I think I was about 11 when I figured out that there was something wrong in the world. There was a girl in my school, Judy Haskell, who was a year older than me. She was as healthy as we were, she bounded, played, had a great time. She started feeling sick, went to the doctor, had leukemia, put up a pretty good fight for awhile and then died. Now although to this day I understand the biology involved in disease, something in me screams, "It shouldn't be happening". Like this week I'm in the ICU in Children's Hospital with a three year old little boy, we're asking God for a miracle and I understand the biology in the disease, but it doesn't stop something in me that says it shouldn't be happening.
And I'd just like to point out the silly in the secular because South Park does such a good job of pointing out the silly in Christianity. If natural evolution is really what's going on here and that's the real story, why are we trying to cure anyone of anything? Because wouldn't it be that nature has decided that it's your turn to die so we can evolve? So why are we spending trillions of dollars on trying to heal diseases when nature, for some reason, is trying to off some of us?
I mean, we're going, "We've got to cure cancer. We've got to cure AIDS." Well how do you reconcile that if there is no God, if there is no Imago Dei? If something hasn't gone wrong, why are you trying to fix it? Why are we in Darfur? Why are we digging water wells? What are we taking food over there? "Well, there's oppression."Well wait a minute. If it's just natural selection then that belief system says in order for us to be all that God would have us to be, the weak have to die, they have to be oppressed and killed by the strong. So you know it, and I'm not just talking about Christians. Everybody knows something is wrong here.
Hi, Larry:
ReplyDeleteRight in my wheel house here with this issue, and my puzzlement at the inconsistency of the evolutionists.
Evolutionists have no answers for altruism and selflessness. They'll say it evolved to serve the community, but really, there is no place for morality in the naturalistic world of evolution.
And here's another problem, and Matt's wonderfully eloquent essay above hints at this: Trusting in evolution is the very breeding ground for racism and oppression. Think about it: Humans evolved somewhere in central Africa, or so the mantra goes. That means that those of African ancestry must be seen as racially inferior in some way to the "whiter" races, simply because they are "closer" in origins to our ape-like ancestors. (I know all the evolutionary lingo now that I've been reading Dawkins....) So, then, what is the problem with racism, from an evolutionists point of view? We know that Hitler, and Margeret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood and renowned atheist/racist) and their policies were shaped in large degree by evolution by natural processes (i.e., without God). (Planned Parenthood's present policies may still be seen as racist, but that is another issue for another time.)
OK, my blood pressure rises even as I type this, but glad I got it off my chest....
Jim W
Jim,
ReplyDeleteNever mind that someone like Dawkins is showing that he doesn't really believe his own atheism by the simple fact that he wrote a book about it. If this life is all that exists--and what's Dawkins have, 30 years left, max--why bother trying to convince anyone of the truth of atheism? Why isn't he making merry instead of trying to argue with people who believe in something imaginary? Come on, Richard, clock's ticking, any second you could die...
Of course, the Bible has an explanation for this foolishness: "In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
Of course, it's important to remember that, apart from the work of Christ, we would be this blind. Let's pray that those who are blind to the nature of reality would have their eyes open and their sins forgiven, as someone, I'm sure, once prayed for each of us.
Will
I cant actually believe this...I mean, wow. You people are so ignorant. You've read Dawkins so now you know evolutionist lingo? wtf? Are you simple or something? Racism is not inherent in atheism, you prick. Have a look at the history of your own delightful religion- sponsoring the slave trade and making war on the 'heathen heretics' in the middle east and africa for hundreds of years. The torturing and kidnapping of jews and jewish children respectively in the name of Christ.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, on to Matt's little spat of verbal diarrohea. First off, natural selection IS NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM, moron. It's a word that describes how species change and diversify through time. We should 'bother' with curing cancer and AIDs because it will, long term, help all of humanity and because it's the right bloody thing to do, what inhumane monster would deny treatment like this to a fellow human? Oh yeah, the catholic church with it's wilful spreading of HIV throughout Africa with it's 'no condoms' policy. Now, I wonder..would AIDs be as rife if the people could use condoms without being told they're going to burn in hell alongside the atheist scum trying to help them, hmm?
There is no 'silly' in atheism to criticise. We don't think there is a god. End of. Nothing else. Evolution does not come part and parcel with atheism, if someone is rational then they will accept evolution as fact due to overwhelming evidence and no other rational explanation being advanced by anyone else. If another theory were to be put forward that satisfactorily explained the process of life then it can go through the grinder of the scientific process just like Evolution did, if it does meet the requirements of the scientific community then it will be an alternative or indeed superior answer to evolution. Welcome to the self correcting answer to everything
yours in atheism
Adam
Adam,
ReplyDeleteThanks for visiting the site. I am not sure why the content of this post seems to anger you so much, but I respect your views and am sympathetic with the difficulties you have with the history of the Christian Church.
Having been born and raised Jewish, attending Jewish private schools from Kindergarten through high school, I understand that the Church has been guilty of much wrong. I have had to wrestle through those things in considering the claims of Jesus Christ. But He has won my trust.
If you're so inclined, I would encourage you to consider him, give thought to who this man really is. Living 2000 years ago in relative poverty, never traveling very far, never earning a college degree, never publishing a book, and dying a very shameful and disgraceful death surrounded by scorn and derision.
Yet more books have been written about him and more artwork has been made of him than anyone in the history of the world. Time is literally split in half by his appearing (BC/AD). What is it about this man that has made such an enduring impact on the history of the world?
Rather than worry about evolution and natural selection and the evils of the Catholic Church, I try to put my focus on the person of Jesus. Those other things are not unimportant, but Jesus is most important. Again, I'd encourage you to give him some thought, but I certainly respect you if that is not something you want to do. I don't think you're "silly".
Take care, and again, thanks for visiting the site.
