the writer. Doesn't prove anything, and doesn't even refer to the OT anyway.

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God

Again, that's what the writer said. And maybe what the prophets said. Also what many people you call liars said.

I saw a newspaper article that said that Nostradamus had predicted the "bloody glove" testimony in the OJ trial. Interpreting prophecies and predictions is like interpreting horoscopes --- amazing how believers can find ways to go back and make them turn out to have been correct. As I recall, the Delphic Oracle always got it right too.

Science in the Bible:
How come all of those people reading the Bible didn't notice about the earth being a sphere until around 1500? And I guess God forget to mention to the authors about the earth revolving around the sun? Too bad, given the trouble that lapse caused! Ancient people knew quite a bit about astronomy. Is that a reason to worship the many gods that they worshipped, or to believe every word in their holy books?

I wouldn't feel free to call those who have said that God spoke to them or sent them messages liars. Some may have lied, but I suspect that many believed what they said. I've read the transcripts of the trial of Joan of Arc, and it would take a lot to convince me that she was not telling the truth as she knew it about her visions.

(Message 100 deleted because it somehow got loose while I was still trying to proof & edit.)

re 99

I don't ignore anything in the Bible, but prophecies are really not my major interest.

I think time and space as finite concepts have little to do with the spiritually infinite and eternal. God, as the I AM that I AM, is Eternal Being in the Now; that which is, was, and shall forever be, the Eternal and Infinite, in whom is no variability, neither shadow of turning, and from whom all blessings flow.

Biblical people sometimes had dreams warning them of danger which they were then able to avoid. Prophecies, however, frequently predict dire consequences for a people's failure to walk with God.

I am more interested in the Kingdom of Heaven within and at hand, and the daily life with keeps us within that kingdom, than I am in prophecies of disaster, or predictions of the Kingdom of Heaven at some other time and place.

If this is unthinkable to you, that's O.K. You don't have to agree with me. We all come to the Bible with different backgrounds, talents, and attitudes. If we approach the Bible reverently and prayerfully, we find specific and wonderful answers to our questions.

Doré

Doré's type of faith, and view, is specifically what I've been talking about and is beautifully articulated, I've nothing better than that to add.

"The Kingdom of Heaven within and at hand", not in the geologic column somewhere.

Nicely put, Doré.

(Oh, and by the way, I'm a big fan of your art. You are THAT Doré, aren't you?)

;)

Another quick post.

#102 Dore, what you're saying isn't unthinkable. That's how I use the Bible in everyday use. All of this other stuff is because it is Scripture and people who say God doesn't exist because _____ should at least know that Scripture can be proven outside of itself, even if they choose not to believe it.

#101 myshelves, I'm not even going to try to account for every individual who claims to have had a message from God. And besides, the people I was referring to are ones who are claiming they have new Scripture, not everyone who has had God tell them something. Though there are two sides that can deliver messages. A supernatural voice isn't necessarily God. All gods are not created equal. There is one God who was not created at all. Absolutes exist. This is one of them. On that point I won't budge. No offense intended, I might try to soften it, but I'm running out the door this very moment. Truly, don't take offense!

#104 Lefty:people who say God doesn't exist because _____ should at least know that Scripture can be proven outside of itself, even if they choose not to believe it.

I can only meet you halfway here. I'm not sure the existence of God can be disproven (here we agree), but I don't think it can be proven either. Nothing in this thread (or the links, or the bible) comes close to proving it one way or the other.

lefty,

I won't take offense, honest! :-) And I hope that no one else will take offense when I disagree.

dchaikin,

You can't prove that something doesn't exist. Contrary to popular majority sentiment here, you can't even prove that the Angel Moroni doesn't exist. :-) Just because he has never appeared to you. . . .

But the existence of God and the truth/accuracy of the bible are not the same issue. Clearly, if God doesn't exist the bible contains a lot of fiction. But if God does exist, the bible could still be a collection of myth, history, law, poetry, etc., without any divine inspiration, and the biblical portrayal of God could be grossly inaccurate.

I'm a little late to the conversation, but I am a little disconcerted with the faith in science and the quick dismissal of God's Word among people that describe themselves as Christians (or at least haunt this thread).

Science is wonderful for giving us new toys, but scientism is a notoriously fickle God.

Before you stop reading and dismiss me as another young earth kook, let me pull a Paul and qualify. I am not opposed to science and its investigation into the scriptures and origins. I worked with scientists at the EPA for several years, doing math and computer work for theoretical botanists. I was cited for my contributions to two published and peer-reviewed papers and presented our program at a symposium. That being said, I am no scientist nor the son of a scientist.

However, when it comes to origins, science is simply constructing a story to fit their worldview using the evidence at hand. Crichton (citing Dawkins, I think...) put it best: the most successful paleontologists are the ones that can tell the most compelling story. The problem is that the stories keep changing. And no one is around to verify the stories. They haven't posted any videos of the Big Bang on YouTube yet.

The argument always proceeds to Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is always the right one. Except that doesn't work real well in real life. Either there exists a Magic Bullet or there was another shooter on the Grassy Knoll...and this is from an event that we have video, eyewitnesses, forensics, and all the other accoutrements of science. How much more difficult is it to determine what really happened "millions of years ago"?

Isotope dating, geologic columns, the very process of fossilization require suppositions that we don't have enough information to be dogmatic about. Yet we are. By the way, one of our peer-reviewed published papers? Ten years later it was refuted by yet another peer-reviewed, well-documented paper. And such is the state of science. As we explore the foundation blocks of matter and life, we delve deeper into mysteries that defy explanation. Stipulate the Big Bang. Where did the original matter and space come from? You have simply moved the question back an iteration.

I am not a young-earther. Nor do I buy into the 14.5 billion year old Universe (the original number was a published guess that eventually hardened into scientific dogma). But without dismissing creationist arguments with the wave of a self-righteous hand, there are problems with evolutionary theory that are not addressed by scientists. Where are the transitional forms? Do you really buy "punctuated equilibrium"? Monopolies are tyrannies. The Church did poorly when we were the major intellectual force in the world. Scientists are doing no better. Toe the line or be burned a heretic. Why not just answer the challenges set forth? Let the truth win.

But I think the topic under discussion is faith. If we start dismissing parts of the scripture that are scientifically out-of-vogue or unverifiable, it won't be long under the resurrection comes under attack. And if there is no resurrection, there is no Christianity. At issue is the integrity of the scriptures. It is the foundation of our faith. If the foundation is successfully attacked, then let us follow Nietzsche, for he unflinchingly looked at the consequences of life where God doesn't exist.

From Christians, we need some humility to grant that maybe our interpretation of scripture may be wrong. I hold to the inerrancy of the Bible, not the inerrancy of my interpretation of it. I am human and sinful: that translates to wrong. Since I am mostly honest, the things I am wrong about I don't even know that I am wrong yet. And the Church has pronounced things in the past that are obviously not true. Let's don't fall in to thinking that the people who lived before us were imbeciles and we are the brilliant ones.

From Scientists, we need some humility. Your track record is no better than the Church's. Except your crusades have killed more people than ours. You want truth? So do we. Answer the questions. It is called peer-review. Of course, that is difficult when you have no peers...

markmobley: what kind of evidence would it take to prove to you that god does NOT exist?

107: markmobley

You bring up interesting points. I think some things need to be clarified. Apologies if this comes across too strongly.

Science is a tool, or really more of a method; it's not a belief. Using this method we make our interpretations, and those interpretation do change. However, the current theory is usually the best one available based on the data we know at that time.

To reiterate from above, my point is not that the geologic interpretation is correct, but that this interpretation conforms with the physical evidence. It's not an alternative interpretation, it's the best available. You can make other interpretations, but they need to be backed up with real data, otherwise, they aren't convincing.

There are physical explanations consistent with real data that make a convincing argument for both isotope dating and evolution. The geologic column is a little different, because it's not a theory. It's is actually there. (There are rocks. If they are sedimentary, including volcanic, they are stacked on top of each other.) What you make of the geologic column is your interpretation. But, your argument will only be convincing if you have a good theory and can back it up with real data.

"Best" is a subjective word. Hence the disagreements between creationists and evolutionists.

Lefty 33,

"Best" means most consistent with the data and most convincing. It is subjective but only to a point. For example, an argument consistent with the data is always better than one inconsistent with the data.

The problem with the creationist viewpoint is that, as far as I'm aware, it's not consistent with the data. For one example, I looked at one link you pointed to above (Trueorigin.org, your message 73). It is actually quite interesting; but the arguments have flaws in the logic, and they don't provide any good data. Bad argument, no data -- this article is not good science and it's not convincning. If would like I can elaborate (maybe in a different thread?).

#107 - yes science keeps changing "its" mind, yes every "answer" is always until somebody finds another. THis is the difference between science and faith/dogma. Science accepts it may be wrong on any issue - but a book isn't evidence that it is - and the timescales involved are long. Often more than one generation. It is not "toe the line or be burned as a heratic" that is the religious position (and you have many conflicting lines), it is: if you think I'm wrong 'prove' it.

To the rest of your points it basically boils down to - science isn't finished yet, we don't have all the complete answers. Those (partial) answers we do have are supported by vast bodies of evidence that can be replicated by those with sufficient interest time and money to do so. How does one do that with the bible?

