AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

In his TV programme on "The Genius of Charles Darwin", (Channel 4 Monday 4th August), Richard Dawkins at one point shows film of wildlife in Kenya that depicts "nature red in tooth and claw", yet at the end concludes with Darwin's own comment that "There is grandeur in this view of life" ... I find these two statements difficult to reconcile. The evolution of life over an enormous period of time is impressive, but the detail of it is in many ways horrific. - Darwin himself said in another often quoted phrase "What a book a Devil's Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low & horridly cruel works of nature!" (Letter to Hooker 1856). - If I, as an atheist, have difficulty with facing the reality, how much more difficult is it for religious believers? What sort of designer would deliberately instigate such a process? Surely only something demonic, or at best uncaring? Or do we have to put it down to "mysterious ways" beyond the ability of our poor brains to comprehend? - These thoughts have been reinforced by this article linked to on the RDF site: - http://richarddawkins.net/article,2945,Brainwashed-by-a-parasite,Neurophilosophy - It's about ants being "brainwashed" by a fungal parasite: - http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/brainwashed-by-a-parasite/ - Naturally analogies can be made with human ideas, the first commenter has: - "Human beings have something similar to the first example. It enters through the ears at an early age, germinates in the mind, and causes the host to destroy rival communities, whilst reproducing abnormally rapidly, thus permitting the parasite to breed, exit via the mouth, and infect others. It is commonly known as..."

7348 views

If I, as an atheist, have difficulty with facing the reality, how much more difficult is it for religious believers? What sort of designer would deliberately instigate such a process? Surely only something demonic, or at best uncaring? Or do we have to put it down to "mysterious ways" beyond the ability of our poor brains to comprehend? - Evolution is a nasty business, George. I agree with you. But living animals have to eat to have an energy source. When there were just plants or bacteria they could absorb nutrients from the surrounding environment. To get to 'us' the animal-eating-animal was a stage that had to be tolerated, and we are still eating animals, unless we are vegans. Darwin was horrified by the process: 'I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designed the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice...ants making slaves and the yound cuckoo ejecting its foster brother'. Note that it is Darwin's description of God that creates the problem for him. How did Darwin know that God had those attributes? Religions told him so. But if one does not define those attributes of God, or any attributes, the problem goes away. The process of evolution is the process of evolution, and nothing more. In Judaism animals have a 'soul' called a nefesh. Humans have a different soul, called a neshama. Those souls are markedly different, as humans are from animals. Animals think nothing of how they eat to survive. But our human morals and eithical thoughts upset us as we feel sorry for the animals. I don't think God is demonic. Perhaps this is the only way we could be evolved. We know that it took 13.7 billion years to get here. Why did God take so long? Only if we think God is omnipotent does the question appear. To me it appears reasonable, as long as I don't swallow all the religious expectations about God, that God may well be limited in what He can do. There is nothing wrong with that concept of God.

7182 views

David: "Note that it is Darwin's description of God that creates the problem for him...But if one does not define those attributes of God [beneficent and omnipotent], or any attributes, the problem goes away." - I can only repeat that a God without attributes might just as well not be there. We are looking at two basic questions: a) are we the product of design? b) if we are, what is the nature of the designer? Carl says, and I agree with him: "the existence of so much suffering is an argument for an impersonal God at best". If God is impersonal (and therefore not beneficent), there will be no afterlife, no compensation for the suffering, no explanation. What we have now is all we'll ever have. And so if you do not believe in a God with attributes, not only does the problem of suffering go away, but ALL problems go away except for those of our daily lives. God's relevance to our condition is then no greater than that of a crossword puzzle.

7269 views

[/i] If God is impersonal (and therefore not beneficent), there will be no afterlife, no compensation for the suffering, no explanation. What we have now is all we'll ever have. And so if you do not believe in a God with attributes, not only does the problem of suffering go away, but ALL problems go away except for those of our daily lives. God's relevance to our condition is then no greater than that of a crossword puzzle. - I disagree. What most of us on this website have is a good life, a wonderful gift by itself. Most of our daily problems are minor, and if major, they test our strength of character. Do you want afterlife as a reward? Isn't living up to our ethical standards successfully enough reward in self-satisfaction at a job well done. And how do you know that a somewhat impersonal God then dictates that there can be no afterlife? You are again using religious definitions and thoughts to cloud your thinking. God may have provided for an afterlife and there is much evidence for that possibility, and still God may be rather impersonal. What we know about God is what religions tell us. How do they know? - My advice is start your thinking with the assumption that none of us know anything about God. There is much evidence for a 'greater power' that originated all we see. After that you are on your own in how you wish to relate to that greater power. And I think each of us has the strength of intellect to find a comfortable relationship, without relying on religious teachings or expectations.

7153 views

David disagrees with my statement that if God is impersonal, we are on our own, there will be no compensation for suffering, and God becomes irrelevant to our condition. - With regard to suffering, I was certainly not talking about myself but was following up the subject of this thread ... the horrors of evolution, i.e. the unspeakable suffering of humans and other animals down through the ages. I'm not hankering for an afterlife, and am grateful for the life I've had, but I'm acutely conscious that I've been lucky and others have not. - David advises us to "start your thinking with the assumption that none of us know anything about God" and, in my view quite rightly, goes on to say we should not rely "on religious teachings or expectations". However, you then say that "each of us has the strength of intellect to find a comfortable relationship [with God]". If the object is to find a comfortable relationship, religion may well hold the answer, along the lines of: "Just ignore the suffering. God is good and kind and loving, and the suffering is a mystery. Have faith." But firstly my quest, at least at the start of my thinking, is not for a relationship. I'm simply trying to get as close as possible to some kind of truth about the world I live in. Secondly, even if ultimately I were to search for a relationship, I couldn't base it on something I know nothing about. I might just as well form a relationship with a light in the sky. I need to know who or what I'm relating to, and in this case I'm confronted by one known reality plus a hypothesis. The reality is the world I live in. The hypothesis is an unknown creator. I use my intellect to investigate whether this creator exists or not, but when I then use it to link this hypothetical being to the world he (may have) created, I can scarcely ignore the discomforting signs that confront me ... the horrors of evolution. My intellectual problem has nothing to do with religious teachings or expectations. I'm mulling over the implications of the evidence before me, not in my own personal life, but in the history of life on Earth as (possibly) created by the being to which I'm supposed to relate. - This does not mean that I reject the evidence of design, of love and beauty in the world, of near-death and out-of-body experiences etc. But I do reject the idea that the slaughter of the innocents can be brushed aside as one searches for some kind of truth. And although I'm not stating that God is impersonal, but merely that it is a distinct possibility based on the evidence available to us, I stand by my assertion that if he is indeed impersonal, then he is irrelevant to our lives. That is one of the various scenarios which an agnostic has to contend with.

7165 views

I think we are in reasonable agreement on the information, and our differences are in what interpretations to make. Everyone wants to know what's behind the curtain. You can either make the atheist assumption that nothing is behind the curtain, the theist assumption that there is an intelligence behind the curtain and all that is required is to deduce it's characteristics or the agnostic assumption that what is behind the curtain is unknowable. We are looking for certainty where there can be no certainty. Dhw, I think you have come to the end of the road. To resolve your question, you must make an assumption. In one direction lies the assumption that reality is limited to what is provable by humans. In another direction lies the assumption that anecdotal evidence can be trusted to point to reality. The third direction is the assumption that neither human reason nor anecdotal evidence will yield ultimate reality.

7119 views

Carl has summarized the issues very concisely and correctly. We will never have knowledge of ultimate reality completely, because of quantum uncertainty. The basis of our reality is on a side of a curtain beyond which we cannot see. If God is anywhere, he is there, concealed. And the human tendency is to be religious and to desire a humanized God, which cannot be guaranteed as the case.
Whence 'the leap of faith' across a chasm of uncertainty.

7186 views

It occurred to me after my last post that I had omitted a direction. One can also choose an organized religion and make the leap to embrace it with as much faith as one can muster. If you are interested, an eloquent article for religion and against "evangelical atheism" by Roger Scruton can be found at
 http://www.axess.se/english/2008/01/theme_scruton.php.htm
It is an attack on Dawkins and a defense of those who are not satisfied with purely scientific explanations.
I found the link for it at the Edge website. For those not familiar with Edge, it has some interesting reading
 http://www.edge.org/

7232 views

dhw wrote: "And although I'm not stating that God is impersonal, but merely 
that it is a distinct possibility based on the evidence available to 
us, I stand by my assertion that if he is indeed impersonal, then he 
is irrelevant to our lives." - I wonder if this provides a way of reconciling atheistic and theistic ideas? If "god" is the "logos", that is the abstract mathematical and logical principles that are necessarily true of the universe, or of any universes, then perhaps we could all believe in this, except that it is not a "person", but it does meet Scruton's desire for the "transcendental". - And it may be relevant to our lives, in that we, and the evolution of consciousness, might be seen as a logical necessity. However, I have tried to argue this case for "positive humanism" at the Secular Society but was comprehensively voted down, so perhaps it pleases only me. - Scruton's remarks that the "evangelical atheists" are "shouting at their opponents", using "every weapon" and have a weak case "fortified by noise", seems to me to be purely in his own fancy. I find Dawkins, Dennett and Co as polite and quietly spoken a group as you could hope to meet.

7195 views

I wonder if this provides a way of reconciling atheistic and theistic ideas? If "god" is the "logos", that is the abstract mathematical and logical principles that are necessarily true of the universe, or of any universes, then perhaps we could all believe in this, except that it is not a "person", but it does meet Scruton's desire for the "transcendental". 
 - 
> Scruton's remarks that the "evangelical atheists" are "shouting at their opponents", using "every weapon" and have a weak case "fortified by noise", seems to me to be purely in his own fancy. I find Dawkins, Dennett and Co as polite and quietly spoken a group as you could hope to meet. - George and I may be closer than we realize. I think those 'abstract mathematical and logical principles' represent the universal intelligence I refer to as 'the greater power' or God. And I don't know just how much a 'person' God is. And I've had the same experience as Scruton: atheists often do not discuss, they shout, and imply insults, rather than reason; as if they are talking down to poor persons who just won't understand how foolish they are. They sound very emotional. George's reasoned approach is what should occur and is appreciated.