Larry
" If it's just natural selection then that belief system says in order for us to be all that God would have us to be, the weak have to die, they have to be oppressed and killed by the strong."
ReplyDeleteLet's reword this a bit to better reflect what a secular perspective would actually think:
...in order for us to be all that we can be, the poorly adapted may die, possibly killed by the better adapted (say, a predator) or losing the competition for survival and mates.
Now that I have corrected your views about natural selection, we can see that the human struggle is one where we overcome evolution by natural selection and try to improve the life of the 'poorly adapted', the sick, the injured. Modern medical advances are an attempt to conquer the blind, uncaring marching of evolution. To beat it, we must understand it.
This is the view of
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a strawman argument. Biological evolution is not a belief system but a description how life 'works', like physics describes how moving things 'work'. We fight disease for the same reasons that we'd push someone out of the way of a falling piano.
ReplyDeleteWhy would the fact that you have a genetic disease (biology) or are in front of a moving bus (physics) preclude us from trying to do something about it ????
The facs of natural selection, evolutionary theory should not define our treatment of one another any more than atomic theory does...
//Never mind that someone like Dawkins is showing that he doesn't really believe his own atheism by the simple fact that he wrote a book about it. If this life is all that exists--and what's Dawkins have, 30 years left, max--why bother trying to convince anyone of the truth of atheism? Why isn't he making merry instead of trying to argue with people who believe in something imaginary? //
ReplyDeleteHave you actually read the book? Doesn't sound like it. First, are you saying he can't "make merry" and write a book? As he makes clear, belief in the imaginary can have serious implications for everyone ....
@Jim W
ReplyDelete//Evolutionists have no answers for altruism and selflessness. They'll say it evolved to serve the community, but really, there is no place for morality in the naturalistic world of evolution.//
Umm, that's pretty self-contradictory, you provide the evolutionary explanation for altruism, then say it has no place in evolution???
//Trusting in evolution is the very breeding ground for racism and oppression. Think about it: Humans evolved somewhere in central Africa, or so the mantra goes. That means that those of African ancestry must be seen as racially inferior in some way to the "whiter" races, simply because they are "closer" in origins to our ape-like ancestors. (I know all the evolutionary lingo now that I've been reading Dawkins....)//
An elementary school understanding of evolution reveals the problems with what you are saying. Evolution is about time, humans who remained in Africa have been evolving for the same amount of time as those who didn't...
//We know that Hitler, and Margeret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood and renowned atheist/racist) and their policies were shaped in large degree by evolution by natural processes//
As I posted earlier, the fact that someone tries to shape social policy out of a scientific theory has no bearing on the validity of the theory. If Hitler tried to create society based on atomic theory perhaps it would be easier to understand this point...
Erich -- Do you go to George Mason?
ReplyDeleteNope ;) but live in DC
ReplyDeleteGotcha. I saw "Fairfax, VA" on my statcounter (since I am a spy and know everyone who looks at my blog :-) and wondered. My sister went to school there and still lives in the area. I was just down there two weeks ago.
ReplyDeleteJust curious: what are your beliefs about the existence of God?
Thanks for visiting the blog!
Just a thought, for those who are regular readers of this blog, where we don't usually get this heated about stuff.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good reminder of how important it is to say what we want to say with the most charity possible, saying on the web only what we are comfortable saying to a person's face.
As I state in my profile, my desire is that this blog be open to the views of people who disagree with my beliefs, and that we can speak about things civilly and respectfully.
Of course I love Jim and Will with all my heart, and I am confident that they feel the same way about this. Had they known who was going to read this, they may not have changed a word. And I am not saying that they should have changed anything.
But I wonder if any of us (myself included) would write differently if instead of writing posts or comments to the nameless, faceless atheist or Christian OUT THERE, we were actually sitting with someone who held those opposing views.
Let's aim to speak in a way that assumes that the "other" is reading, and deserving of our respect and humility.
Larry:
ReplyDeleteThank you for that well-put chide. As a follower of Jesus Christ, devoted to the Word of God, the Bible, I know full well that God's Word states: "Always be prepared to give an answer for the hope that is within you, yet do it with gentleness and respect."
I owe an apology to those who have disagreed with me in the above comments -- those who were likely angered by the tone of my hastily crafted comment. It was not done with gentleness and respect, and so I ask you to forgive me.
I sincerely hope that Erich and Adam and Humanist Dad will check back in on this site. A little about me (Jim W): I'm a middle-aged bio major and a physician. So, I know a little bit of what I speak, both evolution and creation. I just didn't do a very good job parsing my words.
I also did not mean to imply that all evolutionists are by nature racists or that they agree with the actions of the Hitlers and Sangers. (I will remind you though, that Dawkins repeatedly denigrates creationists in his most recent book, and compares us to the deniars of the Holocaust. Essentially, creationists are the lunatic fringe, in his opinion. But it would still be wrong for me to "hit back.")
Look, I still stand by my statement that belief in evolution lends itself more easily to racism and "everyone for himself," in contradistinction to the teachings of Jesus Christ. And, I stand by my (poorly worded) statement that morality has no basis in the evolutionary world view -- after all, who's then making the "rules" that we all agree upon. What would drive you, Humanist Dad, to care about the "blind, uncaring marching of evolution?" What defines and determinines our proper "treatment of one another" for you, Erich?
These aren't rhetorical questions, and I'm not attacking you; I'd really like to know your thoughts. I agree with Larry; you aren't silly. You're thinking these things through with great intelligence. What about God?
And what do you do with the man Jesus?
I do read and listen to quite a bit of Dawkins. I find him fascinating, eloquent, and intelligent. He infuriates me, and I think I know why. It's because, if it weren't for God's grace toward me, I would be just like Richard Dawkins. (Not nearly as smart as him, mind you.) I would be a raving evolutionist, gripping closely my "gospel," which would be my science.