It is not a contest, a head-to-head, or a fight, but if you are trying to meet science on its own grounds 'proving' your version, then you have to play by sciences rules - and religions evidence to date does not meet them. However this does not change the validity of your faith, an area science has no sway over.

"You want truth? So do we. Answer the questions" We're getting there, come back in a few more decades and we'll be closer than we are now. Will your position have changed in the light of new evidence?

re #103

Thank you, Atomicmutant. We are in total agreement about not having to search geologic columns to find God and the Kingdom of Heaven.

I find all this argument about having to prove God exists to be incomprehensible.

Do you have to prove you are alive? Do you have to prove that you had parents? Do you have to prove that some forms of behavior are better than others? Do you have to prove that loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself are better than hating God, hating yourself, and hating your neighbor? Do you have to prove that self-goverment is better than self-destruction?

God is not a scientific experiment to be replicated and, therefore, proven.

You know all this, of course. Unless the Spirit leads, guarding and guiding, illumining our spiritual receptivity, God remains a mystery.

About Doré as a name. I borrowed it from Gustave Doré, the famous, 19th century illustrator. I wanted something short and artistic, and this name was perfect. I have my artistic moments, but I am not THAT Doré.

Always a pleasure to talk to you.

Doré

#107

Mark,

Just one brief point. You write: "among people that describe themselves as Christians (or at least haunt this thread)."

The group isn't called "Christians." Check the Group description, which reads: "Readers and book owners interested in Christianity, theology, the Bible, etc..."

Also, see message #83 by group founder kurtabeard in the group topic "and its Compatability with Science."

#113: dore I find all this argument about having to prove God exists to be incomprehensible.

I struggle with Gods existence. That is part of the reason I have these discussions. (well, also because they're interesting.) I'm basically atheist. I would really like there to be a God, but I just can't get past my doubts. I see so much that, if there is an all powerful God, just should not happen. And, then I look at the natural world and it seems there is no need for a God there. The only place that seems to need God is within us. Why? I find that frustrating and fascinating all the same. The organized religions generally don't touch upon this kind of question. I have my own strange ideas. Maybe God lies within us, and that is what it means to be alive. That is part of why I waver, instead of fully turning my back on the God/supernatural concepts and moving on. I like your view, wish I could share it.

re 115

Hi, dchaikin,

I simply can't imagine being atheist, but I will try to address some of these issues.

The Omnipotence of God is usually a stumbling block. It helps to understand that the Power of God is gentle, the still, small voice of spiritual authority. It is saving, delivering, and healing power from the belief of separation from God and from the belief of opposition to God. The transforming power of faith changes discord into harmony.

Nature, I often find, a mixed bag. Much of it is glorious and restoring, but there are some highly destructive times as well.

When Jesus calmed the storm, his disciples exclaimed, "What manner of man is this, that the wind and waves obey him!"

That is spiritual authority, to bring peace, stilling the storm.

I think you are absolutely right about the primary place to need God is within us. The Bible says we are made of three parts: Spirit, Soul, and Body. Notice that Spirit is first. Soul comes from the Greek word psyche and includes mind, emotion, will, ego, etc. Body, Biblically, is a spiritual sense of flesh and blood, rather than a physical sense of the same.

It is a transformational perception of being, as opposed to the more common view that we are mind, body, and soul or spirit. This view puts the rational mind and the intellect first, makes the body a very finite, physical entity, ending in "dust and ashes", while the soul or spirit is perceived as vague and indeterminate, but somehow useful.

If Spirit comes first, then our first allegiance is to God. The Bible says, "God created man upright, but he has sought out many inventions."

We have to find, establish, or restore that upright man. God creates us, gives us spiritual identity and inspiration, governs our being, body, and experience, down to the exquisite, fine detail of "counting the hairs on our head".

We, however, must choose God. That's the purpose of free will; we must come to God in reverence and adoration, with God as our cherished Beloved, and we as God's cherished Beloved; we chose communion and fellowship with God.

The Power of God is not over-whelming, but gentle, guarding, guiding, saving, delivering, healing, protecting. People who genuinely walk with God are simply wonderful: shining lights in the midst of darkness.

When we look at what is wrong with the world, we don't blame God or consider Him useless, impotent, disinterested or uncaring. Know that Unity with God is a totally different state of being from dwelling in the belief of separation and opposition to God.

When we genuinely choose Unity (At-One-Ment) with God, we find wonderful illumination in the midst of darkness. We can claim spiritual safety in the midst of carnage.

If you are interested in approaching the Bible, I would recommend one or two of the gospels, perhaps Luke and John. I would also recommend Psalms, especially the 91st Psalm.

Hope this helps.

Doré

Dore,
Pardon me if this comes off as some what aloof -- it's not my intention.

You said:
That's the purpose of free will; we must come to God in reverence and adoration....

Why do you suppose God has a need to feel revered and adored? Those are purely ~human~ traits. Actually, they're not -- many species of the animal world have 'pecking orders' - seals, fish, elephants, gorillas, orangutangs, etc. Humans merely do it on a grander scale. So, why would ANY of the Supreme Beings (throughout history) demand sacrifices and/or homage?

Dore,

the Power of God is gentle, the still, small voice of spiritual authority.

I reckon you are not getting that notion from reading about the Fall, or the Flood, or other wholesale destructions of men, women, children, and infants in the bible.

"What manner of man is this, that the wind and waves obey him!" That is spiritual authority, to bring peace, stilling the storm.

It might have been "spiritual authority," but it was a physical storm, and a physical boat, and physical people who were saved from being capsized. (I'm taking it literally. Smile.) Shame it couldn't have been used on Katrina, or on tornadoes in Kansas (home state of many god-fearing anti-evolutionis.)

We, however, must choose God. That's the purpose of free will; we must come to God in reverence and adoration,

The purpose of free will is a "must choose." That's interesting. Also Orwellian. And if someone uses that free will to choose to think, and ends up not believing what is in the bible, the "gentle" power will come into play and punishment will ensue, eh?

The Power of God is not over-whelming, but gentle, guarding, guiding, saving, delivering, healing, protecting.

I take it that all of those words are not used as commonly understood? Or is it that all those not saved or delivered or healed or protected from the myriad diseases and natural disasters that are part of god's creation deserve their fate?

When we look at what is wrong with the world, we don't blame God or consider Him useless, impotent, disinterested or uncaring. Know that Unity with God is a totally different state of being from dwelling in the belief of separation and opposition to God.

For a minute there I thought that the second sentence was going to shed some light upon the first. Is it intended to? Why did your loving god create "all that is wrong with the world"? (I mean diseases and what are commonly called "acts of God," like tornadoes and floods & hurricanes.) Why shouldn't a loving god use his gentle power to alleviate (yea, even eliminate) the suffering they cause? Don't tell me that diseases or weather cycles have some purpose in nature --- that's sciencespeak. :-) God created nature, and isn't bound by natural laws on this little backwater planet.

If you are interested in approaching the Bible, I would recommend one or two of the gospels, perhaps Luke and John. I would also recommend Psalms, especially the 91st Psalm.

I'd recommend approaching it, picking it up, and reading it cover to cover, OT & NT, with an open mind.

No offense, Dore. You write well, and poetically, but it seems to me that you say "forget all that bad and contradictory stuff in the bible and just think lovely thoughts." The gentle, loving God you describe should sue the writers of the Old Testament for defamation of character! You are happy in your belief, and that's great. But that doesn't butter any bread when it comes to convincing others that they "must" use their free will to decide to believe as you do.

Stephen Jay Gould, atheist as well, didn't just "challenge Dawkin's views" he hated his guts. To simplify- Gould considered himself the "real science" guy, and considered Darkin's a pop-culture icon that was stealing his thunder and his spotlight. His disdain for Dawkins is not just a matter of professional differences. It should be noted that Gould has probably done more to hurt Evolution, and played right into the hands of the Creationists, than any Palaeontologist... ever. When promoting his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, Gould went to the mainstream press and proclaimed to everyone who would quote him in ink that he had "Turned Darwinism on its Head." The Creationist ran with the quote, and often use Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium research as part of their so-called scientific foundation for discrediting Darwinism. Besides that, Dawkins did an excellent job disproving Gould's boasts- not that Punctuated Equilibrium was bunk, but that it was nothing revolutionary. Rather, that Darwin had considered long periods of stasis and sudden periods of drastic change when environmental conditions introduced new and sudden stimuli into the equation. Gould merely expanded upon this and declared it the rule rather than the exception (then crowned himself king, and took a bow).

(That first paragraph addresses comments comparing Gould & Dawkins made about a zillion posts above.)

I think Dawkins' recent confrontational tone towards his peers in the scientific establishment to speak up on behalf of science against the encroachment of superstitious pseudo-science like so-named Intelligent Design, is in many ways commendable. Carl Sagan, in his swan song book, The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, avoided the confrontational tone of Dawkins, but made much the same argument, all the same. For being the "friendly science guy", Sagan pulled no punches: modern civilization as we know it cannot persist without science, yet within mass culture the creeping influence of superstitious pseudo-science is challenging the influence of science over it's own domain and, whether from Fundamentalist Christians or Islamic Radicals, if left unchecked could risk the downfall of our modern civilization.