7249 views

It's heart-warming to see the common ground that is emerging between atheists, agnostics and panentheists. As we've often mentioned on this site, many of the misunderstandings arise because of the word "God", and it would be useful to find another term to describe the unknown power (whether personal or impersonal). - Carl thinks I have "come to the end of the road". I'd sort of done that when I wrote the "brief guide", and the reason for opening this website was to see what other paths could be explored. The result has been and continues to be illuminating, though it remains a matter of regret to me that the established religions are not more widely represented. I've found Mark's contributions, for instance, extremely stimulating and would have liked other religious perspectives too. David and George have supplied us with plenty of material to examine, respectively for and against the concept of design as well as on other topics, and the ongoing evolution debate promises yet more insights. - The fact is, the road never comes to an end, and there is an important category missing from Carl's list of directions: namely, the more modern form of agnostic, who says "I don't know, but I'm not giving up the search." Perhaps the road is not a good metaphor. I see all of us circling round a vast area of darkness, and although many of our arguments repeat themselves (inevitable when you're circling), we also gather new information and new ideas on the way ... perhaps getting little glimpses of light. I would like to think that although some contributors have already formed their views and may be writing only in the hope of converting others, a forum like this provides a useful testing ground even for them, while for those of us who are not committed, it offers a continual opportunity to weigh up different possibilities. Carl says: "We are looking for certainty where there can be no certainty." I don't think any of us really expects certainty. The most we can hope for is probability, but if we can't find even that, it doesn't matter so long as we remain tolerant of other people's probabilities and open to any new discoveries that may come our way. - I like the sound of George's "positive humanism", which I find considerably more attractive than Dawkins' aggressive atheism (I agree with Roger Scruton and David on this) and the equally aggressive tactics of certain brands of religion. Perhaps George would tell us why the Secular Society disapproved.

7163 views

it remains a matter of regret to me that the established religions are not more widely represented. I've found Mark's contributions, for instance, extremely stimulating and would have liked other religious perspectives too. 
 
> The most we can hope for is probability, but if we can't find even that, it doesn't matter so long as we remain tolerant of other people's probabilities and open to any new discoveries that may come our way. 
 - dhw: If I may comment on the two above points: I am not surprised at the lack of participation from the religous. They have their faith and unless they are into active proselytizing as the fundamentalist evangelicals here in Texas around me are, why bother with agnostics who are rooting around ignoring the obvious faith that is available out there. - As for probabilites, to me mathematically it is overwhelmingly obvious that chance has no role in why we are here ruminating about all of this. It is impossible for chance to have created this universe and thinking humans. Penrose calculated the odds against chance using the initial conditions to start the universe at 10^-123rd power! Another of his calculation was one chance in 10^300th power if the intial conditions are not assumed to be present. The odds against life springing up from inorganic matter are equally as large, considering the number of protein molecules of different types that have to be gathered together inside a cell membrane that is bidirectional in actively allowing material to flow in and out. The only argument against odds of chance is the Darwinist claim that step by step changes can avoid the enormous odds. But that is only after life has appeared. Darwin does not give you life, only evolution of life, by a theory that is not proven. Step by step is a pipe dream, never proven, and no way of proving it exists. If in a lab a living cell is created, intelligence did it, not chance. To summarize: enormous odds to have this universe, enormous odds to have life appear, and arguably enormous odds to have a directional evolution that leads to beings with consciousness. - The greater power is concealed, but the conclusion from the math is that it exists. Why should there be anything? A first cause must exist. Accept that conclusion and worry about the attributes of the greater power as a next step.

7146 views

David wrote: "George and I may be closer than we realize." But his subsequent remarks make it clear that we are just as far apart as ever. - Like dhw I would like to know the views of Mark, or other religious believers, on the subject of this thread. Though I think I can guess what they would be. - Concerning the debate in which I tried to argue that "Humans provide a purpose to the universe". Probably I didn't present a very good case. My argument was that humans (or any other beings with consciousness) are part of the universe and make the universe, in a sense, aware of itself. Therefore human beings are an important feature of the universe, and not just a temporarily dominant species on this planet, and humanists should embrace this view. - Although Roger Penrose is an outstanding mathematician, his views on the chances of the initial state of the universe, like his views on consciousness, are very much his own and don't seem to be shared by many other physicists. He himself describes his scenario as "a fanciful description" (The Road to Reality, p.730). Victor Stenger argues convincingly for the initial state being a total void; but we've been over all this before. - My point about mathematical and logical principles underlying everything is that even gods, if they existed, would be subject to these laws of necessity. This I think was pretty much Einstein's view, and indeed of Kepler, and is very much in the tradition of Pythagoras ("all is number").

7226 views


> Although Roger Penrose is an outstanding mathematician, his views on the chances of the initial state of the universe, like his views on consciousness, are very much his own and don't seem to be shared by many other physicists. He himself describes his scenario as "a fanciful description" (The Road to Reality, p.730). Victor Stenger argues convincingly for the initial state being a total void; but we've been over all this before.
 
Naughty, naughty, George! Quoting Penrose out of context to try and make a point. Penrose is supplying a fanciful description of God trying to find with a pin the exact spot to prick the phase-space volume to created our universe. His math is dead serious as it was in "The Emperor's New Mind". I'm sure my page 730 reads just like yours does. And I can't let the Stenger reference go either. He is not of the same stature of reputation as Penrose, especially since he thinks an absolute void is allowed to contain virtual quanta.

7163 views

Like David, I would be surprised to find serious Christians debating with us. They would be much more interested in discussion for the signs of the coming End Times or whether a fertilized egg is assigned a soul before or after it is implanted. Our discussion would be about as interesting to them as a discussion of the place of the Virgin Mary in the divine hierarchy would be to us.
Regarding George's quote "all is number", math can sometimes seem a little mystical to me. The ability of a scientist to sit at his desk with a calculator and predict exactly how and when a spacecraft will land on Mars is something that Merlin might have envied. An engineer would simply say "Math works! Learn it! Use it!", but my limited abilities in math make the probing of atomic nuclei a mystery to me since I only went through calculus. I have to take the word of my intellectual superiors that the math works when I discuss the Big Bang. I certainly can't prove it myself. It takes us back to the Middle Ages when the priests told the masses, "We have done the thinking for you. Simply believe."
Of course, the same thing is true of microbiology and all the rest. There is no way I can confirm their findings, so I must rely on their peers to keep them honest. This probably contributes to my general skepticism.

7176 views

George says about cruelty in nature: "If I, as an atheist, have difficulty with facing the reality, how much more difficult is it for religious believers?" For the traditional J/C/M, it doesn't present much difficulty. They 1) ignore it, 2) blame it on Satan or 3) blame it on Adam and Eve . I have never observed the Abrahamic religions worry much about the rest of creation. For them it's all about humans. For the thinking theist, it must present a problem. If you look at the creation to get a sense of the creator, it certainly isn't a warm and loving picture. Some possibilities are: 1) that's the only way he could do it, 2) it isn't really as bad as it looks for reasons we can't understand or 3) it will be compensated for in the afterlife. All of these are theoretically possible. Of course we agnostics take our standard response. "Gee! I don't know." But there is no doubt that evolution has brought hundreds of million of years of suffering to sentient animals. In support for theist option 1) above is that evolution would not work without pain, fear of death and will to survive. I'm sure it's selected for. For option 2) would be shock and endorphin release during trauma. This probably accounts for some of the NDE experiences discussed earlier. The cruelest acts of nature are suffering from hunger, thirst and disease because of the duration. I don't visualize endorphins helping much there except maybe at the very end. Certainly, the existence of so much suffering is an argument for an impersonal God at best.

7145 views

Hi Carl, I am a Christian I'll try to explain what I think the Bible teaches on this subject because I think it does address the issue. I'm not here making the the case you should believe it, just trying to give a Biblical perspective. - Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. Rom 5:12 - The Bible claims that death entered the world through human sin. In the early chapters of Genesis it says that only plants were given to humans and animals for food. Without death you can't have evolution so saying there was no death before Adam sinned puts the Bible at odds with the theory of evolution. When Adam broke God's command and obeyed Satan he effectively gave control of the Earth over to Satan. Because God had previously given rule of the Earth to Man: - Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Genesis 1:26 - The world would be a very different place if it was now us ruling over them as God intended. Each of us is now weak when it comes to fighting temptation and by exploiting our selfish desires Satan is able make sure that what ends up happening is what he wants. We still rule but he dictates what we do: - Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. John 8:34
 - We get angry when we see people in power telling lies with great consequence, but which of us never lies? The people in power are people just like us. - God was angry that Man rejected his rule and chose Satan rather than him and he let Man reap the consequences. God is waiting for us to make a move, he says "call to me and I will answer you" Jesus told us to pray that "God's will would be done on Earth as it is in Heaven" this tells us that this is not the current default. So it is wrong to look at the world and say God is not good. I think what we see is something that was very good and is now broken and not something that was chaos and is now life and semi-order. It is too good to be chance and too bad to God's perfect will. If man was in charge of the animals, but he became obedient to Satan then it follows that Satan's order has been established in nature:

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; John 10:10 - Survival of the fittest is brutal. It explains why we have left what we have left but not how it got there. - What is needed to re-establish good order on the Earth is humans who have been broken free from Satan's rule and have accepted God's rule. So in conclusion the world was made to be ruled by humans. If the humans submit to God it runs they way God intends if they submit to Satan we will see much evil. - The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Romans 8:19:22 - Imagine if your parent's gave you a car and you drove it irresponsibly and smashed it up. Was it wrong of them to give it to you? No it is a good gift. Is it their responsibility to repair it? No they if they step in to help, it should only be when you realise what you have done. God is in the same position he created the Earth for us, he has the ability to help us and change things but if our attitude does not change he would be wasting his time. - To find out what I think about the origin of the Theory of Evolution and the truth of it you may want to watch the video below:

http://vimeo.com/1581246

7383 views

edinburgh4 says "God was angry that Man rejected his rule and chose Satan rather than him."
If God is omniscient, wouldn't he have know that Man would reject him? From the very beginning? Even if Man has free will, God should have known what Man would do. Why then would he be angry when it happened.
It has always seemed to me that when God created Satan, Man, Woman, the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and then released Man and Woman in the Garden with free will that He knew exactly what would happen.

7096 views

Well, I've just listened all the way through your video presentation, which was rather long. A lot of it goes back over the ideas about "the chain of being" that were expressed by everybody from ancient Sanskrit to Monboddo and Erasmus Darwin, with the supposed purpose of showing that Charles Darwin didn't say anything new. All this may be new to you but is already well known to most of us who have studied the subject. - The quotation you initially give from the introduction by Richard Dawkins to his programmes on "The Genius of Charles Darwin" refers not just to "evolution" but to "evolution by natural selection", which was Charles Darwin's largely original contribution. Others had expressed similar ideas but only he carried it through to its full consequences, and assembled a convincing array of evidence for it. - The other confusion you make is between two different concepts of "enlightenment". The 17th/18th century "Enlightenment" was all about the exercise of reason, whereas religious "enlightenment" refers to opening the mind to religious faith, which is quite the opposite. By the way the French "Encyclopedie" was inspired by the earlier Encyclopedia by Ephraim Chambers, not the other way round. - Finally I share your dismay at the rise of New Age teachings and Paganism, though not for the same reasons. Surely you have seen the other programmes by Richard Dawkins in which he attacked such irrational nonsense?