But I see that evolution by natural selection over billions of years still does not explain the origin of life. It doesn't account for where this all came from. And, it doesn't follow logically that, against the very laws of nature and rationality, from non-life comes this amazingly complex world, and these wonderfully designed human beings who have a consciousness of God and the laws of morality written on our hearts.
OK, I've gone too long.
One last thing: Be open to doubting your doubts. That's why I read Dawkins and the other atheists in addition to reading my Bible. Would you consider two readings?
Lee Strobel, a former atheist, an attorney and former legal editor for the Chicago Tribune wrote three investigative pieces, fearlessly facing the most pressing questions against Christianity: The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, and The Case for a Creator.
Second, Francis Collins's "The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief", written by the director of the Human Genome Project, directed to his unbelieving scientific colleagues.
Obviously, the best book to read would be the Bible. I encourage anyone who doubts the existence of God and claims of Christ to read it; start with the book of John. The Word of God speaks for itself.
Peace,
Jim W
Well, Larry, thanks for tempting me last night to break my Internet "fast". I'll make this one exception, then no more Internet for me.
ReplyDeleteLast night, I read Romans 1 and 2. Boy, am I glad that I did.
I could reply; however, I choose not to. I think, at this point, a back-and-forth on the Internet will not point anyone to the glorious truth that we are celebrating this weekend.
God will post his comment on each of us one day--see Romans 2:6-7. The comment he'll post about me is "This one belongs to my Son." I have done nothing to deserve this. In fact, for years I mocked him with the best of them. Why was I made to see? To glorify myself? No. Considering this, is it the best use of time to try to win an argument with people who only exist in the abstract, people who I have no personal relationship with? To what end? At this point, I know it would only be for the sake of my pride. Sometimes, it's wise to remember this verse from one of my favorite hymns. The need to impress others is something he freed me from.
"Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee."
Let's remember who brought us out of "sin and nature's night". It wasn't ourselves. It wasn't a clever argument. It was the one who died and rose again.
Let's pray for him to free the prisoners this Easter. Our God can do it!
Will
@Larry,
ReplyDeleteHope you like the area, but you missed the cherry blossoms! They are full on right now.
On the God question, in short, paraphrasing Laplace, "I've no need of that hypothesis" :)
But more deeply, we'd probably need to first elaborate what you mean. I am assuming you mean the Abrahamic, interventionist God as opposed to say a Deistic or Pantheistic intepretation.
@Jim W,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughtful response and I assure you I didn't take any personal offense, my posts were 'acacdemic' as it were :)
//(I will remind you though, that Dawkins repeatedly denigrates creationists in his most recent book//
Again, perhaps we should first clarify 'creationist'. Are you talking about those who believe in ribs, dust,etc about 6000 years ago or those who think that God provided the 'spark' that led to the billions of years of biological evolution.
His 'denigration', as it were, is most directed at the former, as someone with a scientific background I assume that you understand that one must willfully ignore basic facts of physics, cosmology, geology, biology, etc to persist in such a view.
//Look, I still stand by my statement that belief in evolution lends itself more easily to racism and "everyone for himself," in contradistinction to the teachings of Jesus Christ.//
Jim, I think this is something of a strawman argument. First, again, evolution is not 'moral teachings', but the 'mechanism' of life. Understanding it actually helps us when we choose to be moral (due to following Jesus, Buddha, common sense or whomever). Using say our understanding of evolution to create antibiotics to ease the suffering of our fellow man. How does that lead to anything 'bad'? I will reiterate my earlier point, if I told you I was fashioning a sociopolitical philosophy based on atomic theory you would rightfully look at me like I was crazy. "Social Darwinists" would deserve the same scorn. However, neither evolution nor atomic theory would be any less vaild as a result.
//What defines and determinines our proper "treatment of one another" for you, Erich?//
Given that alongside 'love thy neighbor',etc there's plenty of amoral and horrific acts committed or condoned by God, Jesus,etc in the bible, I can assure you it's not that :)
For me, basic ethics, are all that's necessary, treat people like you want to be treated, 'ask first' when in doubt,etc.
//But I see that evolution by natural selection over billions of years still does not explain the origin of life. It doesn't account for where this all came from.//
It may seem like splitting hairs but it's very important. Evolution is how life 'works' not how it started.
//And, it doesn't follow logically that, against the very laws of nature and rationality, from non-life comes this amazingly complex world,//
That's kind of an argument from personal incredulity. Also 'rationality' is a concept not a physical quality so life wouldn't have struggle against that. Moreover, life while obviously quite rare in our universe certainly follows the 'laws of nature'.
//One last thing: Be open to doubting your doubts. That's why I read Dawkins and the other atheists in addition to reading my Bible. Would you consider two readings?//
I am a skeptic, doubt is an organizing principle of mine ;)
I've haven't read Stroebels book, but I read Collins, twice. Quite frankly, I was amazed at the contrast between the boldness of the claim in the title "evidence for belief" and the paucity of the argument he presented. My response is already overlong ;) but we can discuss the details if you wish.
//Obviously, the best book to read would be the Bible. I encourage anyone who doubts the existence of God and claims of Christ to read it; start with the book of John. The Word of God speaks for itself.//
Have read it many, many times (Oxford Annotated is my favorite). I appreciate it as a seminal example of Bronze/Axial age thinking/mythology/poetry/law etc etc. As Dawkins says, it's hard to appreciate a lot of Western lit without a good reading of the Bible. So sure it's an important part of our cultural legacy, but beyond that...
@Will,
ReplyDeleteI just read Rom 1 again, particularly relevant to me as a non-believer :) According to 18-20, the 'wrath of God' is upon me, not for causing harm to others, etc, etc but simply by virtue of my non-belief, which I arrived at by virtue of the exercise of the reason that ostensibly He gave me ???