That said, I don't think Dawkins' in-your-face approach is likely to win him the converts he hopes for. Only a solid education in Math and Science will open minds (that's why the Creationist want to stop science being taught, at any cost).

#118 myshelves:
I'm still laughing with your post, eps. your first comment. I agree, the biblical god is hardly gentle. Numbers still freaks me out.

#112 Reading_fox:
Good points. That seems to be the problem with using science to justify religion. The conclusion is assumed, and process becomes trying to justify the conclusion. It's backward science (although such a method does happen in real science all the time... maybe not intentionally.)

#116 dore
Thanks. I have to agree with myshelves. You write wonderfully, and if I were Christian I would follow your lead. I really enjoy reading your posts. But, how gentle could god be? (assuming god's existence). Twisting your words little, I'm thinking: what if we limit God to a spiritual authority?... well, that brings up a lot of interesting unpolished thoughts... I'll have to think about that more when I'm away from my office.

re 118

Hi, myshelves,

That's fine. You don't have to agree with me; most people don't.

When Blake illustrated Job, he gave God a cloven hoof, i.e., he made evil part of God's nature.

Devastating acts of nature are frequently seen as "Acts of God", presumably as punishment for all the wretched sinners in the world, or as a function of natural law which operates, we often assume, independently of God.

The Bible contains many different concepts of God, and has a number of different names for God. They sometimes illumine each other; sometimes they need additional understanding.

I don't hold God responsible for the Fall; I think the Fall was redeemed long before the New Testament; and I don't hold God responsible for the Flood; I don't think all of humanity is descended from the three sons of Noah.

One of my Bible commentaries points out that there are, in fact, five creations in the first 12 chapters of Genesis. Does this mean God couldn't get it right the first time? He had to scratch creation and start over until He finally got it right? Or does this roller coaster of creations have another, higher, more spiritual meaning?

In the first chapter of Genesis, the name for God is Elohim and means plural gods, or, as is usually translated, "Plural Majesty". How do you reconcile this Plural Majesty with "I Am that I Am” which is clearly singular.

Issac Newton, for instance, thought the Trinity was a heresy, and absolute Unity of One had to be the solution.

While I have endless admiration for Newton as a mathematician, I don't find him especially perceptive when it comes to God or the Bible. Somehow, God as a homogenized whole just doesn't work for me.

So, is God both good and evil, responsible for all the disasters, disease, and disorder of the world?

Shall we sing, "When I get to heaven, I'm going to tell God what is wrong with the world."

Do we feel obligated to inform an Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient God what is wrong with His Creation?

As I am sure you know, one of the first rules of argument is to define your terms.

First order of business, then, "Who is your God?"

Second order of business, “How do we read the Bible?” I recommend starting with the Gospels and Psalms. When we begin reading, we don’t start with an unabridged dictionary!

I consider Genesis and Revelation, followed closely by Daniel and Ezekiel, the most difficult books of the Bible. Numbers and Leviticus often give people trouble as well.

Actually, when the Canon of Scripture was first established, it was thought for some time that the New Testament could stand on its own. However, it became apparent that 95 to 100 % of what Christ Jesus said was directly quoted from or referenced to the Old Testament. Thus, the Old Testament was added to the Canon of Scripture.

Jesus did say, however, that loving God with all our heart, soul, and mind as well as loving our neighbor as ourself were the two great commandments which underlay all the law and the prophets. These two commandments, to me, are the test of true spirituality.

Does this understanding help me to love God, love myself (the spiritual identity created by God), and love my neighbor? I do find loving my neighbor much easier if I love God and myself first!

I walk an independent pathway, encompassed by much prayer and study, and, I hope, practice.

I let other people work out their own salvation with my blessing.

Doré

Dore,

Do we feel obligated to inform an Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient God what is wrong with His Creation?

We might feel obligated to question whether there is a god who is all of those things, and is also "loving" or even "just." Think of the horrors he could have prevented by better design, and could prevent every day if he weren't too busy compiling statistics on falling sparrows. We might also need to consider whether any hypothetical creator of man has paid any attention to him since that creation.

First order of business, then, "Who is your God?"

Good point! I don't have a god. In this topic, I've been referring to the god(s) as described (variously, as you so rightly point out!) in the bible. I'd be happy to work with your definition, but I begin to fear that most of the believers here might not like it; and I might find that your definition would eliminate a lot of the problems I've been raising in response to various posts. :-)

When we begin reading, we don’t start with an unabridged dictionary!,

I didn't. (I think my Uncle Harry may have. He really did like to read it cover-to-cover. Grin.) But I didn't pick up other books and dip into different parts. If I want to know what a book says, I start on the first page. Guess I'm funny that way. :-) Various sects may arrange the contents of the bible in different order. I'm not sure about that, though I do know that contents differ. I've always thought that there were reasons behind the arrangement.

Jesus did say, however

I was thinking about that the other day. Have you ever been interviewed by a reporter, and seen in the next day's newspaper the quotes attributed to you? It is often difficult to find the traces of what you actually said. That's the next day, not 70, or more than 200 years later. I have to wonder how much we know of what Jesus said. For instance, I find it astonishing that he, a devout Jew, would have instructed his followers to practice actual or symbolic (depending upon your affiliation) theophagy. Where did that come from? Not a part of Jewish religious tradition, was it? Seems more likely to have been added in by some early convert from a Mithraic (or other non-Jewish) religion.

I don't have time to hit every question. Hopefully I will later. Here are a few quick thoughts:

KromesTomes (108) - I am afraid it is too late for me. I have had an experience with God that is much more real than all arguments and statistics. I came to faith and remain in faith through experience (that makes me rather post-modern, eh?) from an agnostic/evolutionist background.

However, even if evolution was proven beyond all doubt, it still wouldn't change my mind. I think that the Bible is sufficiently open to that type of interpretation. In fact, that was my original interpretation after I came to faith. It was only through study that I abandoned evolutionism.

reading_fox (112) I know that this is not what you were talking about, but I would like to see evolution replicated in any form. I can gather the same data (which is your point) but as lefty33, "best" is subjective. (I tried to point that out, but failed). Whether we like it or not, we all come to data with presuppositions. It is pride to assume otherwise.

With all of our understanding and technology, why can't we generate a life form? We can find the exact chemical structures, re-create the conditions of the primordial soup (who measured that stuff anyway?) but cannot "bring it to life". So life is self-organizing? Where did that come from? I suggest that you look into what cosmologists are calling the "Anthropic Principle". It seems that the Universe is finely tuned to sustain life. What a wonderful stroke of luck. A whole lot of scientists and philosophers are coming to theism (not Christianity, mind you, but theism) because the coincidences are overwhelming. Look at the evolution of life from a purely mathematical standpoint sometime (sorry, my background is math). We are quite lucky to have evolved.

Yes, science is getting closer and closer to the answers. And I firmly believe that it will end in theism when the process is complete. Will we be able to prove the existence of God? Nope. It would put a major dent in free will (look into Kierkegaard's parable of the prince). And theology is changing and growing. Our understanding of the Bible has transformed over the Centuries since its final collection. Just as science has many threads seeking the truth, so the Christian faith.

myshelves (114) - I apologize. I am still new to this thread and assumed that most of the people who are regulars associate with the name. As I am learning in the Political Conservatives thread, there are many contrarians in the world. I guess I am the resident contrarian in Libertarian and Market Liberals group, but I only went because I was invited. (That is not intended to be an insult, only an expression of my ignorance.)

dchaikin (115) It is interesting to me that there are universal desires within the human soul and each has its attendant satisfaction: We get hungry, and there is food, thirsty, and Pepsi works, we have sexual desire, luckily there is an opposite sex to satisfy the craving. I find it quite right that mankind should desire there to be a God and an after life if such a thing exists to satisfy the craving. Perhaps that is an evolutionary adaptation...

WholeHouseLibrary (117) Adoration is a good way of saying submission and dependence, recognizing that God is right about the way to live, that following His way results in the best possible world. He does not demand it, or else you would find yourself doing it. He desires it because He loves us and wants the world to be a place of peace, joy, and love, to destroy the evil that we have chosen to be in our midst. It is not an ego thing with God. If there is any anthropomorphism, it is little wonder, given that we were "created in His likeness and image".

dchaikin and myshelves, in regard to the gentleness of God: Have you any children? Have you ever disciplined them? Why inflict such horrors on our children? Aren't we gentle and loving? Discipline is love. A little pain now often will prevent great pain later. If and when God has judged, it was for the best of mankind, trying to work within the freedom of our will and the perversity of our desires to bring about the best possible results for us. You never find that God enjoys such or does it on a whim, a la Greek or Roman gods. The Bible often implies great soul-searching and pain of heart within God's soul when judgment fell. In fact, if I had to accuse God of anything, it would be of waiting too long, of being too patient and allowing the righteous and innocent to suffer at the hands of the powers that be in order to give the powers that be space to repent. At least, that is what David, Jeremiah, etc, accused God of pretty consistently.

myshelves (122) - I find it interesting that humanity consistently calls God out for a bad design without offering any improvements or taking responsibility for the messes that we have made with what we have been entrusted. The Bible is pretty clear that human sin has had a devastating effect on the natural world. American Indians believed it that way. In fact, almost every culture that has been in touch with the land has come to that conclusion. It is only in a modern, industrial time where we have broken the connection to the land that we think God is to blame.