7286 views

Edinburgh4 has outlined the Bible's teaching on the Horrors of Evolution and on the Fall of Man. - First I'd like belatedly to thank you for giving us this perpective on problems that many of us find insoluble. Carl's response is exactly what my own would have been, and I'd hoped you might give us a Christian answer to the question he's raised. To this I would like to add one more. - Carl points out that when God created Satan and the rest of the world, in his omniscience he must have known what would happen, and so it's strange that he should be angry at a situation that he himself had set up. This conundrum leads us further back: if God is the prime cause that created everything else, and there was nothing before him, evil has to be his creation. It could not have come into existence independently of his will or knowledge. Is it in any way conceivable that a being who has created evil out of nothing is himself all good? - There is a possible answer to this question in your posting. You quote Genesis 1:26: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness." If man is in God's image, and we know that man is a mixture of good and evil, doesn't it follow that God is the same?

7144 views

Carl points out that when God created Satan and the rest of the world, in his omniscience he must have known what would happen, and so it's strange that he should be angry at a situation that he himself had set up. This conundrum leads us further back: if God is the prime cause that created everything else, and there was nothing before him, evil has to be his creation. It could not have come into existence independently of his will or knowledge. Is it in any way conceivable that a being who has created evil out of nothing is himself all good? 
 
> There is a possible answer to this question in your posting. You quote Genesis 1:26: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness." If man is in God's image, and we know that man is a mixture of good and evil, doesn't it follow that God is the same? - I'd like to add my Texas two cents, as we say here: The conundrum comes from accepting what the Bible tells us about God. Accepting those definitions immediately sets up the questions dhw asks. The answer is, as we can never know for sure about God's characteristics, don't accept those definitions in your thinking. That leaves us with the possible explanation: there is an intelligent force that created this universe which allows for life as we know it. Good and evil are both present, because evolution requires "tooth and claw" and humans, as evolved, have free choice of action and free will. No one knows if the intelligent force is good, evil or can see the future; perhaps this force can only work in the present and set this all up to see what would happen. Perhaps theistic evolution is truly an ongoing process with an unforeseen ending. Logically, philosphic reasoning cannot get beyond this point of view. Note I didn't use the term theologic reasoning. Theologians accept a priori conditions and positions. I was once told by a Jesuit student that once a person accepts the starting postions in Catholic philosophy, everything else follows logically, and I am sure that is true. The key then is 'starting postions', and we don't have absolute proof of what they are. Not comforting if you desire a coddling God. Ask yourself, what right do you have to ask for that? You may want it, but that doesn't make it true. As Karen Armstrong points out, we appear to be born as beings seeking religion. Inbred by evolution or programmed into us in a created DNA? Good question, no real answer. So you end up flipping a coin and taking the most comforting choice, one that fits your personal needs.

7211 views

David says "we can never know for sure about God's characteristics, don't accept those definitions in your thinking." And later "once a person accepts the starting positions in Catholic philosophy, everything else follows logically."
If you want to understand why a person believes what they believe, you have to understand their starting positions and concede them. To do otherwise would almost require a religious conversion on someone's part before the conversation could begin. Validity of starting positions is what wars are fought over.
I apologize to Edinburgh4 if my first post was too sharp. I am sure that this question about foreknowledge on God's part is common, and I would very much like to hear the traditional Christian's response. I have heard discussions about foreknowledge vs. free will applied to the actions of Judas, but I have never heard it applied to The Fall.

7071 views

Thanks for all your responses and I appreciate that they are well thought out. I think the question of starting points is very interesting. My staring point was as ardent believer in Evolution. For me, from that perspective the Bible never made sense. I always read it on my terms and not its own. Because it contradicted Evolution which for me was as good as fact I thought the book to be not worth reading. If you know from the start that a book starts with the wrong assumption, it seems foolish to trust it when it speaks about how you should live your life and your final destiny. It was only when I began to genuinely doubt Evolution that I was able to read the Bible on its terms. When I did I found it explained more than Evolution. - I came from the position of a convinced Agnostic. I was not Agnostic because I did not care, but I thought it was the right position for everyone. So I argued against both Christians and Atheists. When I argued with Christians they always told me never not to accept what they said as the Christian position. They said it is the Bible that defines the faith and I would find Christians saying all kinds of things the key was to take what Christians said check it with the Bible and if they agreed, accept this as the Christian position. I could then test this position against reality and see if what the Bible said measured up to it. I would ask you to do the same. - In my experience it is often those who profess to follow the teaching of Bible who are most likely to try to twist its meaning so they do not have to do what it says. Those who have little intention to following Bible can often read its verses more honestly. So here I am going to take some verse at face value and try to answer your questions (I only got round to answering one): - 1) Why did God create Man knowing he would do evil? - The Bible is not shy in answering this questions: - Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Romans 30-32 - The Bible says there is something extraordinary about God's love and that is that when we turn against him he still loves us enough to die for us:

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8 - God wants us to demonstrate this kind of love too: - But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? Matt 5:44-46 - Imagine a world in which their is no evil. There are certain aspects of God's character that would never be experienced by anyone. One would be that God hates and punishes evil. Another would be that he loves those who hate him. If I had never had the opportunity to do wrong I would not know that God's love was absolute and unconditional. Being loved in an unconditional way is amazing. If our sense of being loved depends on our performance we can never do enough to earn the love of others. I believe being loved unconditionally ourselves is the only place we can begin to love others unconditionally. It is those who have failed God the most who end up loving him most: - When the Pharisee [a Bible expert] who had invited [Jesus] saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is--that she is a sinner." - Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you." "Tell me, teacher," he said. "Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?" - Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt cancelled." - "You have judged correctly," Jesus said. Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven--for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little." Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."
Luke 7:39-48

7240 views

Imagine if our economy ran not on money and oil but on love and justice. In a situation where there is evil, love has an opportunity to demonstrate its extent. Unexpressed love is not a good thing love desires to show itself. The film Titanic was one of the most popular of all time because in it a guy gets to articulate the richest kind of love: - Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.John 15:13 - Those who receive a large measure of love and let it sink in begin to overflow with it. They know they are loved when they are at their very worst so they have total security. In this place of safety they are free to express love for others knowing they do not need to receive love in return because they are always loved. - So by allowing people to fall God can express a more robust love than the kind that only loves its own. I experience this kind of love and can testify that it is a good thing. The Bible promises me eternal life. In eternity I will be able to love God with a richer love than I would have had I not been exposed to and involved in evil. So by temporarily allowing evil God sees a greater quality of love formed in some people. - One preacher expressed it in this way: God will be glorified by every life. Some lives will display the glory of his justice; that he does not let evil go unpunished. Others will display the glory of his mercy; that he loves each person so much he is willing to take the punishment they diverse on himself. - He gives us a free choice at every point if we do good or evil. He even gives us a conscience to warn us in advance what the verdict will be on the day of judgement. The conscience has no power to make us do right or wrong it just commends or convicts us. - The Bible says that judged by the standard of God's law all would be condemned: - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Romans 3:23 - but goes on to say: - and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Romans 3:24
 
So God has the right to punish us for the wrong we choose to do. We are predisposed to do wrong, yet when we do wrong we know we did so by choice. If I tell a lie I can't blame God and say he made me do it. If a girl has sex outside of marriage because she is raped she is not is not in the wrong she is being wronged. - However God offers each of us a new life as a free gift if we are willing to accept that this is what we need. God is looking not for people who think they are OK but for those who are desperate to change but know they are helpless to do so on their own. He knows when these people receive mercy they produce love. - When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Matt 9:11-13 - This world offers me an opportunity to receive and give a kind of love I could not in the perfect world. God is using this world to form in me the kind of love he wants to see in me for himself and others in eternity. - Phil

7215 views

The quote from Romans should be chapter 11 verse 32; there is no chapter 30. In my copy of the Authorised Version it is worded very differently: "32: For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." The next verse 33 is: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" For me this implies that the concept of God is self-contradictory nonsense. - Phil wrote: "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." If this is God identified with Nature then this is correct. Nature sends its plagues and tsunamis and its years of plenty indiscriminately regardless of the behaviour of people. It is up to us to find out about the workings of plagues and earthquakes and such natural phenomena in an effort to protect ourselves from them as far as we can. (Nature is thus less severe on the scientifically knowledgeable!) - Phil also wrote: "Some lives will display the glory of his justice; that he does not let evil go unpunished. Others will display the glory of his mercy;" This is nonsensical double-talk. Will the evil of some mass murderer, say, be punished or will God exercise mercy and let him off? Or is it just a lottery which God will choose in his "mysterious way"? Or is this all this just fantasy and wish fulfilment? - Love is all very well but is highly over-rated. I prefer Logic any time.

7135 views

how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" For me this implies that the concept of God is self-contradictory nonsense.
> 
 
>which God will choose in his "mysterious way"? Or is this all this just fantasy and wish fulfilment?
> 
> Love is all very well but is highly over-rated. I prefer Logic any time. - This is an area of thought where I agree compltely with George. If God is purposely concealed and we cannot know why He does things the way they are, there is no point in trying to fit God's motives into some preconceived set of notions. On the other hand true faith is like love. You feel love for your wife (if you have one), but it is an emotional feeling, not entirely based on logic. When one takes the 'leap of faith' it is like love, patially an emotional choice. Either you are capable of taking the 'leap' or not. My logic tells me there is a greater intellectual power as part of the universe, and I have faith that feels to me that it is correct, but I cannot leap into accepting the theology of religions.

7144 views

If God is purposely concealed and we cannot know why He does things the way they are, there is no point in trying to fit God's motives into some preconceived set of notions. On the other hand true faith is like love. You feel love for your wife (if you have one), but it is an emotional feeling, not entirely based on logic. When one takes the 'leap of faith' it is like love, patially an emotional choice. Either you are capable of taking the 'leap' or not. My logic tells me there is a greater intellectual power as part of the universe, and I have faith that feels to me that it is correct, but I cannot leap into accepting the theology of religions.< - My own personal experience has led me to conclude, at this time, very similarly as yours above David; the leap of faith is a personal choice that only one's own experience can induce or provide. Faith can be handed down thru religion, or lineage, or may be the only choice left in a moment of crisis. Yet, it remains a leap that is made personally not just once, but in every moment...or whenever needed. Faith cannot be made for a whole lifetime, only for the moment in which you are now in. - "My" experience has led me to place trust within my own feelings (what feels right)far above my own intellect, or, what some may call my own "reality," mainly for logical reasons. - I watched as my religious faith, as well as my handed down faith, dwindled to zero. I was left with nothing to have faith in (that I personally intellectually knew at that time) to give me a moments relief, for those 5 years of pain. Religion, and all her followers (including myself) gave me not a moments rest, even tho I gave all, especially the God of religion, every chance to prove my faith and trust and investment of my own will, was a worthy place to invest. This is not to say others have not found healing by faith handed down, or within a religious experience, or thru the God of religion, I am recording that it just wasn't my experience at that time. - All my knowledge and/or my own intellect, those 5 years, gave me not a moment without pain. And I record, I searched with all that was afforded me and tried all that was suggested, or given me, leaving no stone unturned. Call it fate, destiny, chance or choice...whatever you call it, my experience happened to me. My religious faith, my religion, nor my intellect or knowledge, or even my precious loved ones, gave me any hope or reason to live one moment more. My pain was more than I could humanly bare. So, I then took the leap of faith afforded all mankind...and believed I could step thru the door of death and find relief for myself. I was right. My feelings were correct. My feelings guided me rightly. Nothing I knew or was handed down to me gave me that knowing. - My feelings now, again, take a leap of faith afforded all mankind, and believe this all happened "to me" for a reason. Logic then tells me if this happened to me for a reason then all things happen for a reason. This conclusion may just be a fantasy I have chosen out of desperation or for lack of any other conclusion afforded me...again. But, my experience has taught me to go with the flow and trust my feelings. This experience may be just my own personal circle of life...but then again, it could be an evolutionary step for mankind (shift happens?). Who knows? I observe as I unfold.