1:21 I have a dark and foolish heart (my friends would beg to differ :))
1:26-27 is both homophobic and misogynistic
And we close chap 1 out by saying that 'debaters', disobedient children, prideful people, are in the same category as murderers and deserving of death.
I am being a bit nit-picky but my point is that yes I can read the Bible (or the Iliad) and find beautiful and inspirational things, but I also find the clear reflections of a time far less culturally and morally developed than our own. And certainly no evidence of the 'divine' or 'perfect'.
"just read Rom 1 again, particularly relevant to me as a non-believer :) According to 18-20, the 'wrath of God' is upon me, not for causing harm to others, etc, etc but simply by virtue of my non-belief,
ReplyDeletewhich I arrived at by virtue of the exercise of the reason that ostensibly He gave me"
Correct, although you, along with myself and everyone who has ever lived, aside from Christ, has misused this reason to attempt to be our own gods--to effectively kill God. Explain the somewhat illogical act of trying to evangelize for non-tooth fairyism on a tooth-fairy discussion board. I'm only in this discussion with you because it matters eternally. If I instead thought we were going to be annihilated, perhaps by a heart attack tomorrow or a car accident, I wouldn't bother writing back. I'd go out and try to get the most thrills while trying to stay alive for the longest possible time. How else to explain the anti-tooth-fairy commenter except to say perhaps he really does believe in tooth fairies, but is experiencing some severe cognitive dissonance?
"homophobic and misogynistic"
Prove to me that homophobia and misogyny are wrong. On what authority do you base your claim that this is a negative thing? Where's your standard of eternal, objective morality that applies to all people everywhere? The laws of logic demand that this of any standard. In fact, the laws of logic themselves demand the same thing. What kind of being would be able to produce just such a document that would help us to sort all of this out?
"I also find the clear reflections of a time far less culturally and morally developed than our own"
In order to make this statement, there must be a standard of measurement of morality and culture that is objective and eternal. You must have a perfect knowledge of all times and places in order to assess the Bible's cultural and moral worth with any kind of logical plausibility. In other words, your statement requires that there be such a thing as "bad" moral development and "good" moral development. Did you create this standard yourself? Show me this standard. If such a standard were to exist, would a person be able to "discover it" unaided?
"And certainly no evidence of the 'divine' or 'perfect'."
How would you know if something is "perfect"? Name something perfect and prove that it is so. For something to be "perfect" it must always be so. We assume that 2+2=4 is perfect. Were we around 1,000 years ago? Will we be here 1,000,000 years in the future? How do we know that 2+2 will always = 4? The only way is to appeal to a "law" of mathematics. For something to be a law in this sense, it must be true everywhere and for all times. How would any mortal being know anything is perfect--the perfect song, the perfect catch, the perfect equation--unless an immortal being were to communicate this somehow? How would someone know 2 + 2 = 4 is true everywhere unless he were to be everywhere? This seems to demand a special kind of being. Omnipotent. Eternal. Perfect. I wonder who might fit this description.
Erich,
ReplyDeleteOne other thing. While you are free to respond to the post above, I will not be reading the response. The temptation to sin will be too great. I love winning arguments; but I love my savior more. I know that I frequently choose the former or the latter. For another Christian, it may be different.
Erich, even while you rebel, he cares for you. Your intelligence, pride, and rhetorical acumen cannot save you; believe me, running after these things will only lead further into despair.
I thought and prayed about whether to write back to you. I believe that some of your statements demanded a response and that I would be able to show the greatness of the God who gave himself without cost for this man who wanted Him dead for so long. It is my prayer that I have done this.
I will pray that the one who made this blind man see will likewise open your eyes.
Will
Erich,
ReplyDeleteThanks for engaging with us here. I appreciate your courteous, respectful responses, which unfortunately are all too uncommon in the blogging world.
Yes, I missed the cherry blossoms! Everyone was saying that when I was down there! Oh well, maybe next year.
When I asked you about your beliefs in God, I meant anything: Deist, Pantheist, Interventionist (as you put it), whatever. I was just curious if you had any beliefs at all. Another question is: were you raised in a home where any particular belief in God was accepted?
I don't have any secret motives in asking these questions; I just enjoy thinking about the views of others, as I find it helps me to sharpen and clarify my own beliefs.
Anyway, I am not a scientist. In fact, I always hated science! I majored in journalism to stay as far away from math and science as possible. Of course then I married an astro-physics major, so go figure!
It's because I cannot "hang" with you in talking science and evolution that I have not really engaged with you on some of the things you've said. But from what I have read, I am a bit uncomfortable with the faith vs. reason/science battle that I see often.
I came across a quote some time ago from a committed Darwinist named Richard Lewontin, who I believe is a professor at Harvard. He wrote:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Dawkins himself has said, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but this does not seem very scientific. When you have an a priori commitment to materialism despite the fact that it seems totally irrational (which seems to be what Lewontin is saying), I don't see how that qualifies as rational or reasonable.
The view of God I currently have is not one that I was raised with, but came about through my own investigation and reflection. I have come to believe that the fundamental, most basic beliefs of Christianity -- that God is the Creator and ruler of all things, that humans have rebelled against God's authority, and that Jesus has accomplished reconciliation for all who trust Him, on the basis of His resurrection from the dead -- are a rational, reasonable way to understand the universe.
I don't have the 100% airtight defense that will infallibly cause you to believe in the God I worship. But you'd have to admit, I think, that your non-belief is also built on some things you accept by faith.
And I would contend that it takes more faith to not believe in the God of the Bible than to believe in Him. But I also understand that there are a lot of people who don't agree with me about that. I like to engage with others to help them consider Jesus, as I encouraged Adam to do in my first comment of this thread.
Christianity is about Jesus. It's not about abortion or homosexuality; it's about Jesus. So I really try to help others consider him. I'm far more equipped to speak about him than about evolution!