Your assumptions about additions after the fact do not hold historical scrutiny. The earliest writings within Christianity had a full-fledged Christology with Jesus as God in the flesh (Paul's doxology in I Corinthians comes to mind). They might have been wrong, but it is pretty clear that is what they actually believed.

Wasn't nearly as short as I thought, or as short as it should've been.

re 122
Dear My Shelves,

Christianity is based on the foundation, "the rock", that Jesus embodied the Christ, the highest and best Unity of God and Humanity that serves as our example of how to live.

Christ Jesus, as the Son of God and the Son of Man, expressed the spiritual dominion that flows from exemplifying Unity with God.

I think, this is, in fact, the only point on which the National Council of Churches can agree: Jesus was the incarnate Christ, the Christly "flesh and blood" that gives substance (flesh) and life (blood) to the Expression of God in daily life.

Our task is to walk in His footsteps.

The Bible is threaded with revelation, inspiration, spiritual power and deliverance as well as blood, sweat, and tears. As such, it has stood the test of time because people retreat to it and find help, solace, peace and deliverance. They come from all sorts of backgrounds, attitudes, questions, and needs. The Bible approached prayerfully, in an attitude of spiritual receptivity, gives answers, salvation, deliverance, and spiritual illumination that can leave one speechless with awe.

We all have a continually and infinitely unfolding concept of God. Expressing God in daily life is a revealing, inspiring, and developing experience. We don't need to fast-freeze our current version of understanding God, made our finite concept absolute, and shove it down somebody else's throat. That individual may have different issues and different questions.

One of the things I like about Moffat's translation is that he calls God, the Eternal. God, the Eternal and Infinite, always exists in Perfect Holiness, Love, Truth, Life, and Purity, but we have to develop that understanding.

Instead of finding multiple gods in the Old Testament, try thinking instead about specific concepts of God. What is Noah's concept of God? Abraham's? Jacob's? Jeremiah's? Elijah's? Isaiah's? Do they show any development, any increasing understanding? What can we learn from their experiences that will benefit us and enlarge our understanding?

How do the major and minor prophets differ in their concepts of God?

Some versions of the books of the Bible are arranged differently. The Bible isn't written in chronological order anyway and even if it were, the contents could be arranged according to the law, history, major and minor prophets, and so on. A thematic arrangement, for instance, sometimes makes a better study Bible.

It's no big deal, just a useful approach.

Oh, just because I mentioned Moffat doesn't mean I use that translation exclusively.

I have a number of translations, and find them variously useful.

Doré

Whenever I feel my skeptical side coming through, I ask, "Is it my job to go around taking away people's faith?" After all, many people derive hope from their faith in Christianity. I would not want to be responsible for taking away someone's hope, given that hope is very hard to come by.

Message 125: I would rather have no hope than false hope;and believers often speak of being content. It seems that they won't be content unless everyone believes what they believe; and if you don't, you're punished. Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, when testifying at the Dover PA trial, admitted that by his criteria that allows ID to be science, astrology would also be science.

#123 said:

"A whole lot of scientists and philosophers are coming to theism (not Christianity, mind you, but theism) because the coincidences are overwhelming."

Isn't this an example of circular reasoning? The conditions for life as we know it require many factors to be just right. We observe life. All the factors required for life are present, ergo God created life because of the number of factors that have to be just right. I think you'll have to do better than that. It's just as reasonable to believe life emerged because the requirements were present to allow it to as it is to believe the factors supporting life all came together so that life could emerge. Neither of these possibilities require God.

What does any of this have to do with the Good News of the Gospel? Are we required to believe that we know what happened days, years, or possibly even eons before the first human walked the earth because an 8th or 9th century BCE scribe, writing down the foundation myths of the Hebrews, relates a story based on the world view of the time, copying parts from various creation myths of the area? I missed that part of either Jesus' or Paul's teachings on this subject. If I believe in evolution am I going to hell? If I believe the earth is 15,000,000,000 years old am I going to Hell? Does my belief the earth is round instead of flat, and goes around the sun, and is not the center of the universe trump the commandment to "love one another as I have loved you" in the scheme of salvation?

#23:
Mark,

Not insulted. :-) It says interested in Christianity, theology, the Bible, etc. I am interested; in theology in general, in Judaism & Christianity, and in a number of other religions. Organized religion has had and continues to have a major impact upon the world in which I live. But if kurtabeard ever withdraws his welcome, I will go quietly. :-)

Gentleness & Children:
No, I don't have children. I know a number of people (including my parents) who managed to raise children, and to gain their respect and obedience, while "sparing the rod." I think that it is wrong (if not criminal) to beat a child. (Hitting a 3-month-old, as I understand is recommended by those Pearl people, is just plain sick.) If you can't discipline your children without resorting to violence, you shouldn't have had children. Send for "Supernanny" before you do too much harm, or manage to kill one of them.

A little pain now often will prevent great pain later.

Are you talking about the Flood, or the destruction of the people of S & G? The victims probably saw it differently. Not easy to be so philosophical while trying to hold your child above the rising water, or hearing his screams as he burns alive.

if I had to accuse God of anything

I like Abraham's line, during that bizarre middle-eastern bazaar haggling about how many just men --- no just women or innocent babies need apply for executive clemency --- had to be found to keep God from
incinerating the entire population. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

And btw, speaking of parents and children and "love," how did God come up with the plan that the way to "redeem" mankind was by the brutal death of his son? He could have selected from an infinite number of methods, from declaring an amnesty to sending a candygram with the message "Go and sin no more." It was all up to him --- no one more "supreme" was making rules he had to follow. (OTOH, the Greek Gods you mention were subject to Fate.)

Design:
I don't have to come up with a better design. I'm neither omnipotent nor omniscient. But if God has those attributes, he could (just as one tiny example) have left out Aedes aegypti. And I'm not the one claiming that there is any conscious design! If there was a creator, the results would suggest to me an indifferent, amoral, or sadistic one. Take your pick.

Your assumptions about additions after the fact do not hold historical scrutiny.

No additions? Mark 16:9-20? And Luke 22:19-20? No little changes ever made while those manuscripts were getting copied? Guess you have "faith" in all of the early church fathers who were already at loggerheads, and condemning each other's favorite gospels as "the fictions of heretics." I don't. History tells me that the winner usually says which is the official copy of a manuscript, and tries to get rid of "heretical" versions.

#124:
dore,

To steal a line from Ronald Reagan: there you go again! :-) It's like asking questions about the Virgin Birth or the Immaculate Conception, and being treated to Schubert's "Ave Maria." Very pretty (I love that song), but nothing you can get ahold of that directly addresses the questions.

I think you may be the "antidote to Dawkins." Bet you could wear the guy down. :-)

#125:
deniro,

When people assert that you "must" reach certain conclusions (or there will be literal Hell to pay!), do you just say "sorry, pardon me for thinking"? No one is ever supposed to dispute the public statements of believers (unless they are Mormons, or others "beyond the Pale"), or ask them to back them up with proof?
When people are trying to have their "hope" taught as science in public schools, and to enact their beliefs into law, it is your job to speak up.

re 129

Dear My Shelves,

Really? All philosophical, scientific, artistic, and theological systems begin with fundamental assumptions, tenants of belief, or axioms.

I don't ever debate the existence of God, the inspiration of the Bible, the validity of Christ Jesus, or the two great commandments.

I have defined my fundamental assumptions of that framework. One can accept it or reject them; ask for clarification and explanation, but to assert that the words of Jesus are no better than a quote in the daily newspaper shows either total disregard for the bloody trail of Biblical validity as well as the extensive, comparative scholarship on the gospels, or it is an indication that any question that casts doubt on the fundamental assumptions is valid.

Is that why you want to question the Virgin Birth? So that you can assert that it is a biological impossibility? That's hardly a new argument. Neither is the claim that God doesn't exist, is dead, an illusion, a delusion, or the refuge of the inept, incompetant, and ineffective.

I wouldn't bother to debate Dawkins. He is entitled to the fundamental assumptions of his secular religion. I have heard all of these arguments many times before. God is a mystery to those who don't ask, seek, and find.

That's not to say there aren't problems with the interpretation of the Bible, with Church dogma, with religious assertions. In fact, when I look at the history of the European and American Christian Church, I see what looks very much like a western version of the Old Testament, a developing concept of God and humanity's relationship to that God.

Take care. What's the Irish Blessing?

May the sun rise before you and the wind be at your back.

I may not have that right, but a blessing is a good thing to have.

Doré

Dore,

I've always thought that fundamental assumptions should be taken out for airing and re-examined on a regular basis. Unless one is infallible. But hey, you have a right to do as you like.

No point to more discussion between us if there are brick walls to run up against.

I think it's "May the road rise to meet you." Don't know why that's supposed to be good. Sounds as if you'd trip that way. :-)

I think the road rising up to meet you keeps you from tripping into a pothole. No spiritual significance to those words, just my thoughts having tripped into plenty of them. ;)

Thank you Markmobley for joining us here!

myshelves, and other seekers/inquisitors, God doesn't mind being questioned. He welcomes it, questions are good. Are you willing to hear the answers from him though? There is a difference in a student who questions with a seeking heart and one who simply wants to disrupt the class. I am not suggesting that you are trying to disrupt this "group/class," what I am saying is, will your anger pause long enough to hear God if He does answer you?