7222 views

George says "Love is all very well but is highly over-rated. I prefer Logic any time."
Logic is also all well and good, but there is a time and place for everything. There is nothing logical about professional sports or watching professional actors pretend to be someone they aren't feeling something they don't. Yet people pay for the opportunity to do these illogical things.
There is a time for logic and a time for tolerance. In the pursuit of science there is no room for tolerance. The fittest logic should survive. The same is true of medicine. But in what we could call the "electives" of life such as sports, art, literature and religion, there is room for tolerance. As long as no unwilling victims suffer, people should be free to engage in these pursuits to their own tastes.
Edinburgh4 stated his intent was to inform, not to persuade. If it was an attempt to persuade, then a logical argument should ensue. But I am satisfied with understanding his point of view. Of course, there is always the possibility that behind his effort to inform was a hope to persuade, and I can live with that.

7150 views

Carl says: "Logic is also all well and good, but there is a time and place for everything. There is nothing logical about professional sports or watching professional actors pretend to be someone they aren't feeling something they don't. Yet people pay for the opportunity to do these illogical things." - It seems Carl has his own idea of what "logic" is, which does not correspond to the dictionary definition. Taking part in or watching sports or drama are perfectly rational activities. They in no way contradict logic. - Carl continues: "There is a time for logic and a time for tolerance. In the pursuit of science there is no room for tolerance. The fittest logic should survive. The same is true of medicine. But in what we could call the "electives" of life such as sports, art, literature and religion, there is room for tolerance. As long as no unwilling victims suffer, people should be free to engage in these pursuits to their own tastes." - Here Carl contrasts "logic" with "tolerance", as if they are opposites. The main characteristic of logic, as I understand it, is the willingness to listen to all points of view and to patiently point out where one thing does not follow from another and try to arrive at an agreed conclusion. Also I would contest his inclusion of "religion" along with other aesthetic activities. If religion was just a matter of rites and customs this might be correct, but that's not my experience of what religion is. - Carl maintains: "Edinburgh4 stated his intent was to inform, not to persuade. If it was an attempt to persuade, then a logical argument should ensue. But I am satisfied with understanding his point of view. Of course, there is always the possibility that behind his effort to inform was a hope to persuade, and I can live with that." - I had assumed that Edinburgh4 is the same as Phil Holden whose videos he linked to, and whose purpose is clearly to persuade. If I've jumped to an unwarranted conclusion here, and made an error of logic, I apologise, but perhaps Edinburgh4 can clarify the matter.

7172 views

George says "Taking part in or watching sports or drama are perfectly rational activities. "
A large corporation hires professional athletes from all parts of the nation, from other nations, even from other continents. Another corporation does the same. These two corporations bring their professionals together to play for large salaries. The corporation which happens to be headquartered in your city becomes "your" team. You have nothing at stake in the game unless you have a wager on it. If your team wins, you are ecstatic. If your team loses, you are depressed. This is human but irrational. Note that I confined my original remarks to professional sports. In the case of drama, one becomes emotionally involved in the pretended tribulations of imaginary characters. Again, human but irrational. Both these activities deal with emotion rather than reason. So does religion at the gut level.
George says of my including religion, "If religion was just a matter of rites and customs this might be correct, but that's not my experience of what religion is." Here, I am beginning to get a sense that there may be a real difference between the UK and the US. In the US, for the most part, religion is a private matter discussed only among like minded people or in tolerant situations. That may not be true of the UK.
In my remarks, I specified that "no unwilling victims suffer." Tolerance is key. For many decades, tolerance has been the norm in the US. Unfortunately, with the trend to mix religion with politics to anchor a political base, this is starting to break down. Teaching ID in schools is an example. When religious beliefs start to determine public policy, unwilling victims suffer.
George contrasted love and logic. I contrasted tolerance and logic. Neither are opposites, but one can forebear the application of logic and be tolerant of emotion based ideas when there is no greater good to be gained.

7063 views

edinburgh4 has answered my question of God's foreknowledge of The Fall with this quote. "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Romans 30-32"
That answers my question. Thank you.
I believe all of us on this sight are strong proponents of love. I am glad you have found a satisfying way to express yours.

7092 views

If God's judgements are unsearchable and His path beyond tracing, how can we know anything about Him?
 
Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?"
"Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.
Romans 11:36 - If God is all powerful and he chose to remain hidden no one could find Him. If he chose to reveal himself in all his glory no one could ignore him. If he is all knowing we can follow his thoughts with our brains that have finite capacity. - I can simulate a Commodore 64 (64KB) on my PC (3GB) but I could not simulate my PC on my Commodore 64. However if I could connect my C64 to a my and PC with proper protocols and wires the Commodore could find out specific information as and when it needed it. - God's intellect is greater than ours this does not mean he is completely unknowable but that his completeness is unknowable. - In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
Hebrews 1:1-2 - One way the Bible says God has made himself knowable is through the Bible. If God tells us straight out what he thinks we don't have to guess at it or run psychological experiments to trace out his thoughts. Christians have a doctrine called: - "The necessity and sufficiency of scripture." - Necessity means that, God has a purpose behind every word in the Bible.
Sufficiency means that he has given us enough to know what we need to know. - This is good but it can still be hard for us to put it together. This is why God sent his Son Jesus. If God became a human being we as human beings could see what he is like. If Jesus is the Word of God and the Bible is the Word of God then the two are in perfect agreement. To know Jesus and understand the Bible would be the same thing. Jesus' actions surprised intellectual religious leaders he did not follow the rules they made or the interpretations they placed on scripture. This made them want to kill him. Jesus' words to them were not polite: - "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
Matt 23:27
 
Jesus is no more polite when it comes to the church: - "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.
Rev 3:14-18

7293 views

I had assumed that Edinburgh4 is the same as Phil Holden whose videos he linked to, and whose purpose is clearly to persuade. If I've jumped to an unwarranted conclusion here, and made an error of logic, I apologise, but perhaps Edinburgh4 can clarify the matter. - George like all Christians I want to see others come to faith. Jesus said go and make disciples of all nations. However on this site I am not arguing that the Christian message is true just clarifying what I believe it is. I think people here have genuine questions. Questions I have had in the past and found answers that satisfy me. - In other contexts and perhaps on other threads I will argue that the Bible is true and Evolution is false. But in the context of this discussion I can cover more ground in explaining the logic and message of the Bible if I don't have to stop every sentence to prove that it is true. I think if people have a clear picture of what the Bible teaches they are in a better position to test for themselves if it is true. - I am guessing you are the George Jelliss from the BSCE: 

http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=15651#15651 - I very much appreciated you defence of my web skills :) - Roger wrote:
Take another look at the Edinburgh Creation Group's web site. It's seriously thin stuff and amateur to boot. - George wrote:
It looks pretty professional to me.
I certainly couldn't do anything as good as that, and I set up the Leicester Secular Society website.

7311 views

I followed the link in edinburgh4's post to the British Centre for Science Education site and from there to the Edinburgh Creation Group site. I feel as if someone just turned on the lights in the room. I didn't realize there was such turbulence under these still waters. I had not watched the video because my poor hearing and the British accent made it impossible to follow.
My apologies to George. I will back out of this exchange now.

7151 views

I hope Carl will continue to contribute to the discussions, if not to this particular thread, since I felt that most of what he was saying was good sense. - I regret that my throw-away statement about love and logic at the end of one of my posts seems to have been misinterpreted and thrown the discussion off kilter somewhat. I did say that love was all right in its place. It's just that when issues that require logic and clear thinking are decided on emotional grounds that no mutual understanding can be achieved. - The presumption of Phil/Edinburgh4 that unbelief (i.e. atheism) is to be identified with disobedience (i.e. wilful god-denial by someone who, despite his denial, really, really, believes in a god) makes it impossible to argue with him. His thought is so god-befogged that he cannot conceive of someone who bases their belief on evidence. For him the Bible is the word of God, because the Bible says it is. His devotion to the Bible overrules his reason.

7153 views

George: "I hope Carl will continue to contribute to the discussions."
Absolutely. I am enjoying it too much to leave. I simply meant that once I realized that George and Phil are specialists in this area, I wanted to step back and let them debate the logic (or lack thereof) in the Bible uninterrupted. No offense was taken. I enjoy spirited debate. Sorry about the confusion.

7098 views

I didn't realize there was such turbulence under these still waters. I had not watched the video because my poor hearing and the British accent made it impossible to follow. - 
Note there is a real debate about Creationism in the UK, and heads are falling. 1984 anyone? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7619670.stm Darwinists allow no quarter anywhere in the world.

7235 views

David Turell wrote: Note there is a real debate about Creationism in the UK, and heads are falling. 1984 anyone? - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7619670.stm - Darwinists allow no quarter anywhere in the world. - There isn't a debate "about" creationism (i.e. about whether it is true). The debate is about how to resist the attempts of young-earth-creationists to disrupt science teaching. Secondarily it is about how to teach biology to people whose religion gives them creationist views without causing them undue offense. Michael Reiss addressed the second of these issues but failed to understand the dangers of the first. The Royal Society is the premier scientific organisation in the UK and by pussyfooting around on this issue has damaged its reputation. "Darwinists" is a propaganda term used by creationists for evolutionary biologists, which seeks to suggest that they are believers in an ideology, instead of basing their knowledge strictly on evaluation of evidence, which is the case. - By the way, thanks for the link. You seem have been the ftrst to have noticed it. I immediately brought it to attention of the BCSE forum.

7167 views

In his lecture at Berkley, Dawkins makes a point about how ridiculous it is that no one is allowed to challenge anyone's view about religion. He thinks it silly not to point out how irrational their views are. He is forgetting several centuries of bloody warfare between Protestants and Catholics. When people feel strongly enough about their religion to murder their neighbors in their beds, civil societies learn to tiptoe around the subject. In faulting the Muslims today for savagery, we forget what happened to the Huguenots and others, and even the Irish troubles so recent. The passion stirred by religion cannot be ignored, even if it is irrational. The hard earned lesson is tolerance. We must learn to accommodate the Muslims, even if we do resent feeling intimidated. Bloody warfare can be the price for speaking your mind and doing as you choose in religious debates.