Anyway, thanks for reading, and I wish you well. Feel free to write back regarding any of this, though I can't promise that I'll have the smarts to respond to your response!
Larry
Hi Will,
ReplyDelete//Correct, although you, along with myself and everyone who has ever lived, aside from Christ, has misused this reason to attempt to be our own gods--to effectively kill God.//
Don't you think that's a bit hyperbolic ? :) First, I can't kill or attempt to kill something that I simply see no evidence for. Nor is 'being my own God' accurate as given the typical "God-like" attributions by various religions, certainly not claiming those...
//Explain the somewhat illogical act of trying to evangelize for non-tooth fairyism on a tooth-fairy discussion board.//
Not sure what you mean, atheism doesn't evangelize anything, it's simply no to the question "Do you think God exists?". I'm sure you don't 'evangelize' your atheism about the tooth fairy or Zeus etc ?
//I'd go out and try to get the most thrills while trying to stay alive for the longest possible time.//
Well speak for yourself :) there are plenty of us who see no evidence that we're anything other than worm food when we die, and based on the idea that this is the only life we have, do the best we can to make sure that we make a positive impact while we're here and just maybe,if we're lucky, on those who come after us.
//How else to explain the anti-tooth-fairy commenter except to say perhaps he really does believe in tooth fairies, but is experiencing some severe cognitive dissonance?//
Again, don't confuse "anti-X" with "i see no objectively verifiable evidence for X". Again, being anti-God, is I dunno, a Satanist or something. e.g. I believe God exists and I reject him/her/it. That's not atheism.
//Prove to me that homophobia and misogyny are wrong.//
Whatever your personal feeling about it, what to consenting adults do is their business. What harm, other than the 'offense' to your personal or religious feelings does homosexuality cause? I HATE mushrooms, yet aside from perhaps a passing comment, it would be in poor taste for me to rail on and on about how horrible mushrooms are as you enjoyed your mushrooms and rice no? :)
Misogyny, hatred and denigration of women and girls. Do I really need to elaborate why this is wrong ?
continued...
/Where's your standard of eternal, objective morality that applies to all people everywhere? The laws of logic demand that this of any standard.//
ReplyDeleteSuch a standard does not exist. The Bible certainly is not one, and you know it, as you don't believe that your disobedient kids are deserving of death (even though, sure, we want to strangle them sometimes :)) "Figuring out", developing morality has been and is one of the great human endeavors. The fact that we can disagree about this subject without one of us dying is a testament to this process :)
//In order to make this statement, there must be a standard of measurement of morality and culture that is objective and eternal. You must have a perfect knowledge of all times and places in order to assess the Bible's cultural and moral worth with any kind of logical plausibility.//
Again, I'm sorry but that's something of a strawman. Slavery, subordination of women, blood debts, child sacrifice, etc, all things that are condoned in the Bible are things that we now generally recognize to be 'bad' . We somehow managed to develop that recognition without this 'unchanging' standard that you refer to.
//How would you know if something is "perfect"? Name something perfect and prove that it is so. For something to be "perfect" it must always be so. We assume that 2 2=4 is perfect. Were we around 1,000 years ago? Will we be here 1,000,000 years in the future? How do we know that 2 2 will always = 4?//
Not sure where you are going with this. My point was simply that the many of the mores etc expressed in the Bible clearly reflect that cultural milieu, not something 'relevatory' or 'transcendent'
//Omnipotent. Eternal. Perfect. I wonder who might fit this description.//
Will,
ReplyDeleteOf course do what you think is appropriate but I'd like to hear your response.
//Erich, even while you rebel, he cares for you. Your intelligence, pride, and rhetorical acumen cannot save you; believe me, running after these things will only lead further into despair.//
You presume much here. Again, 'rebelling' involves my acknowledgment then denial of say, God. This is not the case. I'm not rebelling against Santa Claus either :) I find your last extremely presumptuous. Why do you think I am in despair in the first place, much less going 'further' ?
Larry,
ReplyDeleteSorry you missed got really lucky with the blooming+excellent weather. Unfortunately we'll be having the normal ridiculous DC summer soon :)
//When I asked you about your beliefs in God, I meant anything: Deist, Pantheist, Interventionist (as you put it), whatever. I was just curious if you had any beliefs at all. Another question is: were you raised in a home where any particular belief in God was accepted?//
I assume you mean religious beliefs, lol I have plenty of beliefs ;) I was raised in a 'somewhat' Christian household. My grandfather was a pastor, we went to church (i was in the choir,etc) fairly regularly until my teens. However, even as a child, the many stories etc, seemed to contradict reason. My upbringing included the fact that no questions we're off-limits. So when something was discussed in say, sunday school that wasn't logical, I was not forced to swallow the 'we'll you just gotta have faith' response.
On Lewontin, he's always been known for the provocative comment lol. He got a little beat on for that statement as many/most scientsts don't agree.
//Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but this does not seem very scientific. When you have an a priori commitment to materialism despite the fact that it seems totally irrational//
Science's commitment is not to materialism per-se but certainly the verifiable (which by extension implies materialism). The issue is that if you dismiss materialism, how does one assess a claim's validity? You say "Erich X is true". If I say simply accept your testimony, then there's no real way to determine if X is true, you are innocently mistaken, or being willfully deceptive.
//I have come to believe that the fundamental, most basic beliefs of Christianity -- that God is the Creator and ruler of all things, that humans have rebelled against God's authority, and that Jesus has accomplished reconciliation for all who trust Him, on the basis of His resurrection from the dead///
See that's where we differ, even as a child, this was problematic for me. God created us apparently flawed, we are now suffering under a 'blood-debt' (an unethical concept in modern society) since our great-grandmom Eve couldn't keep her hands to herself :) This is somehow, sort of, absolved by the death (sacrifice) and resurrection, of God (or a part of God), who's eternal in the first place?
continued...