Sometimes when my teens are very angry, because I have not allowed them to do something I deem unhealthy for them, they question, "WHY!" But they don't want or can't hear my answer through their frustration. I find it best at those times to remain quiet until they are in a position/mood to listen quietly and talk with me.

I was a scoffer/doubter also. My first real response to God was, "I don't know if you are there, but if you are, I definitely want to know you." Then came a great deal of reading, praying, asking and learning. For me, it wasn't long before I had peace. Others seek for years before they find peace. I don't know why the difference, but we are all unique and so our experiences are bound to be unique.

I do wonder when people exclude God from their lives/schools/courts/countries, why they whine when He doesn't show up at disasters. He will not force Himself on anyone, He waits to be invited.

Hi Mrs Lee,

road rise to meet you
They do have some pretty bad roads in Ireland. :-) But I did some googling, and found a site that says that the original Gaelic "Go n-éirí an bóthar leat" is more like "May you have a successful journey." Nothing about the road "rising." Learn something new every day. :-)

God doesn't mind being questioned.
Be happy to ask questions if one presented his/herself for questioning, but that hasn't happened. I have a large number of books dealing with the gods that mankind has believed in over the centuries and in various parts of the world, and have taken courses on comparative religions. None of those gods seems any more believable than any others. If one or more exist, I would have no idea what questions to ask until I found out which one(s). Be a bit silly to question Zeus about biblical accounts, or Yahweh about what's in the Vedas, or the Evil Lord Xenu about the Angel Moroni's tablets. And it might turn out, of course, that any god which exists is not mentioned in any book So, I was questioning people about various statements made here concerning the biblical God and the bible.

Very difficult to get angry with an entity you don't think exists. :-) I do admit to getting a tad frustrated when people make contradictory assertions about the God they say I should/must worship. IYSWIM. :-) My questions are on the lines of: IF what you say is true, then how do you explain . . . .

I find the notion of praying to find out if there is a god very puzzling. Praying is, I believe, talking to God. Prior to having any reason to suspect that there is one, it seems to me pretty odd to start talking to him/her/it. I'm not seeking a god, or longing for an "afterlife." No need for either is "hard-wired" into my brain.

As for peace, I wish there were no religious fanatics waging war against each other, and/or the West, in most corners of the globe. Aside from that, the main thing relating to religion that disturbs my peace is, as I mentioned, the attempts by theocrats to use the law to enforce their beliefs upon all of society.

whine when He doesn't show up at disasters

:-) Well, I haven't been in any disasters (knock on wood - grin), and I wouldn't expect a god to show up and help out if I were. (Enough trouble getting FEMA there!) So I'm not whining. But God usually is "invited" by many of those who are caught up in, and suffer or die in, disasters. And while he may not be "invited" by small children or infants, they suffer and die too. Any halfway decent human being would help if he or she could. So I feel entitled to ask those who extol a "loving" god what strange definition of love they are using.

I do get angry when I see news coverage in which someone loudly praises God for answering his prayers and saving him, while the parent or spouse or child of some other devout person who also prayed, but was not saved, stands a few feet away. My anger is of course directed at the arrogant, insensitive jerk who survived.

myshelves - Here's my problem in answering some of your "questions." It has taken me years to come to any peace or understanding of some of those issues. Yes, I have resolved them in my faith, through my reading of scripture, prayer, and answers from God. He has not "spoken" directly to me, yet I am confident I have heard Him. How? I can't explain it. So I don't want to come up with something trite for you. You seem to have very clear vision for trite answers. I think I will chew on this, pray, think and see if I have anything that might be worth an answer for you. If you have any specific, direct questions for me, you are welcome to ask them on my profile page, I'm not trying to avoid you.

I still say, honesty with God is the best policy. He can handle it if you say you just don't believe in Him, but if you are wrong you would like to know before it's too late. The worst you could be accused of if He isn't there is talking to the wall. How many of us haven't done that?

MrsLee,

That's cool. :-)

P.S. I don't talk to the wall much. There's always the TV set to talk to. (As in: "You call that news?? I don't care who fathered Anna Whatsername's baby." Clicking remote to another "news" channel.)

geneg,

Of course you wouldn't go to Hell for believing that the earth is 15 million years old. I held the same opinion for several years. But that is the issue under discussion even though it is not central to faith. However, I still think that casual dismissal of scripture is a rather dangerous precedent.

As far as circular reasoning, I feel a little trapped between Scylla and Charybdis. Evolutionists complain that we don't do real science and then when we quote real scientists, dismiss them casually (I'm betting the Michael Behe quote would look better in context. We tend not to damage our own book sales figures.) Look up Anthony Flew's recent conversion to deism. However, he is getting old and may just be hedging his bets (at least, that what Leno thought). These are studied scientific opinions. This is what I meant when I suggested that scientists burn heretics at the stake. Either toe the party line or be accused of doing science in a circular fashion or equating your work with astrology. (Luckily for me, Mars is in Cancer and I win a lot of arguments then...)

I am quite baffled over the flat earth thing. I get that quite a lot. Science used leeches to bleed patients for healing a lot more recently than the Catholic Church endorsed a flat earth. Let it go already. (And I do know about the current Christians that believe in a flat earth. But one of the discoverers of the double helix believes life was seeded on earth by aliens and I don't hold that against all scientists.)

I agree with you that this stuff doesn't trump "love one another as I love you". But Christianity is at root supernatural, believing in God in the flesh and a literal resurrection. Otherwise, where does the authority of the scriptures derive from?

myshelves, I will respond later. Got to get the kids to bed.

#123 & #136: markmobley

Hi Mark,

Regarding evolution:
I think evolution and the questions about the origin of life should not be mixed too loosely. Science does not have a strong argument for exactly how life originated. There are a lot of good ideas, but we may never know the actual process(es). Evolution is a different story. The fossil record is very convincing. So, I'm curious, if you feel evolution might not be the correct interpretation, then how do you explain the apparent evolutionary trends in the fossil record? On the most general level, how do you explain that fossil assemblages show the same sequence of appearance and disappearance (Extinction) everywhere globally; and that extinct species don't reappear in younger rocks; and that new species appear in every significant geologic time period?

Mark,

Whatever. :-)

Re Behe: The 139-page decision of the court in the Dover, PA case devotes a lot of space to Behe's testimony:
www. pamd. uscourts. gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf (Close up the spaces I left in the URL.)

Where the context is a deposition or other testimony under oath, I'd think a Christian would merit praise for obeying the 9th commandment (under cross-examination, most likely) and letting book sales take second
place. :-)

Btw, for the benefit of any who wouldn't be bothered reading the opinion issued by a "godless, activist judge," Judge Jones, a Lutheran and a Republican, was appointed by George W. Bush, and was confirmed unanimously by the Senate.

dchaikin,

Thanks for the reply. I am afraid that I have to associate the two (origins and evolution). As you can see by this thread, science makes a distinction (not really, but for the sake of argument...) but the average person does not. They associate evolution with a mechanical, organic origin to life and creationism with a supernatural origin.

As far as the geologic record, it would take a book, but here are some ideas that helped me.

1. The geologic record is inaccurate and incomplete. Before you dismiss me, think about living fossils like the Coelacanth. These demonstrate that the fossil record is inherently unreliable. I know that is a stretch for you to accept, but 80 million years is a long time to be extinct! Mathematically, I don't believe that we have the sample size to justify the claims made.

2. I believe the fossil record is exactly what I would expect to see from the Bible. There is this incredible diversity of life. There are weird and wonderful life forms that we recognize or maybe don't recognize, but they are extinct now. The Scriptures teach that after the fall, all of creation was made subject to vanity, to nothingness. I know that it was popular to say that God would never allow any of His creatures to die out, but that was an unfortunate leap of logic from Calvinism. I think a correct reading would show that life here is in decline, that the sins of mankind have resulted in the suffering of the entire planet. Even today, we see extinction, but no new species arising. Of course, that would satisfy the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that the Universe is running down.

3. I think that a consistent layering system all over the world would be more indicative of a young earth than a 15 billion year old earth. Let me give you a thought experiment. Strata come from erosion. Erosion comes from higher elevations washing down to lower. Of course, higher elevations come from geologic events such as plates colliding. So, over 15 billion years quite a few cycles of cataclysm and erosion would take place. Of course, when the cataclysm occurs, the top layer would be pushed up and then would become the bottom layer, and the bottom layer would become the top. This would happen over and over, more when the earth was young and the core hotter, resulting in a confusion of layers and fossils. A consistent laying system would indicate a single cataclysm (like a worldwide flood maybe...) with different types of molecules falling creating layers. You would find a few exceptions, but they would be true exceptions.

4. People see what they expect to see, what they are looking for. I am up front about my pre-suppositions. I know for a fact that the resurrection of Christ has taken place. If the Bible is right about that, then I believe that it is right about other things. So I expect to see evidence that confirms the Bible.

Of course you know that. In fact, that is basically what I am being accused of, being blind to the facts.

Well, this is true of everyone, scientists included. The only difference is that I am up front about mine, and they insist that they are following the facts. Aren't we all.