7126 views

The passion stirred by religion cannot be ignored, even if it is irrational. The hard earned lesson is tolerance. We must learn to accommodate the Muslims, even if we do resent feeling intimidated. Bloody warfare can be the price for speaking your mind and doing as you choose in religious debates. - I'm just as tolerant as I can be, but just what kind of accommodation are you proposing for the 5% radical Muslims who follow Wahabism and want to take the world back to the 7th Century? Religions have fostered all sorts of wars in the past, and they are still doing it. Moderate Muslims, whom we can certainly tolerate as part of our society, cannot control their fringe elements, but Muslim governments that foster terrorism should be held accountable.

7108 views

"Darwinists" is a propaganda term used by creationists for evolutionary biologists, which seeks to suggest that they are believers in an ideology, instead of basing their knowledge strictly on evaluation of evidence, which is the case. - Which is not the case in my view. I am not a young earth creationist, but I use the term Darwinist because I have the sense that much Darwin research is scientism, as defined by George above. I define creation science the same way, squeezing findings to justify ideology. I believe the science of cosmology. I accept the evidence that life started on Earth 3.6-3.7 billion years ago (possibly as early as 3.8 bya, but the Greenland findings are in dispute). Evolution occurred, no doubt. Geologic aging by layers and by isotope tie together beautifully. I've hiked the Grand Canyon and had lectures from a world-recognized leading Grand Canyon geologist from U. of Manitoba, and what he teaches is perfectly believable. There is an evolutionary 'tree of life', made up of a few 'nodes and tips' as described by the late Stephen Jay Gould. He admitted there were huge holes in Darwin's theory. - Remember I started out as a blank-slate agnostic, and I still don't think much of organized religion. If you are interested please read my paper on teaching evolution in American schools. http://www.raleightavern.org/Turell2005.htm It will explain my reasoning about Darwin, and why I think the theory falls short.

7196 views

I tried to read your article, but it is in very small print, and changing the View menu to enlarge the text size has no effect. Any chance of you updating the HTML so that the type sizes are not fixed? - As far as I could ascertain, the version of "Intelligent Design" that you espouse is very different from that propounded for instance by the defendants in the Dover trial. Judge Jones in his judgment on that trial made it clear that they were young-earth creationists. - The idea that alternatives to Darwin's 1859 theories are not open for discussion is also nonsense. You yourself have cited the Altenberg conference. There are many ideas now discussed by biologists that are not part of Darwin's original thesis. He knew nothing of the actual mechanisms of genetics.

7138 views

I tried to read your article, but it is in very small print, and changing the View menu to enlarge the text size has no effect. Any chance of you updating the HTML so that the type sizes are not fixed? - I appreciate you efforts to read the article. It is published to the web on the Raleigh Tavern site, a discussion club from Tomball College. I have papers published there, as a member of the group by invitation, but have no control over the site. It is in my documents and I can email it to you as an attachment. I'd love to get it on this site, but this message area only allows 10,000 words, I believe. Try my website: www.sciencevsreligion.net as it is also published there and might come through better. - > As far as I could ascertain, the version of "Intelligent Design" that you espouse is very different from that propounded for instance by the defendants in the Dover trial. Judge Jones in his judgment on that trial made it clear that they were young-earth creationists. - You are quite correct. I arrived at a conclusion that some force of Intelligent Design existed, from my studies of cosmology, long before I looked at Darwin. As a student of Medicine, I accepted the Theory without question, until I began to read up on the subject, in preparation for writing my second book, encouraged by the publisher who had accepted my first book. In due course I found Dembski and Behe's publications, and have actually had a personal discussion with Behe at a meeting in which some Discovery individuals were present. I followed Dover closely. It is true that the Dover trial involved school board members who were young earth proponents, but many of the participants were of my mind, accepting the science but wanting the controversies in the scientific community also presented. Note that I am Jewish and have no Christian ax to grind as in the Discovery Institute.
 
> The idea that alternatives to Darwin's 1859 theories are not open for discussion is also nonsense. You yourself have cited the Altenberg conference. There are many ideas now discussed by biologists that are not part of Darwin's original thesis. He knew nothing of the actual mechanisms of genetics. - You are quite correct about Darwin and what he knew. Neo-Darwinism tries to incorporate genetics and the new knowledge of DNA and now the very new discoveries of the regulatory role of RNA. But you are wrong about open discussion of controversies outside of the Darwin community. My paper discusses some of the battling within the community, but the movie "Expelled" with Ben Stein, which I have not seen, covers other egregious examples of supression. Ben Stein is a highly regarded economics guru in this country and very fair-minded. The material he was shown convinced him to do the movie. The Richard Steinberg episode,when he was editor of the Proceedings of the Smithsonian, comes to mind. My point is simply that the Altenberg Conference is within the community of 'accepted scientists' who are 'allowed' to criticize.

7102 views

Thanks for the link to your site, the article is more readable there:
http://www.sciencevsreligion.net/american_problem_of_science_and_.htm - Here are a couple of responses to particular points in your article: - David Turell: 'Natural selection' is actually circular reasoning: who survives, the fittest. How do we know they are the 'fittest'? They survived. - This is a very old and cheap canard! A dead duck. In a sense it is true. There is no harm in a tautology. It is a truism. But it is not circular reasoning. The "fittest" in a given environment are those individuals whose inherited characteristics give them a better chance of survival or reproduction (e.g. extra speed to escape from predators or to capture food, or extra furriness to provide protection from the cold due to a change of climate). - David Turell: As an example of large jumps in evolution, the scientists have no explanation for the 'Cambrian Explosion' in animal development. - Here is an explanation that seems more than adequate to me, 
quoted from wikipedia: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Uniqueness_of_the_explosion - The "Cambrian explosion" can be viewed as two waves of metazoan expansion into empty niches: first, a co-evolutionary rise in diversity as animals explored niches on the Ediacaran sea floor, followed by a second expansion in the early Cambrian as they became established in the water column. The rate of diversification seen in the Cambrian phase of the explosion is unparalleled among marine animals: it affected all metazoan clades of which Cambrian fossils have been found. Later radiations, such as those of fish in the Silurian and Devonian periods, involved fewer taxa, mainly with very similar body plans. - Whatever triggered the early Cambrian diversification opened up an exceptionally wide range of previously-unavailable ecological niches. When these were all occupied, there was little room for such wide-ranging diversifications to occur again, because there was strong competition in all niches and incumbents usually had the advantage. If there had continued to be a wide range of empty niches, clades would be able to continue diversifying and become disparate enough for us to recognise them as different phyla; when niches are filled, lineages will continue to resemble one another long after they diverge, as there is limited opportunity for them to change their life-styles and forms. - There is a similar one-time explosion in the evolution of land plants: after a cryptic history beginning about 450 million years ago, land plants underwent a uniquely rapid adaptive radiation during the Devonian period, about 400 million years ago.

7581 views

David Turell: 'Natural selection' is actually circular reasoning: who survives, the fittest. How do we know they are the 'fittest'? They survived. 
 
> This is a very old and cheap canard! A dead duck. In a sense it is true. There is no harm in a tautology. It is a truism. But it is not circular reasoning. - George, I must apologize. I have had no formal training in logic as used in philosophy. My training in logical thinking came in medical school and thereafter, using Occam's razor. To me logic is working from point A to point B and finally to point C and treating the patient. The tautology above to me is circular. You start at A and end up at A, no advancement in understanding the underlying issue. To me that is circular, but as I consult the dictionary, it is obvious you are correct. It is a tautology.
 
> David Turell: As an example of large jumps in evolution, the scientists have no explanation for the 'Cambrian Explosion' in animal development.
> 
> Here is an explanation that seems more than adequate to me, 
> quoted from wikipedia:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Uniqueness_of_the_explosion&am... 
>. [i]The rate of diversification seen in the Cambrian phase of the explosion is unparalleled among marine animals: it affected all metazoan clades of which Cambrian fossils [/i]have been found. > 
> Whatever triggered the early Cambrian diversification opened up an exceptionally wide range of previously-unavailable ecological niches. styles and forms.
> 
> There is a similar one-time explosion in the evolution of land plants: after a cryptic history beginning about 450 million years ago, land plants underwent a uniquely rapid adaptive radiation during the Devonian period, about 400 million years ago.[/i] - I have bolded the critical portions of the material you presented from Wikipedia. What I read above is not an explanation, it is a description of the Cambrian event and later the 'plant bloom' in Darwin-speak, the vocabulary used by Darwin researchers. It does not explain in any way how evolution went from Ediacaran forms, multicellar sheets of relatively undifferentiated cells, to extremely complicated organisms with multiple organ systems in such a short geologic period of 10 million years at most, with some simple bilateral forms as an intermediate step. And from no sex to sex. The best way to appreciate the magnitude of the jump is to read Gould's "Wonderful Life". - As an aside, Gould used the book to push his point about contingency in evolution. If Pikaia ( the tiny fish with a notoccord) had not appeared humans would not be here. Conway Morris has turned that conjecture on its head by going to China, finding other Burgess Shale equivalent areas and finding other fish similar to Pikaia, showing that evolution will create mutiple attempts at the same solution, a process he calls convergence. Gould always had an agenda, but he and Niles Eldredge at least clearly recognized the enormous gaps in the 'tree of life' fossil record, and invented the term 'puctuated equilibrium' to "explain it". By that I mean, giving something a name seems to explain it. The same thing happens in medicine. But nothing is explained. - Just as nothing is explained by the material from Wikipedia. Of course the 'niches' were empty. The animals didn't exist to fill them. Actually over 50 phylla appeared and 37 have survived. Wikipedia talks all around the key issue. If it is a chance purposeless and directionless process, it didn't follow the Darwin rules by proceeding so quickly. My guess is that the answer wil be found in the current work on regulatory RNA processes and epigenetics, which drive evolution to respond to environmental challenges, not depending on mutations, most of which are deletereous anyway. And my question still exists, where did the information come from to manage all this, that must exist in the DNA/RNA codes? Inorganic chemicals creating the information for life? Hardly. - I hope you will respond to the problems in 'homologous' and 'analagous' analyses of body forms, and to the lack of a biochemical evolutionary tree, although I think convergence is the answer to the biochemical. - And finally, the tight controls over research grants in science results in supression of renagade ideas. Peer review doesn't permit renagades. I did hear once by email from a young scientist working to get a Ph. D. in Darwin studies, who was a secret doubter, and asked me to guide him to some critical material. He indicated how secretive he had to be.

7231 views

I'd like to add this science article re' microRNA that just appeared, which gives added force to my proposal that RNA is a very complex regulating mechanism that uses 25,000 genes to make a human, not the 100,000 originally thought. Think of how much information is packed into that coding system. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080917145137.htm

7113 views


> In other contexts and perhaps on other threads I will argue that the Bible is true and Evolution is false. But in the context of this discussion I can cover more ground in explaining the logic and message of the Bible if I don't have to stop every sentence to prove that it is true. - I would like to ask edinburgh4, do you take the Bible to be inerrant to the point of believing in Young Earth Creationism or do you accept Old Earth Creationism? I have read material on both points of view to improve my background in studying science and religion. In my opinion you are not trying to proslytize, but to explain your position. I've been to your website to better understand your point of view.