Larry,
ReplyDelete//And I would contend that it takes more faith to not believe in the God of the Bible than to believe in Him. But I also understand that there are a lot of people who don't agree with me about that.//
Can you elaborate on this? Forget atheism for a second, what about the fact that most of humanity believes something other than that particular story, with a similar level of conviction ?
//Feel free to write back regarding any of this, though I can't promise that I'll have the smarts to respond to your response!//
ReplyDeleteIt's not smarts, just sharing thoughts ;)
Erich,
ReplyDeleteI just spent over an hour composing a response to a number of your comments -- and it just got zapped out by Blogger. Boy, do I feel like a moron, because I apparently don't know how these blogger things work.
So, assuming that that was a God-ordained thing that just happened, I'm going to cut to the chase!
The recurring theme of your posts and ours seems to be the sin problem. I don't have time to go back and pull all your direct comments from your posts, but many of them are simply wrong in your statements about the Bible and about God. Sorry, I don't have time to go back and review them all over again.
But here's one that was still ready to paste:
//God created us apparently flawed, we are now suffering under a 'blood-debt' (an unethical concept in modern society) since our great-grandmom Eve couldn't keep her hands to herself :) This is somehow, sort of, absolved by the death (sacrifice) and resurrection, of God (or a part of God), who's eternal in the first place?//
Sin is the problem, from the garden of Eden, where Adam AND Eve, both, rebelled directly against God by taking the fruit in the desire that it would make them equal to God. Humans are sinful from birth -- I'm a pediatrician, and see first-hand the truth of this every day. (Parents agree with me all the time -- even ones who don't believe in God! "Where did they learn that from??") We don't need to taught to sin. It's human nature. God didn't make us flawed, but He made us free to choose right versus wrong.
And God has provided the solution to the sin that plagues every one of us -- Jesus, the God-man. Sin is the problem, Jesus is the solution. And, no, he didn't "sort of absolve" the problem; He COMPLETELY absolved it.
So, back to Larry's post number 4, review his questions about the historical person of Jesus. And you can't just answer, "Jesus of Nazareth. Great moral teacher." Because that's not what He claimed to be. He claimed to be God. And He was resurrected -- a documented, witnessed, historical fact.
So, I ask you to answer Pontius Pilate's question, if not in a comment, then honestly in your heart and mind: "What shall I do with the Jesus, who is called the Christ?"
I'll tell you what I did with Him -- He's my Savior. Because I'm sinful, and in need of a Savior.
(And, yes, I think my own children are deserving of death, too, because they're sinners also. I pray that they come to Jesus as their Savior to, to rescue them from the spiritual death that awaits them if they choose not to follow Jesus.)
Jim W
OK, I need to make one clarification to my previous comment. When I said, "God didn't make us flawed, but He made us free to choose right versus wrong," what I meant to say was, "God didn't make the first humans (Adam and Eve) flawed; they were without sin, but had the ability to choose right versus wrong."
ReplyDeleteThey sinned, rebelled against God, and now every human since has been stained with sin, from birth.
Hope that makes it a bit more clear.
Jim W
/We don't need to taught to sin. It's human nature. God didn't make us flawed, but He made us free to choose right versus wrong.//
ReplyDeleteThis is self-contradictory. If the religious contention is that, God made us, then He/She/It certainly bears some responsibility for our nature.
//Jesus, the God-man. Sin is the problem, Jesus is the solution. And, no, he didn't "sort of absolve" the problem; He COMPLETELY absolved it.//
This would seem to be untrue, according your own (and most contemporary Christian) dogma, you and I still apparently live and breathe sin, can still go to hell, etc. If that's the case, how is our situation any different that that of someone who died in the year 1 BC?
//Because that's not what He claimed to be. He claimed to be God. //
He was neither the first or the last, so not an especially unique claim :)
//And He was resurrected -- a documented, witnessed, historical fact.//
Every religion has fantastic tales (including several from the Levant that include virgin births and resurrections :)). There's simply no evidence distinguishing those tales from the Christian ones.
//What shall I do with the Jesus, who is called the Christ?"//
Like any historical figure, appreciate the 'good' things attributed to him ("love thy neighbor",etc), dismiss the 'bad' (condemning towns for the 'sin' of not being interested in what he had to say, etc), and leave it at that. :)
continued...
//And, yes, I think my own children are deserving of death, too, because they're sinners also. //
ReplyDeleteAnd this is where we have a serious parting of the ways philosophically as that's simply a horrible (and well, in my opinion, amoral) sentiment. We don't let kids sign contracts, drive cars, etc until they are certain age as we recognize the fact that we have to invest time and energy providing them with the 'tools' they need to function in our society. Yet, in your, dogma, they are 'deserving of death' for the act of being born ??? Won't be asking you to babysit anytime soon lol :)
//to rescue them from the spiritual death //
This of course, not only, presumes the existence of a spirit, but that it can 'die', and that this can only be avoided by the adoption of a particular Bronze Age Palestinian myth.
//They sinned, rebelled against God, and now every human since has been stained with sin, from birth.//
I think I talked about this previously. This concept of 'original sin' is, to me, a bit twisted. Following that reasoning, if you go out a tomorrow and axe-murder 20 people, not only should society punish you, but also your children, their children,etc. Where pray tell is the morality in that. Again, this is the problem with the 'frozen philosophy' that religion unfortunately can embody. "Blood debts",etc were all the rage in Palestine 2000 years ago. However, "thank god" lol, most societies have moved beyond that.
Hi Erich,
ReplyDeleteSorry I've not responded to you. In all honesty, I just don't have the time to use this blog to engage in the kind of back-and-forth going on here. I appreciate your comments, but I'd recommend that if you are sincerely interested in thinking through your questions concerning God, Jesus, the Bible, etc. that you check out this church:
http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/
They are located right in DC, and I am sure someone there would be happy to sit down and talk with you if you really desired to do that. If not, then it doesn't seem to be the best use of my time to try to go back and forth on these things through the computer.