OK, here is the rub. I have a blind spot. So do they. When I am on the expressway, there are two types of people driving. Those who know that there is a blind and drive accordingly and those who don't and cause insurance bills to go up. I prefer the former.

Interpretation of the data always leans toward supporting what scientists already believe to be true until something dramatic happens to break them out of that rut. In science, it is called a paradigm shift. In religion, we call it conversion. That is why even a few scientists breaking (scientism) faith is news. You have to really believe it to sacrifice your career and reputation.

myshelves,

re: Behe, testimony, and Christianity (Has he ever professed faith?)

So, he would obey the ninth commandment while testifying, but write a book of bogus material to make money? I'll try to get around to reading the pertinent testimony, but until then I'll still lean toward context.

Have you read the book yet? It is pretty interesting.

markmobley: in regard to my question about "what evidence would convince YOU god doesn't exist," one of your past messages seemed to imply we should have kind of a "peer review" board to help discover the truth ... I was curious about kind of evidence a pro-god review board would consider as valid to disprove the existence of god ... because, obviously, if there were no proof they'd accept, the notion of any kind of review process could not work.

myshelves,

Excuse me if I answer in bites.

As far as additions, without getting into a match of referring to authorities, I'll stipulate the possibility of your cited additions. But even if they are added, they add nothing to the basic tenets of the faith that can't be found someplace else. What you are suggesting is a complete re-writing of history.

Let's take on your suggestion that the winner writes history. How successful has any attempt in history been to suppress heretics and their writings? In all the Christians heresies, we have the names, most of the writings, and all of the responses outlinging the doctrinal problems. In a world without internet, without centralized governments, without birth records, driver's licenses, etc. how easy would it be to keep track of where the heresies have gone, who has what book, etc.? History shows that people want a copy of the illicit, just to see for themselves. How much good has the movements in modern Christianity been to get people not to read Harry Potter or the DaVinci Code? Heck, it has helped sales, not hurt them. History is always tidy looking backwards, but no one lives in that direction.

More later...

KromesTomes,

I am sorry that I haven't written you back. I have reassessed my answer to your question since I fired off a rather flippant response.

As far as Christianity is concerned, if it could be proven that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, I would abandon it. It wouldn't change much about my lifestyle, since I have so much more peace and joy now, but I would stop going to church and reading the Bible.

As far as a peer-review board, I am afraid that I have written something that I didn't mean to imply. I think that message boards like this, science labs, philospher's desks, published books, etc, will have to suffice. It is the question that will haunt mankind until we cross over (Bono puts it better but I can't bring the lyrics to mind).

Mark,

#144:
if it could be proven that Jesus didn't rise from the dead . . . I would stop . . . reading the Bible.

I'm curious. Would the invalidation of statements in the New Testament cause you to change your mind about the Old Testament? I didn't realize that belief that the OT is the "Word of God" rested upon belief in the NT. Does it? Many statements made in this thread strongly suggest otherwise, but I don't know what the Christian position (if there is a single position) is.

Thanks, markmobley!

#145 - myshelves - "the Christian position (if there is a single position)"

It's worth highlighting that quote. There are relatively few things on which there is a single Christian position. There are huge differences between major denominations, and between individual Christians, even when it comes to interpreting the bible. Much of what is put forward as "the Christian position" is in fact only the position of that denomination or that individual. Even where "most" denominations or individual Christians agree, it still leaves a minority who have a different position - sencerely held and prayed about.

Creationism certainly isn't one of those things on which there is a Christian position - it appears to be found predominantly in certain denominations within the USA.

Mind you, the resurrection is one thing on which most Christians probably do agree to a large extent!

myshelves,

johnthefireman has an excellent point about positions. My personal position is that the OT is validated by the NT, although it stands on its own as a work of inspiration. The Bible is very unique in terms of religious texts, especially ancient ones. That alone brings it attention. The history of the Jews and the unique national character (when everyone else were building empires, they were creating a national identity around worship) also are pretty interesting evidence that something unique was happening to them.

Be forewarned, I have looked into most of the "contradictions". Somebody above mentioned that they struggle with faith. I have had a difficult time with my intellect over the years, so a lot of my positions are relatively hard-won.

I really do believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but in its original languages, not in, say, the King James Version. I believe it to be inspired by God but also recognize that it passed through the hands of man. I played plenty of games of "Telegraph" in Middle School and know what can happen.

But people tend to treat religious texts differently. And the textual evidence that we have substantially the same documents that were written 2000-3000 years ago is very impressive. If the field of textual criticism means anything, the evidence for the Bible's history of being passed accurately is the most impressive of any ancient document. If not, then we cannot take any past documents at face value.

Mark,

Thanks. I'm not entirely sure I understand your answer. If the resurrection were shown to be untrue, are you saying that the OT (validated by the NT) would be invalidated? Or that it can stand on its own?

You say that you would no longer go to church. Would you go to temple, and perhaps start waiting for the Messiah? Or (if you'd believe the OT invalidated) would you start looking into other religions? I'm assuming that your belief in a god is not tied to whether the resurrection is historical fact. Correct?

Anyone else have an answer? johnthefireman?

#140 markmobley

Thanks. This is a rushed response. Apologies for errors and typos. The Coelacanth requires a more carefully thought out response (and feedback. It’s interesting in this discussion)

First things first:

In science, it is called a paradigm shift. In religion, we call it conversion. That is why even a few scientists breaking (scientism) faith is news. You have to really believe it to sacrifice your career and reputation.

Hmm… A scientific “paradigm shift” (Thomas Kuhn-style) is drastically different form a religious conversion, because in science the new interpretation still needs to be consistent with the data. On the other hand, when someone has a religious conversion, well, Ok, I don’t know what goes on. I think it must be personal to them. If it were strictly data-based, we would all convert. I would.

Point 1a: The geologic record is inaccurate and incomplete.

Incomplete… yes! While our interpretation can be inaccurate, the geologic record is what it is. Accuracy is not an issue.

Point 3: I think that a consistent layering system all over the world would be more indicative of a young earth than a 15 billion year old earth.

Consistent layering? I don’t know what you mean. The layering is not consistent. (To clarify, the fossil record is consistent within time-periods and rock-types. But, the rocks themselves are local, with each region having unique characteristics.)

More Point 3: Let me give you a thought experiment. Strata come from erosion. Erosion comes from higher elevations washing down to lower. Of course, higher elevations come from geologic events such as plates colliding. So, over 15 billion years quite a few cycles of cataclysm and erosion would take place. Of course, when the cataclysm occurs, the top layer would be pushed up and then would become the bottom layer, and the bottom layer would become the top. This would happen over and over, more when the earth was young and the core hotter, resulting in a confusion of layers and fossils. A consistent laying system would indicate a single cataclysm (like a worldwide flood maybe...) with different types of molecules falling creating layers. You would find a few exceptions, but they would be true exceptions.

You’re theory about the confused record is a good one. A little geology lesson: There actually is a point in the geologic history where confusion reigns. I can’t recall the name/age right now… checking…. Archean (if you believe ages, it's dated 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago… thanks wikipedia). I don’t know much about this era, but I don’t think there is much in the way of stratigraphy at that age. This is consistent with your point. However, things seem to have calmed down quite a bit after that point. I can’t recall what the theories are, but they are very sketchy. Something changed, but we don’t know exactly what. From that point on we have somewhat of a decent record. It’s incomplete, and the older the rocks, the less of them there are and the harder they are to find. But it's clean enough that we can define a stratigraphy. Keep in mind the Atlantic Ocean has been opening for something like 240 million years. That’s a long time for a single feature.

Filling in a blind spots: One correction: The universe may or may not be 15 billion years old. But the earth is only dated at 4.5 billion years old. Check it out here Geologic Time Scale on Wikipedia

Final note to ponder: I don’t think Science has done anything that should make anyone believe in God, or stop them from believing in God – or from following a Dore-like Christianity.

edited to fix link

myshelves,

I am sure that my answer is almost completely impenetrable. It is not something that I have really thought out. I have great respect for the OT, but it is completely (in my case) dependent on Christ.

Would I still read the OT? Most likely. The NT? Most likely not. Would I go to Temple and wait for the Messiah? Probably not. I wasn't looking for this One when I found Him (or, more accurately, He found me.)

A Universe without God is a rather distressing thought to me now that I have reached middle age. As a youngster, with only my hormones to guide me, agnosticism in the security of a Judeo-Christian influenced environment gave me a lot of liberty to explore my urges. A nation or world of people behaving like I did is the stuff of Science Fiction.

I hate to refer back to it, but my experience with God is so deeply intertwined with my personality (or lack thereof), that it is hard to imagine life without it. Even in the darkest moments of my intellectual battles since coming to faith, the power and light of that experience was very orienting to me.

Would I start looking into other religions? Probably not, since I already have. There is nothing else that has the robustness, the life of Christianity to me. However, we all feel the need to worship, so I can't really rule that out. It was that profound emptiness that sent me seeking for God to begin with.

I am probably talking in circles, so I shall stop here.

dchaikin,

Thank you for the reply.

I understand your reservations with the paradigm shift analogy. However, even though the evidence in the two cases are different, I still the the analogy stands as a good way of understanding each other.