7102 views

Edinburgh4 writes: "One way the Bible says God has made himself knowable is through the Bible. If God tells us straight out what he thinks we don't have to guess at it or run psychological experiments to trace out his thoughts." - In an earlier posting you quote a modern translation of Romans 11, 32: "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." 
George points out that in the Authorized Version this reads: "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." 
I have a different modern translation, which reads: "For God has shut them all up together in disobedience, that he might show all of them mercy." - Firstly, I'd like to thank you once again for your detailed response to the questions being posed by us non-Christians. As you were once a "convinced agnostic", there's probably very little I can say that you will not already have thought in your pre-Christian days, but the above quotes encapsulate the difficulty of placing any faith in the Bible. Every translation is different, and each one is itself an interpretation, and each individual reader will interpret that interpretation in his own way. - If I look at those three versions, I would say that the first means that God deliberately made man disobedient, so we are puppets, and that enables God to feel good about himself because he forgives us for doing what he has forced us to do. I don't have a clue what the Authorized Version means by "concluded them all in unbelief". The third version suggests that we've been locked up as a group rather than individually, to make it easier for God to deal with us en bloc. I'm not being flippant. I'm genuinely trying to demonstrate why I find it so hard to accept your idea that "God has a purpose behind every word in the Bible." - All three versions suggest that no-one is going to be punished, which in one sense is fair enough, since God is responsible for our disobedience, but in another ... as George points out ... means that mass murderers can rest assured that they too will go to heaven. In other words, it doesn't matter what we do here on Earth. Little wonder, then, that Paul goes on to say "how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" But George also points out your statement that God "does not let evil go unpunished", and in the same chapter of Romans Paul says "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity." You say that God's love is "absolute and unconditional", and yet "God hates and punishes evil". How, then, can his love be called unconditional? - The gist of all this is that the Bible, as was pointed out earlier on this site by David Turell, is the work of man, and as a text it is unreliable and open to whatever interpretation you wish to read into it. - However, I have to disagree with George, who says "Love is all very well but is highly over-rated. I prefer Logic any time." I know of no greater joy in life than to love and to be loved, though I'm all in favour of logic. I see no logical reason at all why one should express a preference. If I may adapt Carl's dictum, there is a time for logic and there is a time for emotion. I'm also reminded of the tale of the logical ass, which was offered two identical bags of hay and starved to death.

7035 views

In an earlier posting you quote a modern translation of Romans 11, 32: "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."
George points out that in the Authorized Version this reads: "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."
I have a different modern translation, which reads: "For God has shut them all up together in disobedience, that he might show all of them mercy." - Thanks for your reply dhw I will try to give an answer. Again I'd say don't take my word for it that this is the Christian position but read the Bible and check it out for yourself. - Strong's numbers is a book which most Christians respect when it comes to getting more detail on what a word meant in the original Greek or Hebrew. It works by taking the entire text of the Bible and placing identical numbers over every word that is identical in the original language. Then in the back of the book it gives a dictionary definition of that word. It helps people who are not language experts get a more precise meaning of a word. Today with computers you can download a free King James Bible with Strong's Numbers. When you hover your mouse over a word its various meanings will pop up. - Where a word has many meanings English translators are tied to only using one word if they want the passage to flow so they have to make a choice. I often find that when I look at the meaning of a Greek word then most of its meanings fit the passage (I think that is why God chose these words). I think this passage is an example of that. This is what Strong's say about the word unbelief/disobedience. - apeitheia
ap-i'-thi-ah
From G545; disbelief (obstinate and rebellious): - disobedience, unbelief.
 - Now to us unbelief and disobedience seem like very different things however in the Bible's logic they are very strongly linked. - Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. John 3:18-20 - I think I could go as few as to say the Bible makes the claim that all wrong actions are rooted in unbelief (including those done in the name of God). For example in the Garden of Eden the Serpent says "Did God really ..." and after that Eve rebels against God. Conversely the Bible makes the claim that faith or (trusting obedience) is the source of right action:

"Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
Romans 4:3
 
So I think both translations above are correct and that from looking at the two translations we learn an additional fact about the Bibles world view and that is that unbelief and disobedience are strongly linked. - I can say that this is true in my experience. As a Christian I still do wrong things. I have seen enough answers to prayer to know God is real I have no excuse for not believing in him. Yet in order to do wrong I have to push God out of my mind and pretend he is not real for a bit. If a man has an affair he will normally do it when his wife is not around. What man would bring his secrete lover home when he knows his wife is at home. However if God is everywhere and all knowing I have no secrete place to sin. The best I can do is push God to the back on my mind and treat him like he does not exist for a bit. So the nature of temptation is that it starts with an attack on who God is and it ends with a wrong action. - Jesus' life was an example of perfect trust in God the Father. If we believe that God is real and he is with us then doing wrong is like chatting up the waitress when we take our wife for a meal. - But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; John 16:7-10
 
--- - "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." - Note the word may here God has opened up a way by which we may receive mercy. The offer is open to all people however like so many offers it does not last forever. The Bible is clear that not everyone will accept it. - Phil

7331 views

Edinburgh4 (7 September at 01.06): "On this site I am not arguing that the Christian message is true just clarifying what I believe it is."
Edinburgh4 (07 September at 16.54) 2: "...don't take my word for it that this is the Christian position but read the Bible and check it out for yourself." - I'd like to stress that clarification is what we are all trying to achieve. For me, life and the universe are an unfathomable mystery, and I marvel that anyone can genuinely and wholeheartedly believe they have found a solution. If a theist like yourself or an atheist like George explains the basis of his belief or non-belief, it makes me test my own uncertainties and articulate my own thoughts, but it also opens up the possibility that you might provide me with some answers. I don't think any of us can expect more. - Having said that, I must agree with George's comment on your explanation of the synonymity between unbelief and disobedience, which taken with your quotation from John 3: 18-20 ("Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son") raises an interesting question. I appreciate that your answer cannot be representative ... nobody's can ... but you have thought a great deal about these matters, and you must have come up with answers that satisfy you. My question in this context is: does it fit in with your own personal sense of justice that all Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and Buddhists "stand condemned", together with atheists and agnostics and all those who have never even heard of Jesus? - To this question I would like to add the following, which arise out of your last post or previous ones:
1) Do you avoid doing wrong only because you think that God sees you?
2) You stated previously that God's love was unconditional but that God hates evil and will punish it. What do you visualize as being the punishment? Do you believe that God loves paedophile rapists and murderers unconditionally, or is it possible that he would impose the condition of a changed attitude? (I'm sorry if that sounds ironic, but I can't find a better way of challenging the notion of unconditional love.)
3) David Turell asked you whether you believed in Young Earth Creationism or Old Earth Creationism, and I would also be interested in your answer. - Once again, thank you for your patience.

7188 views

1) Do you avoid doing wrong only because you think that God sees you? - In my Agnostic position I tended to view my moral state from the perspective of what I thought it was fair of the various people around me to think of me based on what they knew of me. If someone thought less of me than I thought they had reason to this made me upset (I'd think they were a bad person). In general and (I think like most people) I tried to project an image of myself that was a bit more positive than reality. And depending on what group I was mixing with the direction I would skew reality would change. Reading the Bible forced me to consider what a truly objective spectator would think of my life. I did not believe in God but just used induction to think about what it would be fair of such a being to think of me. With humans I could say based on what he knows of me he should thing well of me, when I tried this with the hypothetical all knowing God who knew my every thought this did not work so well. - Like many people I'd felt misunderstood as a person. There was a kind of Eureka moment when I discovered that the reason I felt misunderstood was because I was the one misleading people about me. It sounds simple but without the hypothetical God I never would have made this step. So at this point I will say that God's all seeing nature is very important it is not the motivation for doing right or wrong but it is important. - Before becoming a Christian my morality hinged around what I could get away with. And I think survival of the fittest can boil down to this too. Imagine two guys both like the same girl. They have a genetic group morality which says murder is not right. However faced with a situation where man A can be certain he can murder person B without getting caught. From the point of view of passing on you genes this it what it makes sense to do. So the group mentality is to catch an punish murderers but the clever individual who knows he can evade capture it is good for gene preservation if he murders. Genetic morality then boils down to publicly upholding the group morality, and only breaking it when you can be sure you will not get caught and it is to your advantage. I think our moral outlook hinges on our view of origins and this is why it is such a passionate subject. At the moral level the disproof of evolution has implications. - (see question 2)

7170 views

2) You stated previously that God's love was unconditional but that God hates evil and will punish it. What do you visualize as being the punishment? Do you believe that God loves paedophile rapists and murderers unconditionally, or is it possible that he would impose the condition of a changed attitude? (I'm sorry if that sounds ironic, but I can't find a better way of challenging the notion of unconditional love.) - God's love is not conditional, yet he still hates and punishes evil. Imagine you were a judge and one of your friend's children appeared before you in court. It is clear that he has committed the crime and is in the wrong. You care about the young man because he is the son of you friend but this does not make his crime less serious. You passing the the guilty sentence on him does not mean you care about him any less than when you send him a present at Christmas. If the young man says sorry it does not mean that you can let him off. God has perfect love for us but he is also a perfect judge he cannot let anything past. - Now let us look at God's standard the Ten Commandments: Do not lie. What do you call a person who tells lies? A liar. Have you ever told a lie? Do not steal. What do you call a person who steals? A thief. Have you ever stolen anything? Jesus said 'you have heard it was said to people long ago "Do not commit adultery" but I tell you whoever looks with lust has committed adultery in his heart. If your eye causes you to sin gouge it out and throw it away it is better for you to lose one part of your body than for the whole of your body to be thrown into hell.' If you have said yes to these things then you are a liar, a thief and an adulterer at heart and we have only looked at three of the ten commandment how would you do if you were judged by all ten? Would you be innocent or guilty? would you end up in heaven or hell? - Imagine the were two assassins one is good (he always hits) the other is bad (he always misses). Both are assign to kill the same person. The bad one shoots and misses then the good one shoots and kills the target. Morally which is better? - In the Bible it says:

Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him. 1 John 3:15
 
In other words if you have ever thought to yourself I wish they were dead that is murder in God's eyes. The reason you did not murder was not because you are a good person but because you were afraid of what would happen to you. In Nazi Germany men were allowed to rape and murder without consequence. My fear is that we saw a glimpse of the common state of men's hearts. Each of us like to think that if we were in Nazi Germany we would be one of those who stood for what was right the reality is very few were. If the laws were taken away in the US or UK would we feel safe walking down the street. - If heaven is a perfect place we would need to be perfect to go there. If we are not perfect then we need to change. If we cannot change ourselves then we need to be changed by someone else. If we have freewill then will have to give permission to be changed. So it comes down to this are we willing to be changed and to ask for help. The Mulslim, the Church goer and the Agnostic all stand condemned for the wrong things they have done:

There is no difference for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Rom 3:23 - Now imagine in the court I mentioned earlier that you saw that your friend's son was broken by what he had done. You knew that he had seen how serious it was. And you were convinced he would never do anything like it again. Could you let him off? No, the victim is there in the court they need to see justice done. You decide to give him the maximum fine which neither he nor his family can pay. The young man breaks down in tears. The victim leaves satisfied that justice has been done. The court clears and you talk things through with your friend's son who knows he will have to go to prison because he cannot pay. You take your cheque book out and write him out a cheque for the full amount of the fine and offer it too him. The Bible says that this is what God has done for us: - For the wages of sin is Death but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus. Rom 6 - For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. 
1 Peter 3:18 - Our sins deserved death but Jesus died taking the punishment we deserve in our place and giving us the reward he deserved for a perfect life - eternal life.
 