I wish you well,
Larry
Erich:
ReplyDeleteI expect that this will be my last post on this subject with you. But there were a couple issues you brought up that I just couldn't allow to slide by without comment.
//there's plenty of amoral and horrific acts committed or condoned by God, Jesus,etc in the bible//
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. If you're referring to things like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, then I don't see the problem with a holy God and creator exacting due punishment on those He has created, especially after they had been given chance after chance to repent. God cannot commit sin. It goes against His nature.
//Slavery, subordination of women, blood debts, child sacrifice, etc, all things that are condoned in the Bible are things that we now generally recognize to be 'bad'//
Again, these things are not condoned in the Bible. These last two comments that I have pointed out to you are showing your lack of understanding of the Bible, the holiness of God, and sin.
Slavery is mentioned in the Bible, simply because it was a fact of that time and culture. That does not condone it.
Subordination of women -- the New Testament is unique in first century literature in terms of the way women are treated. Several of Jesus' closest friends were women. He healed women, carried on theological conversations with them. (See the Woman at the Well.) Certainly not subordinating them, but raising them up.
Blood debts -- I am not sure why God required blood debts for the covering of sin. But blood debts are no longer required, so there's no need to keep pounding on that issue. Because the death of Jesus on the cross was the ultimate and final blood debt needed. It is the means of eternal salvation for all who will believe.
Child sacrifice -- not sure where you're coming up with that one....
Jim W
to continue....
Erich:
ReplyDeleteI made this statement:
"And, it doesn't follow logically that, against the very laws of nature and rationality, from non-life comes this amazingly complex world"
To which you replied:
//That's kind of an argument from personal incredulity. Also 'rationality' is a concept not a physical quality so life wouldn't have struggle against that. Moreover, life while obviously quite rare in our universe certainly follows the 'laws of nature'.//
Not sure why an argument from personal incredulity is invalid. This is actually an argument from the Bible, in Romans 1: "For since the creation of time, God's invisible attributes -- His divine nature and His eternal power -- have been clearly seen, so that man is without excuse."
We see the expansive universe, the tremendous powers around us and throughout the universe -- the ocean, a hurricane, a volcano, a nebula -- and we see the divine around us -- the beauty of a flower, the clear design of the insect which fits exactly into the opening of that particular orchid, the amazing complexity of the human body, especially our expansive DNA code and our remarkable minds which can think rational thoughts, and thoughts of God -- and it is clear, to me, that there is divinity in this, a Designer of it all. Where there is design, there must be a designer. That is why evolution is irrational to me. And evolution goes against the very laws of the universe, specifically that things go from order to disorder, not the other way around.
I can more easily believe that a 747 would be spontaneously constructed from a tornado hitting a junkyard -- make that billions of tornadoes hitting billions of junkyards over billions of years...and, oh yes, let's make this 747 also have the ability to breathe, grow, reproduce, move on its own,and think, too. I know, I sound out of my mind, but really, Erich, is evolutionary theory any more crazy than that?? The human body is far more complex than any man made, designed object.
Jim W
coninued....
Erich:
ReplyDeleteIn response to my comment about the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, you stated:
//Every religion has fantastic tales (including several from the Levant that include virgin births and resurrections :)). There's simply no evidence distinguishing those tales from the Christian ones.//
I believe the difference is that there are four (five if you count Paul) historical authors in the Bible who witnessed the resurrected Jesus, and furthermore, reported that he was also seen by hundreds of others, after his death. Remember, the Bible is a historical document, not a collection of fairy tales.
Here's another thought about Jesus (stolen from my pastor, Larry): Take a list of the most influential humans in history. Now take a list of all those who have claimed to be God. Is there any overlap on these lists? Yes, only Jesus Christ. No one can deny that he truly lived and that he is one of the most famous and influential humans in history -- probably THE most famous and influential. He also claimed to be God. Everyone else who has claimed to be God is seen as a crack pot, or worse. One CANNOT dismiss his claim to be God, and just say he was a man, a good teacher, etc. You must come to grips with his claim to be God, his promise that he would rise from the dead, and the documented fact that He DID rise. The appearances of a risen Jesus are as well authenticated as anything in antiquity.
So, it comes down to faith, Erich. My brother wisely told me the other day that one must first believe, and then you will see. That's indeed what Jesus taught. "Blessed are those who, not seeing [meaning, have not seen Jesus with their own eyes], have yet believed."
I hope that in all this discussion you have seen some things that may help you to believe.
Jim W
Erich:
ReplyDeleteLet me share one more thing:
From British theologian, J.I. Packer, from his book of forty years ago, Knowing God:
"What is a Christian? He can be described from many angles.... he is a man who acknowledges and lives under the word of God [the Bible]. He submits without reserve to the word of God written in the Scripture of truth, believing the teaching, trusting the promises, following the commands. His eyes are to the God of the Bible as his Father, and the Christ of the Bible as his Saviour. He will tell you, if you ask him, that the word of God has both convinced him of sin and assured him of forgiveness. His conscience is captive to the word of God and he aspires to have his whole life brought into line with it....The promises are before him as he prays and the precepts are before him as he moves among men. He knows that in addition to the word of God spoken directly to him in the Scriptures, God's word has also gone forth to CREATE, and CONTROL, and ORDER things around him; but since the scripturees tell him that all things work together for his good, the thought of God ordering his circumstances brings him only joy. He is an independent fellow, for he uses the word of God as a touchstone by which to test the various views that are put to him [such as evolution and materialism], and he will not touch anything which he is not sure that Scripture sanctions."
I am sure that this description does not fit many so-called Christians whom you may have come into contact with in your experience. I am by no means perfect, but I hope that you will continue to engage Christians with your thoughts from here on out.