Thank you for the correction on the age of the earth. However, if the Wikipedia article is correct, they date the world at 4.5 million years, not billion. That brings up another objection that I have. (Please excuse me. It has been well over a decade since I dealt with these issues in depth for myself.) Given the limited time scale and the constraints of generations, 4.5 million years is not even in the neighborhood of enough time for evolution to have taken place in the complexity and diversity that we see. There have been mathematical studies done, but the exact references have receded in the mists of my memory. I will have to look for them...

Also, I am probably an anomaly. I strongly suspect (ok, believe) that the earth was here long before Adam and Eve, given the wording of the scriptures. So even if the time-lapse video did show up on YouTube, it wouldn't bother me much. If I had a time machine, there is only one place I would want to visit: The tomb on Easter morning. That empty tomb makes everything else superfluous. And I suppose that is the point that you are making in your last line. And I do agree with you. After all, my favorite Christian writer, C.S. Lewis appeared to be an evolutionist.

You will notice that I will not concede the argument, no matter how silly it may seem. Ideas have consequences, and I am quite alarmed at what I believe to be the result of giving up this one for triviality.

#149

If the resurrection were proven untrue the religion of Christ, Paul, and the Apostles, (The Way) would still make an excellent philosophy by which to live one's life. The only impact would be on the theology of salvation and the afterlife. We know, empirically, nothing about either of these things. Thus, the importance of faith.

#148

You seem to be hedging on biblical inerrancy. First, you believe the Bible is inerrant (in its original languages) and then you say it is inspired by God. These are two different things. Inerrant (iiol) does not imply inspired by God, but dictated by God, especially considering the authors (or Moses) of Genesis were not there for any of the events related. There is some internal evidence that the Pentateuch was, at least, partially dictated to Moses by a celestial being of some sort, if you accept the Mosaic origins. But this leads to circularity again, The Bible is inerrant because it says it is. On the other hand, inspired by God implies men wrote the Bible while under the influence of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not above using figures of speech, along with other tools of the storyteller's trade to get God's points across. What is more important: that God created the Heavens and the Earth, or that He did it in six days (with a couple of days coming before the earth was created and two more days until He created the Sun, the Moon and the stars, all tools necessary to calculate the length of a day.)

The six day solution brings up a whole new set of questions. In the beginning the earth was a formless wasteland and darkness covered the abyss. What abyss? How can a formless and void wasteland have such a structure as an abyss? What is an abyss? While a mighty wind swept over the waters. How was this wind generated? Was it really a wind? Where did these waters come from. I thought it was formless and void.

How long is a day to God? Peter tells us that to God one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is like one day. That gives God a whole different sense of time than the one He gave us. How long is a day before we have sun, moon, and stars to measure it by (all created on the fourth day)?

There are features of this description that may indeed match quite closely with current scientific theories of the creation, but since you deny science for a stultifying biblicism you can't consider the science and marvel at how close the writers of Genesis came to actually getting it right. That gives me more faith in God's inspired word than forcing the six day young earth square peg into the round hole of my common sense and intellect, a gift from God.

In my previous post, I asked the questions about the necessity to believe these things to be a Christian. I did so because I wonder how many spiritual people seeking God are put off when they hear Christians believe in six day young earth creation, that they believe every word of the Bible was dictated by God, and when they hear that they must hate homosexuals (and don't bother me with the love the sinner hate the sin rationalization, you know it's plain hatred). How many people say gee, I don't see the difference between Christianity and fundamental Islam?

I know the above may sound like I am attacking you, I'm not. For the most part I'm on your side, but I feel very strongly that this entire issue is a distraction from the real business at hand. I feel like Peter when he cautioned against the false teachers and false prophets of his day who would attract many to their licentious ways, even to deny the one who saved them, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. How many people revile the truth because this irrational belief system gets in their way? Absolute biblical inerrancy creates a totem of the Bible and leads to the idolatry of God's inspiration as crafted by the hands of man.

Anyway, I relinquish my soap box for now. I will return to the crowd watching the debate.

I forgot. An excellent laypersons intro to geology, the time column, etc is Annals of the Former World by John McPhee. Another book all of you engaged in this conversation may be interested in, especially the thesis side is The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Mark Noll, an evangelical professor at Wheaton College.

#153

Thanks, geneg.

If the resurrection were proven untrue the religion of Christ, Paul, and the Apostles, (The Way) would still make an excellent philosophy by which to live one's life.

So if you concluded (in Mark's scenario) that the NT contained that falsehood, you would still follow the reported teachings of Jesus, Paul, the Apostles (including those about God), because you find them to be the best teachings? In that case you'd still read the NT --- and the OT? And go to a church, though pprobably to one which had adjusted to the new circumstance?

myshelves,

Let me get back to the issues that you raised about God and judgment.

I hate to make accusations, but it seems that you are quoting what you have heard about God's judgment in the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah and haven't actually studied the context of the stories.

If God had simply wanted to get rid of the folk at Sodom and Gomorrah because He hated them so much, why did He bother to even stop by Abraham's tent? Since when does God need the opinion of a man? And why would He endure an insult from the mouth of a herdsman? He stopped by and brought up the subject so that Abraham could intercede. Why did Abraham stop at 10? (Actually, he most likely did because there were at least 10 people in Lot's clan and he probably counted on Lot to at least orient them toward God. If righteousness was perfection, Lot wouldn't have been spared himself, judging by his behavior.) I draw three conclusions: (1) The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had been brought about by the behavior of the people living there and it had become a threat to the lives of those around. (2) God wanted to have mercy but refused to violate free will and tried to get people oriented toward the right involved but they wouldn't go far enough of cared too much for their own things (3) God puts the responsibility of the future in our hands, specifically in the hands of the church.

See, I believe that you seriously underestimate the power and threat of evil. It sounds like you are a good, moral person with a great family, raised in a safe town. You were probably a pretty compliant kid raised around other good kids. Maybe, maybe not. But likely in America.

However, I am a pastor, former public school teacher, have worked with the Boys and Girls Clubs in the inner-city, etc. I deal with people when their lives are in wreckage. I see the sins of the fathers afflict the children and then infect the children. We do overseas missions where lawlessness reigns, where missionaries have to be guarded by the police. I have been around abused wives, kids, and husbands. In middle-class America, where there is a strong rule of law and the remnants of belief in right and wrong, we are mostly safe. Where lawlessness reigns, no one is safe. And within that situation is the seeds of its own destruction and the seeds of infection for generations to come. So for God, faced with a situation like Sodom and Gomorrah, it is a balancing act between the good of the one versus the good of the many (to quote that famous philosopher, Mr. Spock). Being deity is even more thankless than being President.

But I want you to hear the most important point that I made: God put the responsibility for turning the situation around on the church, believers, not on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. They had chosen a path that led to destruction. The only hope for them is people who will do right, love them, stand up for right in a sea of wrong, pray for them, serve them. I place the blame on Abraham and Lot, just as I place the blame for the shortcomings of America on myself, my church, and the church.

Don't forget, God was willing to allow them not to be destroyed. All he wanted was a man that would stand in the gap for them. It happened at Nineveh, and Jonah, that paragon of righteousness, was peeved at God for not burning the place down. God has a history of avoiding judgment, and nobody talks about that. One flood, one fire, and your reputation is ruined forever.

Isn't it possible that the judgment was merciful? You mentioned the children in Sodom and Gomorrah. What if God leaves them to be sexually abused at the hands of their elders in the name of sexual gratification? If there is, as I believe, an afterlife, where innocent children live in bliss, isn't a quick death and long blissful eternity a better result than a lifetime of abuse at the hands that should protect you, abuse that twists your soul, leaving you a crippled and abusive adult and prevents you from ever bowing to God and spending eternity separated from Him? It is all about point of view and what you know humans to be capable of.

The picture you paint of of parents holding their kids above water is heart-rending. But lifestyles have consequences. And parents must realize this and act accordingly. It might not be in a flood, but I see them get drowned every day one drop at a time.

myshelves,

Let me address the issues about discipline that you raised.

First of all, I never mentioned beating children or even spanking. I simply used the word pain. However, I am not opposed to spanking if it is done right. I don't agree with spanking three month old children, and it is pretty useless once they get toward puberty. But historically it has been used to great effect toward civilizing behavior.

I know that there are dangers when it comes to spanking. But there are dangers for not spanking, also. I think we probably agree that children need discipline. I have seen kids abused and had to restrain myself from abusing their parents and get it to the proper authorities. I have seen kids that were never spanked, but were emotionally manipulated, insulted, humiliated, and broken spiritually. After years of counseling, I have never dealt with an adult that was spanked and has trouble with it as an adult. I have dealt with dozens of adults that suffered at the hands of "non-violent" parents. They are twisted on the inside, where no bruises show.

I think that the rules are simple. You never spank a child in anger, never spank a child without warning and explanation, never spank a child without reassuring them of your love, never spank them any place besides the behind (or the back of the hand for a toddler), never spank hard enough to leave a bruise. I agree that there are criminal abuses and have had to turn folk in for it. But I think that it is too broad a brush to paint ever spanking parent as an abuser or resorting to violence. Not every child is a compliant as you were, nor parents as psychologically facile as your parents.

I'll get to the others later...

geneg,

Thank you for your reply and insights.

I am sorry that I seem to be hedging on inerrancy. I am apparently too sloppy with my terms. I'll have a go at it.

I believe that God inspired the writers of the books of the Bible to record His word perfectly and yet allowed them to do so through the expression of their personality and using the normal conventions of human language such as metaphors and other figures of speech. I also know that God attempted to explain things that would be difficult to comprehend to the writer and used figurative language. Most importantly, it was written in the language of the people, the common people, not to theologians who can only understand it by years of intense study in the cloisters of their academic halls.

I understand that you are right about people being turned off by some of the things we have discussed. And I am very regretful. Believe me, this is not central to my faith or to my teaching. However, I do think it is important enough to spend more time than I can afford doing it. Why?

Because of books like The God Delusion. If we start dismissing the parts we don't like as myths, where does it stop? And I agree with you that it must stop at the resurrection, to me that is the most unlikely tale of them all. It is the easiest to come up with morals to the story. Much easier than Sodom and Gomorrah, let me tell you from experience(!).

You may be right about the origin of the earth. I came to faith as an evolutionist and reconciled my faith in God with evolution in exactly the same manner as you have come to. It was only after working in science that I started doubting it. I really believe what I am saying, not just defending a point of view in the face of all the evidence. I just think that science is wrong about some things. But I am typing on a laptop, so they got some stuff right, too.

I know that much has been done that was evil in the name of some OT passages that we need to wrestle with longer. But the same has happened with the sayings of Jesus. Just a few months ago, a young rapper apparently plucked out his eye in a battle with lust. People not far from my home handle snakes. God only knows what has been done to women because of bad readings of Paul, who was a one man Equal Rights Amendment.

I may not agree with it all, I may not like it all, I may not understand it all, but I believe it is all true. If there is a problem, it is with me and not with that Word. And if I wrestle with it long enough, honestly enough, I believe that it will change me, make me a better human, better father, better neighbor, better husband, better citizen, make this a better world.

I love science, I love the newspapers, I love the critics because they make us challenge our assumptions as Christians. The earth is flat? Not according to science? Maybe we have been reading that passage wrong. We are people who preach love and we are being accused of hating homosexuals? Maybe we have been reading that passage wrong. Maybe we have been emphasizing the wrong side of the equation. The world thinks we are full of hot air about resurrection? Maybe not. Maybe they are wrong and we have to stand against them and tell them the truth in love.

Either way, we get out of default faith and get convinced for ourselves. We examine what we believe and why we believe it and then we practice it. And that changes the world.

158 - markmobley - What you said. Thank you.

Mark,

I've read the story of S&G in context, as well as having studied it in school long ago. I've also read various interpretations and discussions. (I was fascinated to read that Joseph Smith stuck at Lot sending his daughters out to be raped. I must track down the source of that one. Book of Mormon? Maybe I need to make another stab at reading it. )

I was raised mostly in NYC. "Wonderful town," says the song, but hardly arcadian, or all that safe. Some of the family were relatively great (though one uncle was a terrible punster); others. . . . I was a reasonably compliant child, with reasonable rules to follow.

My experience has not, by choice, been as broad as yours, but I'm not blind to the evils you mention. You can't live in a big city, or a small town, without encountering some of it. And for some reason, people are always telling me the stuff they've "never told anyone" --- about childhood abuse or other horrors.

I don't think I could go along with nuclear slum clearance as a solution. But let's say that you decide, more in sorrow than in anger, that that's the only way to break the cycle in X city. Aside from a handful of people you move out, no man, woman, or child is salvageable. Many toddlers & infants might be, but in spite of the fact that people in city Y have "Support Life" stickers on their cars, you can't find adoptive parents. So they'll all have to die. By fire & brimstone. Quick death? Painless? No trauma? Hmmm. If only you had angels on call. You could send them to make sure that the innocent don't experience any undeserved suffering at all during this necessary cleansing. When somebody wrote up the history after interviewing you, I think you'd want him to record that you'd wished for those angels.

Mark,

I never said anything about spanking. Nor did you. You talked about discipline, and pain.

I'm not sure about spanking. But you don't hit a puppy, say all the experts I've encountered, unless you want to end up with a problem dog. I think that it is risky and pointless to hit a child before it is old enough to be as trainable as a puppy, and that it shouldn't be necessary after that.

But there might be circumstances where something out of the ordinary is needed --- say to remind the child not to play on the railroad tracks again. The key there is out of the ordinary. Most of the people who've told me that they got spankings as a matter of course apparently took them in stride and tried a bit harder not to get caught.

#152 markmobley

However, if the Wikipedia article is correct, they date the world at 4.5 million years, not billion.

No, take another look (I fixed the link)

You will notice that I will not concede the argument, no matter how silly it may seem. Ideas have consequences, and I am quite alarmed at what I believe to be the result of giving up this one for triviality.

Ok. No one changes their minds in these arguments. I just wanted to see how you came your conclusions. What you call triviality are fundamental points that contradict the kind of conclusions you have made in message #140 and elsewhere above. Sorry, they can't be dismissed.

MarkMobley,

Thank you for considered and calm response, I wish I could talk about this stuff without getting so emotional. It makes me sound contentious which is not my intention.

It's just that I've spent the last two years immersed in such fun things as premillenial dispensationalism and Dominion/Reconstruction. The thought of forcing God's hand frightens me, as does the idea of an old testament theocracy wedded to the idea of worldwide conversion by the sword if necessary as the policy of the most powerful nuclear nation on earth. Talk about Sodom and Gomorrah! As a result I see scary people all around me. I've become a conspiracy theorist in my old age and I'm really afraid for the world my children and grandchildren will live in.

I tend to lump all literalists into the category of people who want to force me to teach my children that the world is not what they see, but what they are told it is. This point of view bothers me and will end up demonizing the truth.

No, unfortunately his arguments are pretty solid.

It looks like no one has mentioned Alvin Plantinga's review in Books and Culture.

In response to the original posting on this thread, I would recommend two books that I recently read: God's Universe by Harvard physicist Owen Gingerich and Hidden Face of God by Gerald Schroeder. Both of these books are very scientific in their approach and while neither one "proves" that there is a God, they both make strong arguments for it in somewhat different ways.

Last year I attended a book talk that Dawkins gave on The God Delusion and it was little more than a vitriolic attack on the scriptures and on religious belief without little if any science or reasoned arguments to add to the discussion. Honestly, I wonder if long ago someone had either bonked Dawkins on the head with a Bible or given him some sour communion wine to make him so resentful of religion! My agnostic friend who accompanied even called Dawkins a poser.

I did read some of Dawkin's book and found it interesting but unconvincing. Many critics have alluded to the author's tendency to erect philosophical "straw men" (using only "extremist" views of God as representative of all theistic beliefs) to support his arguments and this was evident throughout the book. I may not be a scientist but I learned all about straw men arguments in Philosophy 101 and it is a well-known philosophical fallacy. What also bothered me was Dawkin's almost philistine dismissal of the role that religious belief has played in the arts. It seems that to him the only reason that Michelangelo painted his masterpiece fresco in the Sistine Chapel was that he was paid handsomely to do so by the church. Ridiculous!

Anyway, I do hope to finish Dawkin's book and read others on the subject. As a Christian, I have no desire to shy away from reasoned arguments for or against the idea of God. If our faith in God can't bear the light of reason and logical argument then what good is it?

Once you get beyond Usher's dates doesn't the entire scheme for dating the earth at @ 6000 yrs. go out the window? there is Biblical evidence for 6,000, but not for 10 or fifteen thousand. If you accept 10,000 years you might as well believe 4,000,000,000.

myshelves wrote: " I haven't read The God Delusion or any of the other books by Dawkins, so I'm a little puzzled.

Can someone please tell me whether his nonbelief in a divinity (=atheism) is solely or primarily based upon his opinions about evolution? "

The God Delusion should be REQUIRED reading. But I suspect you won't read it so I will tell you that his atheism is not in the least based on the fact of evolution.

Despite the disinformation of religionists, evolution and religiosity are not mutually exclusive positions. Evolution merely explains how the flora and fauna that we see today looked a million years ago, 10 million years ago, 100 million years ago, and so forth.

So if one believes in a creator, evolution explains the mechanism that creator started (or allowed to occur).

#30

Because we don't understand things does not prove the existence of a god. Cast your mind back a bit to when humans believed the sun was carried across the sky by a god. They didn't understand how the sun moved everyday so they assumed it was powered by some divine force. It is perfectly natural to (and easy) to assume things we don't understand are the result of some supernatural entity more powerful than us.

#166

"Last year I attended a book talk that Dawkins gave on The God Delusion and it was little more than a vitriolic attack on the scriptures and on religious belief without little if any science or reasoned arguments to add to the discussion."

I always find this an interesting criticism of Dawkins. It's something that creationists always level at him. However, if someone questions a creationist's view that the world was created by some omnipotent being, they claim it's all about faith. This is why creationism and science should NEVER be seen as possible alternatives.

"As a Christian, I have no desire to shy away from reasoned arguments for or against the idea of God. If our faith in God can't bear the light of reason and logical argument then what good is it?"

Your faith in a god, surely, precludes any debate or argument, regardless of how reasoned or logical it is. Isn't that what faith is? Faith can never be logical for a start. How can a miracle be logical? It defies logic. That is what makes it a miracle.

I would say that because we do know what something is or how it works does not preclude the existence of God, either.