A few years later the young man returns from University with a good degree and a great job offer. When he meets you he can't do enough to thank you. He does every little thing he can to please you not because he has to but because he wants you to know that he is grateful and could never repay you. This is the motivation we are to serve God with. - ...

7145 views

Edinburg4: Imagine the were two assassins one is good (he always hits) the other is bad (he always misses). Both are assign to kill the same person. The bad one shoots and misses then the good one shoots and kills the target. Morally which is better? - An assassin who always misses is obviously in the wrong line of business!

7071 views

In the Bible Moses murdered an Egyptian. King David murdered Bathsheba's husband and the apostle Paul stood by giving his approval Stephen was stoned to death. When Jesus was on trail the crowds yelled for his death though he had done nothing wrong and asked for a murderer to be released in his place. When Peter preached his first sermon 50 days later this is what he said to the same crowds: - "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call." With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. Acts 2:36-41 - You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Romans 5:6-10

7162 views

3) David Turell asked you whether you believed in Young Earth Creationism or Old Earth Creationism, and I would also be interested in your answer. - I think that the Earth is Young. You can watch the video: - Evidence for a Young Earth - To find out some of the scientific reasons. In the next series I will do a talk called: "Does The Bible Teach That The Earth is Young?" It will be a theological talk and I am very much hoping that many Atheists and Agnostics will watch it. Not because I think it will persuade them. But I think Old Earth Christians are more likely to engage with an argument that comes from Atheists and Agnostics than one that comes from YECs. If Atheists can show the Bible teaches the Earth is young then those who believe the Bible and believe the Earth is old have to rethink one of their two positions. - Also if Atheists can prove to the general public, scientifically that the Earth is old and theologically that the Earth is young they have achieved most of their objective. - I think they have their work cut out explaining radio active carbon in rocks said to be millions of years old. And all the unfossilised flesh that keeps turning up from animals said to have died out millions of years ago. Trees buried upright that poke through "millions of years" worth of strata. The Horizon Problem and the Super Expansion of The Universe. I think people mainly accept the arguments for Old Earth because an Old Earth is a prerequisite for Evolution (which is fact). - Phil

7156 views

Thank you for your response. I now understand (please correct me if I am wrong) that you treat every word in the Bible (both OT & NT) as a revelation of God's every thought. I did not intend to start a debate about Young Earth Creationism, I just wanted to know how seriously you took the Bible in its literal meanings, to better judge any debate we might enter into. The reasons for your beliefs you threw into your last paragraph as a sort of 'defense' of your position are beside the point, but they do make you look very defensive, however, I doubt that you are insecure in your beliefs. Were you afraid of our response? You have every right to accept a 6-10,000-year-old Earth if you wish. And you must realize that there is NO way you can convince me that your belief is correct.

7220 views

In my post of 09 September at 07.59, I asked a series of questions, which Edinburgh4 has kindly attempted to answer. - The first of these was whether it fitted in with your personal sense of justice that all Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists etc. were automatically condemned because they did not believe in Jesus (following on from John 3, 18:20). Your reply suggests that they are all condemned because they are sinners, like the rest of us, but John is saying that only faith in Jesus can save us. I would like to pursue this question, because it betrays an attitude that engenders exactly the same intolerance which we find in Muslim fundamentalism, and which in the past led to appalling acts of cruelty associated with Christianity (the Crusades, the Inquisition). My question to you specifically concerned your own personal sense of justice, and I suppose I was really asking you two related questions: 1) whether you think it fair that people should be condemned for worshipping God in a different way from yours, and 2) whether you approve of the religious intolerance which John appears to be advocating. - My second question was whether you only avoided doing wrong because you thought God was watching. I was relieved to see that for you, although God's all-seeing nature is very important, "it is not the motivation for doing right or wrong." However, the only motivation you seem to give in the rest of the post for not doing wrong is the fear of getting caught. There seems to be no room in your Christian ethic for fellow-feeling, empathy, a desire to do good for its own sake. Of course, doing good has its rewards, because people will like us for being nice to them, but I would find it endlessly distressing if I thought I had wronged someone, and I would not be able to rest until I had put it right. This has nothing to do with God, and I know plenty of other people who are sensitive to the feelings of others but are in no way religious. The point I am trying to make here is that your motivation seems to be without love for your fellow creatures, and I find this surprising. - In your response to my question about God's unconditional love, you put me in the position of a judge (God) dealing with the son of a friend. I punish the young man for his crime, but still love him and help him, he repents, and we all live happily ever after. It's a nice story. Let me now put you in the same position. The son has always been a trouble-maker, in and out of prison, he is a paedophile, a rapist, and he has just murdered your friend. His name is Mephisto, he laughs at the very idea of repentance, and he tells you to go to hell. Do you (as Judge/God) love him unconditionally? - I also asked you what you thought would be the nature of the punishment that God would inflict. I was actually wondering if you believed in hell, and it appears that you do. My next question is whether you believe literally in a place of eternal flames and torment, or whether you regard it simply as a metaphor. I find the idea of eternal punishment inconsistent with the idea of unconditional love. - As regards the Young Earth v Old Earth debate, I repeated David Turell's question because I was curious as to why you hadn't answered it. Thank you for doing so.

7122 views

Love and Obedience? - "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Matt 22:40 - The motivation for the things we do must be love. The commandments help us to see when we are not loving a person. e.g. if we are stealing from them, coveting their positions or sleeping with their wife. Obeying the law moral law laid out in the Bible does not produce love. It is possible to live a selfless life and not love. - If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. 1 Cor 13:3-8 - So keeping an eye on your moral life only is one instrument that tells us if we are walking with God. If you are breaking the law you are not loving but if you are keeping the law you still need to check your attitude. - People often ask if God is good why is their evil in the world? and if God is love why is there hell? - I'd say the answer is this there is evil in the world because loves us and does not want to destroy us. - The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. 2 Peter 3:9-10 - There is hell because God is good and can let evil go on for ever. - For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." Acts 17:31 - This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Romans 2:16 - God has to destroy our sin because he is good. He asks us to step away from it if we refuse we will be destroyed with it. - Sincere belief in an of itself is not a good thing a man may believe he can cure his headache by drilling a hole in his head and another may believe an aspirin will do the trick. Both may be equally sincere in their belief but the results will be very different. The one who drills a hole in his head may die this is very unfortunate but not unfair. - The difference between Christianity and every other religion is the other religions say we can get to God by being good enough. Christianity says we have already blown it, the only way we can get to God is if he makes a way. - No amount of good we do will out weigh the wrong we have done. Imagine a doctor who saves the life of one of his patients on Monday. But on Tuesday he gets angry with his wife and kills her. The police try to arrest him and he says why are you arresting me? I killed one person but saved the life of another. On balance I'm still a good person. - If God gave his only son Jesus to die for us so that we can be saved and we reject that, God has no obligation to accept our attempts at salvation. - how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? Heb 2:3

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12 - Islam say God has no Son, nor does he have need of one.

7206 views

Edinburgh4 has once again been kind enough to reply to my questions. - It would be impolite of me not to respond, but it's difficult to do so, because I find your answers evasive and confusing. I'm relieved to see, however, that in the context of morality you now emphasize the prime importance of love, the absence of which in your initial post I found most disturbing. My relief is greatly tempered, though, by the fact that apparently this love will only count in God's eyes if it comes from a Christian. - Perhaps others will understand the rest of your answers better than I can, but in the meantime let me give you three examples of what seems to me like obfuscation: - 1) "...there is evil in the world because [God] loves us and does not want to destroy us." 
See comments on 2 and 3, though I am tempted to ask why in that case God bothered to create evil in the first place.
 
2) "There is hell because God is good and can let evil go on for ever." I'm not sure whether this is a misprint, and you meant "can't", but on the other hand, since hell is eternal, "can" is probably right, in which case what has the permanence of hell and evil got to do with God being good? - 3) "God has to destroy our sin because he is good. He asks us to step away from it if we refuse we will be destroyed with it." 
But according to you, God's love is unconditional. It seems to me that destroying the person you love if he doesn't do what you want him to do makes your love both conditional and meaningless. - The picture of Christianity that I have put together from your posts is as follows: We are all sinners, but God loves us unconditionally. God will show his unconditional love for us by casting anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus into eternal torment. As for the future of those who do believe, it is possible that they may be saved. 
Please accept my apologies if I have misunderstood you.

7150 views


> The picture of Christianity that I have put together from your posts is as follows: We are all sinners, but God loves us unconditionally. God will show his unconditional love for us by casting anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus into eternal torment. As for the future of those who do believe, it is possible that they may be saved. - Your confusion mirrors some of the reasons that Karen Armstrong, a former nun, left the church, and wrote "The History of God", 1993. She found the illogic of the theology and the concepts of punishment 'frightening'. Interestingly, at the time she produced the book she preferred Jewish or Muslim sevices, although I have no idea if she joined a faith.

7153 views

1) Does God create evil? - No. The possibility of evil is a consequence of freewill. The one who has freewill is accountable for his/her own actions. Your parents could have said to you, you can never go outside if you do you may hurt another kid and I don't want that to happen. Them letting you go outside does not mean they are bad parents if you do something wrong. It is however their job to correct you when you do wrong. - If I create a computer program with freewill and for the first week it is friendly that is good. If after a month of trawling the web and processing the information it decides it must destroy humanity by hacking into missiles and launching them at major cities, I have every right to permanently disconnect it from the web. - Free will is required for love. I can create a computer program that prints "Phil I love you!" a million times and it means nothing because the computer has no choice. If someone chooses to love me that means something to me. God has chosen that both angels and men should have freewill. The Bible says one third of angels rebelled against him and that humanity also fell. God knew this would happen, but he did not create any evil. I know that when I do wrong I do it by free choice, I can't blame my actions on God, the devil or my parents. I work with computers a lot and I can appreciate why God might want to work with servants with a personality and the ability to love. - 2) Why is Hell Permanent?
Man is made in God's image, God is eternal, so also is Man's spirit. If we want to change we need God's help if we reject God's help we have no way of change. If we cannot change we will never be fit for heaven. If your washing machine breaks and can't be fixed and gets put on the rubbish dump, no amount of time there will make it work. If there is no hell then there is no justice we have to accept that any evil person can do whatever they like, take his life and the victims will never see justice. The Bible explains hell like this: - "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. - "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' - "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' - "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house,
for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' - "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' - "'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' - "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" 
Luke 16:19-31 - The punishment of the rich man in eternity fitted exactly his crime in life. In life he had plenty and never shared it with the one who had nothing, whom he saw every day. In eternity he could see the poor enjoying plenty when he had nothing. Just as the rich man perpetually ignored the poor so also his punishment is perpetual.