Signing off,
Jim W
Jim W
ReplyDelete//I'm not sure what you're referring to here. If you're referring to things like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, then I don't see the problem with a holy God and creator exacting due punishment on those He has created, especially after they had been given chance after chance to repent. God cannot commit sin. It goes against His nature.//
Hmm, take a more modern example of "Sin City", while there's of stuff going on in say Vegas. There are children, streetsweepers,etc just living and making a living. Common sense is enough to show the impossibility of 'everyone' being 'bad' in a given location and also enough to illustrate the problem of an omnipotent god with apparently bad aim, who can't seem to punish only those who've actually done something.
//Again, these things are not condoned in the Bible. //
Slavery: Leviticus 25:44-46, 1 Timothy 6:1
Misogyny: Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Timothy 2:11-15
Blood Debt: As I described, this notion that we are somehow 'guilty' of something some alleged forebears did. The fact the Jesus (sort of, since apparently we're still 'guilty' unless we accept his improbable story) cleared a debt that was amoral and unfair to begin with doesn't cut it.
Child Sacrifice: The Binding of Issac. The fact the God asked and Abraham complied up until God's last minute intervention is morally problematic. Most of my religious friends explain it as a exemplar of faith. It is, an exemplar of faith over reason and principle. Abraham responding, "Do what you will with me, but I will not harm my innocent child", that would have been a moral lesson.
Those are just from memory :)
continued ...
Jim,
ReplyDelete//Not sure why an argument from personal incredulity is invalid. //
It's a logical fallacy, of the same general form as argumentum ad ignorantum. The fact that you (or I) don't understand an assertion is not sufficent to invalidate the assertion. As we've left out the other possibility of a deficiency in ones understanding.
//We see the expansive universe...especially our expansive DNA code//
We all agree that these are wonderful and marvelous things (other than, of course when hurricanes and volcanoes are killing people, insects are transmitting debilitating diseases,etc :))
//and it is clear, to me, that there is divinity in this, a Designer of it all. //
Again, we are entitled to our opinions, but there's nothing objectivel verifiable in that assumption.
//nd evolution goes against the very laws of the universe, specifically that things go from order to disorder, not the other way around.//
This means you don't understand the concept of entropy. While 'total entropy' (that of the entire universe) is increasing and will end with the 'heat death' of the universe, local decreases of entropy (formation of stars, planets, life etc) in no way violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is a common creationist misunderstanding. There are some relevant specifics here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Entropy_and_life
//I can more easily believe that a 747 would be spontaneously .. Erich, is evolutionary theory any more crazy than that?.//
Again, if you are making this argument, I am going to have to question your understanding of evolution. This again, is a common creationist strawman, but reflects in no way how evolution works.
//The human body is far more complex than any man made, designed object.//
What's your definition of complexity? Moving parts? Your 747 is more complex in that case. Moreover, as wonderful as we are, we are quite 'poorly designed'. Even our current knowledge of engineering, physics,etc allows us to see how thigs could have been done better (knees - enough said ;), light has to pass through blood vessels to before it striikes your retina, vestigal organs, etc) . Which is consonant with an undirected process like evolution, but not with having to reconcile the "Alpha and Omega" being a crappy engineer.
//I believe the difference is that there are four (five if you count Paul) historical authors in the Bible who witnessed the resurrected Jesus, and furthermore, reported that he was also seen by hundreds of others, after his death.//
ReplyDeleteOk you are the Christian, but what you are saying is inconsistent with Biblical scholarship. The Gospels were written from 20 (Mark at the absolute (and contested) earliest) to 55 (Luke at the earliest) years after the death of Jesus. The authors were not the disciples of Jesus that the books were named after, so they are not corroborrating eyewitness accounts, but rather various authors putting decades-old oral legends to paper. They are inconsistent on important details (conflicting geneaologies, virgin birth only mentioned on 2,etc)
//Remember, the Bible is a historical document, not a collection of fairy tales.//
The fact that a few things in the bible are historical does not preclude many things being 'fairy tales'. Global floods immediately comes to mind :)
//Yes, only Jesus Christ. No one can deny that he truly lived and that he is one of the most famous and influential humans in history//
I am going to have to disagree with you there. The fact that the Jewish cult that was adopted by one of the most powerful and influential empires of the day has a lot to do with it. But don't just say influential, be specific, what did Jesus say, teachetc that human beings didn't already know. How was the world demonstrably better (as opposed to only in the minds of Christians) in AD 31 than it was in BC 1 due to Jesus ?
//One CANNOT dismiss his claim to be God, and just say he was a man, a good teacher, etc. You must come to grips with his claim to be God, his promise that he would rise from the dead, and the documented fact that He DID rise//
Of course I can dismiss it :) And sorry the 'rising' is simply not a documented fact, but again, the oral then written tradition of Christians.
//The appearances of a risen Jesus are as well authenticated as anything in antiquity.//
No sorry they are not, simply retellings of the same story (Joesephus,etc). And totally understandable in more credulous times, people believed in sea monsters, that illness was 'spiritual' etc. Muhammad's ascension to heave at the site of the Dome of the Rock is 'authenticated' as well, do you believe in that? Probably not, and that's always the problem with starting with a conclusion, then cherry picking 'facts' to support it.
//So, it comes down to faith, Erich. My brother wisely told me the other day that one must first believe, and then you will see. That's indeed what Jesus taught. "Blessed are those who, not seeing [meaning, have not seen Jesus with their own eyes], have yet believed."//
Faith, as you describe it here is the abandonment of reason. Which is hard to see as a virtue. Virtually every religion eventually boils down to the same claim. "Believe our particular unsubstatiated assertion and all will be well". "P.S. And all the other guys' unsubstantiated assertions are wrong. 'Cause we said so"