7134 views

Edinburgh4: "God has chosen that both angels and men should have freewill. The Bible says one third of angels rebelled against him and that humanity also fell. God knew this would happen, but he did not create any evil." - I have no problem at all with the concept of free will. If God wants us to love him, then it would indeed be meaningless if it wasn't voluntary. By the same token, it would be meaningless if he knew in advance exactly who was and who wasn't going to love him. This discussion is all about the possible nature of God and our relationship with him, so here are the problems: - 1) Do you believe that God is the omnipotent prime cause, there was nothing before him, and he created everything? Your presumed answer: yes.
Theological problem: If he created everything, then he created evil. (I suspect your "he did not create any evil" is an equivocation, so what I mean is he brought the concept of evil into existence, i.e. it was his invention. That, of course, has enormous implications with regard to the nature of God.) - 2) Is he omniscient? Your presumed answer: yes.
Theological problem: If God, who created man, knew that man would fall, man was predisposed i.e. programmed to fall, in which case it can't be called free will. - Possible solution: God wants us to love him, and it has to be of our own free will. Therefore God created evil in order to test man. It wouldn't be a test if the result was preordained, therefore God set it all up to see what would happen, i.e. he didn't know what the result of the test would be, and so he is not omniscient. At least that scenario makes sense. The one you offer is riddled with inconsistencies. - There is clearly no point in yet again raising other anomalies, such as the incompatibility of unconditional love with eternal damnation, and with the condemnation of all those who do not believe in Jesus, since you will only circumvent them rather than face them. However, in an earlier post you wrote: "Don't take my word for it that this is the Christian position." Thank you for that good advice.

7176 views

All hinges on the belief in a personal God. If a personal God exists, then divine revelation is perfectly reasonable Without divine revelation, the Bible is just a very old book. The divinity of the Bible is axiomatic for Christians. If one accepts the inerrancy of the Bible, then the rest becomes mere debate over translation, meaning and emphasis.
The problem I have with Christianity is the line of logic. God created man with a sinful nature, tempted him with the tree of knowledge, and, when he failed, condemned him and all his descendents to Hell for eternity. Even though he is all powerful, his all justness will not allow him to forgive man. So, six thousand years later, he sends his son (who is really himself) to be executed by the Romans so that, if we asked in his son's name, he could now forgive us. This leaves the people who lived in the six thousand years prior and all who don't ask for forgiveness correctly, either because they haven't heard or were born into the wrong religion, in the fire. It has been said to me that God's greatest gift to man was free will, to which I respond "It is a gift that keeps on giving. It gives the opportunity to burn in Hell for eternity." An eternity of torment seems unjust and disproportionate. To me, the line of logic is just not plausible. Add to this the fact that every generation beginning with Paul expects to be the generation of the rapture, and two thousand years later it still hasn't happened.

7087 views

Carl: "All hinges on the belief in a personal God." - Spot on. The whole discussion works through phases. Since life and the universe are a fact, we all agree that there is some sort of creative force at work. The first question is whether it's conscious (= intelligent design). From there we move to: if it's conscious, is it personal? And from there we move to: if it's personal, what is its nature and attitude towards us? - I find all three areas of discussion fascinating, but perhaps the richest of them is 3). If there is no God, or God is impersonal, life on Earth is all there is. I don't have a problem with that, and it might be best for us if it is so. But 3) might be wonderful, might be terrible, and is inexhaustible in its possible ramifications. - I agree with everything you have said about Christianity as it's presented by Edinburgh4, but the version of Christianity which he follows, and which you have picked to pieces in all its illogicality, depends on an equally illogical adherence to a collection of texts that have no possible claim to any kind of authenticity. (That doesn't mean they are all fictional, but even history depends on the perspective of the historian.) I have many Christian friends, and not one of them takes this blinkered view of the Bible. Many Christians believe that the Earth is billions of years old, that dinosaurs preceded man, and that hell is just a metaphor. (What possible purpose could there be in eternal torment ... unless God is the ultimate sadist?) I have the utmost respect for any religion or non-religion that is prepared to adapt to new discoveries, and since life can be made to fit in with a theistic, agnostic or atheist point of view, I see no justification for any form of intolerance. - I've just logged onto BBella's latest post: "I can prove whatever I choose to believe with whatever I choose as evidence to prove it with." Exactly! Among our contributors, though, David and George have examined the scientific evidence before them and have simply come to opposite conclusions. I think there are many people who genuinely approach the God question with an open mind (Edinburgh4 says he started out as an agnostic) and find an answer that satisfies them. Once the decision is taken, the BBella process sets in. This may even be my own case. Perhaps deep down, confronted by so much evidence for so many theories, I have chosen to believe that it won't be possible for me to form a belief. But of course I'm not even sure about that! - - .

7103 views

I've just logged onto BBella's latest post: "I can prove whatever I choose to believe with whatever I choose as evidence to prove it with." Exactly! Among our contributors, though, David and George have examined the scientific evidence before them and have simply come to opposite conclusions. I think there are many people who genuinely approach the God question with an open mind (Edinburgh4 says he started out as an agnostic) and find an answer that satisfies them. Once the decision is taken, the BBella process sets in. This may even be my own case. Perhaps deep down, confronted by so much evidence for so many theories, I have chosen to believe that it won't be possible for me to form a belief. But of course I'm not even sure about that! - This is an interestng comment from the Guardian quoting Lord Winston attacking Dawkins: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/12/robert.winston To my mind Dawkins deserves all the criticism he gets.

7302 views

Quote: "The science populariser and fertility expert said that the more bombastic arguments of atheist scientists were making dialogue between religion and science more difficult. - Winston: "I would argue that the 'God Delusion' approach is actually very divisive because it is the one way surely of not winning over opposing views ... Religious people can say, 'look these guys just don't understand us'." - I occasionally visit the Anglican Mainstream forum. I found there a link to this quiz: 
http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=131773
Are you a heretic? Here are the questions on the first page, you are asked to what extent you agree or disagree with each item: - 1. Jesus was given supernatural powers and made the Son of God at his baptism 2. Jesus divine and human natures are in no way confused or annulled by their union with each other 
3. Having been the first creation of the Father, the Son then created the Holy Spirit 
4. There is one God who exists as one person 
5. On the cross, God was manifest as the Son. He is now manifest as the Holy Spirit. 
6. The divine Logos replaced Jesus' human nature in the incarnation 
7. Jesus' humanity was absorbed to produce one new divine nature 
8. The Holy Spirit is the presence of God the Father 
9. Only God the Father is eternal, and he produced the Son out of nothing 
10. Jesus is God and man in one person 
11. God is one person, but exists in three forms as Father, Son and Spirit 
12. Jesus did not have two natures (human and divine) he had one new composite nature 
13. We have not inherited original sin from Adam. 
14. Created matter is fallen and corrupt, so Jesus did not take on full human nature 
15. Jesus' mind was divine, not merely human. 
16. 'Son of God' refers to Jesus' divine nature only. As man he is simply the 'firstborn'. 
17. The body is evil, and so will not be resurrected 
18. God is Spirit, not matter, so Jesus' body was spiritual and only seemed like it was physical 
19. Jesus was raised from the dead and united with God as a reward for his obedience 
20. The Father, Son, and Spirit all exist, but never at the same time. 
21. All material things were created by Satan 
22. Jesus is two persons; one human and one divine 
23. Jesus' ordinary human soul was overcome by the the divine Logos inside him
24. The Eucharist is not effective if it is administered by a leader who is sinful 
25. Suicide is a good way to get rid of the evil of the body 
26. Jesus was not eternally pre-existent, he was rather a deified man 
27. Salvation will ultimately involve an escape from physical reality 
28. Jesus is of one substance with the Father in his divine nature. 
29. God is Spirit, and so spirit is good. Matter is bad. 
30. Jesus is at once complete in Godhead and manhood 
31. Miracles show Jesus divinity. Hunger shows his humanity. 
32. Jesus' human nature is lesser than his divine nature. 
33. A baptism is invalid if performed by a minister who later renounces his faith 
34. Only Jesus' human nature died on on the cross. 
35. God's grace is an aid to help people come to him. 
36. God exists in singular unity, there can be no human-divine union 
37. God cannot co-exist with matter, Jesus only appeared to be fully human 
38. Jesus was not really God incarnate, because God cannot indwell corrupted matter 
39. The efficacy of sacraments depend on the moral status of those administering them 
40. God is the Father, and Jesus is only a man 
41. God is a single person with the Holy Spirit as the power of God 
42. We can obey the commands that God has given us. This is why some people in the OT were righteous. - Boy! Am, I glad I'm an atheist!
'look these guys just don't understand us'
Yes we do, if you think these questions are important you're deluded!

7212 views

40. God is the Father, and Jesus is only a man 
> 41. God is a single person with the Holy Spirit as the power of God 
> 42. We can obey the commands that God has given us. This is why some people in the OT were righteous. - These are the only questions with which I can be in partial aggreement. 40) I don't know if God is our father, but Jesus was only a human man, about whom his followers created a religion. 41) I don't know if God has personality, but I believe 'God' represents some sort of intellectual power. 42) I think we can follow the ethics presented in the OT. - How do I support my first statement for #40. Jesus died a Jew, believing the theology of Judaism, although granted that he was trying to reform a religion that was becoming corrupted. As a Jew he had to believe approximately as we do now. Specifically we do not accept the concept of Hell. Kaballah used mysticism to study that issue and describe several states of afterlife, but not a state of fire and brimstone. Hell appears to be an invention of christian religions.

7099 views


> If God gave his only son Jesus to die for us so that we can be saved and we reject that, God has no obligation to accept our attempts at salvation.
> 
> how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? Heb 2:3
> 
> Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12
> 
> Islam say God has no Son, nor does he have need of one. - I find this preposterous. There are over 4 billion people on Earth who choose other religions. If we are all God's children, those ignoring Jesus are condemned? My concept of God is that He has room for all of us. The Christians I know do not think the way Edinburgh4 is presenting it. The Catholic Church has two paths to Heaven: Divine grace for Catholics who practice the religion properly, and natural grace for the rest of us, who are moral equivalents. I live in an area with a majority of Christians who are Fundamentalist and/or Born-again and no one discusses their religion with me in the manner presented.

7198 views

3) David Turell asked you whether you believed in Young Earth Creationism or Old Earth Creationism, and I would also be interested in your answer.
> 
> Once again, thank you for your patience. - Let me explain my motive for asking the creationism question. I don't want to start a debate on that subject. I simply want to know the extent of Edinburgh4's commitment to a very strict acceptance and interpretation of of the various writings in the Bible. Obviously, New Earth is very strict and Old Earth allows some modern scientific interpretation to creep in.

7170 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum