Fallen and Flawed

Ok wait science isn’t riddled with soddy theories because of professors passing blonde cute students.

The process is carried out by imperfect people, yeah, but that’s what the peer review system is for.

Also unorthodox theories that are backed up by evidence will survive. I mean, there was resistance to big bang theory at first. And Quantum Mechanics is frankly crazy compared to classical newtonian physics. Now they’re both keystones in modern science.

I agree about it not making moral decisions. Rather it can inform them. (ie, what will the consequences of this decision be?)

And god may be beyond scientific proof but to me that puts him beyond, well, knowability or relevance to my day to day life.

Oh also evolution is both a fact (observed data) and theory (rigorous falsifiable explanation for that data). But I think we covered that one a few threads ago.

Hey Stoo,

I appreciate you being the first one to take a crack at this.

Anyway, you pretty much prove the point of the post when you say, “And god may be beyond scientific proof but to me that puts him beyond, well, knowability or relevance to my day to day life.”

Rob’s overarching argument is the problem with believe science can solve all our problems.

I apologize, but I just don’t get that. If somethings NOT scientifically provable then it’s unknownable and irrelevant.

You ever been in love?

Okay, I’ve seen people try and use Love as an example before.

But if someone says they love me, seems to me there’s a strong empirical component. I look at the things they say, the way they speak to me, the tone of their voice, their body language, the actions they take.

You could suggest they’re somehow putting on a masquerade. But over a long span of time? Years? It would rather perverse to give that possiblity any real weight.

Thanks for the dialogue Stoo. I think I addressed peer review under the “collapse of scientage”. Here’s another more pertinent link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7023520.ece

AGW might be a good example of an unguarded peer review hen house. Lost data, preconceived notions, grant guarding, back scratching, etc…

If you’re around any professor type people regularly, editorships, chairs, tenure, publication can be a real good ‘ol boys network. Which isn’t very transparent and verifiable.

Lest I haven’t said it before, I have two degrees with a Science in the title. I’m not anti science, just anti-scientism.

What I mean is, if someone claims love but nothing I observe backs that up, I will doubt.

Probably doesn’t count as rigorous as scientific proof but I reject the idea that there’s equal reason for believing in love and your god.

Sorry I’ll try not to keep double posting like this!

“What I mean is, if someone claims love but nothing I observe backs that up, I will doubt.”

Funny, we call that the “fruitage of the Spirit.”

Hmm also I didn’t really understand this bit

“but where are the scientists painting cheetah’s day glow orange and seeing if they can still bring the thunder down on a gazelle and make baby cheetahs?”

I’m saying TENS is a theory and part of scientistry but it’s not really subject to scientody, the most useful and predictable part of science. ie. nobody is painting polar bears pink to see if they’re at a breeding disadvantage. I agree that it makes sense that a white polar bear would be a better hunter and thus a better breeder but that’s not an experiment that you could run and verify.

Another good read, Rob. Thanks again.

My degree has Science in the title, but alas it does not really belong there, for I have never entered a university science lab. (Computer Science).

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to know that the pure scientific process is interfered with by politics, as all things in business are, and science is a business now after all.

But when God is used in any form of alternative explanation, to me it’s not really much of an answer. To arrive at the conclusion “God must have done it” is a way of throwing up your arms and giving up on the real explanation.
It’s dangerous too, because as science progresses (imperfectly in execution, but steady in its wealth of knowledge), areas that were once God’s domain are taken over by natural explanations.

Rob, stellar formation isn’t an experiment you can run in the lab either.

But we still come up with theories and test them against the observed data. Similar story with evolution.

James, thanks!

I agree that Goddidit is a poor answer unless God actually did it. What that looks like 100% I’m not sure but like I alluded to there are areas where science has nothing or little to offer. That’s not God of the gaps thinking. Like the author of Ecclesiastes who saw how the water cycle worked but also saw God as creator and sustainer of the process and sovereign over it’s out workings, I think there are enough clues and evidences to the supernatural that we don’t have to rule out God and only entertain natural theories.

Stoo, you just need a bigger lab .

I think you’re describing perfectly what I’m talking about though. Both stellar formation theory and evolution are scientistry and as such need to be viewed in that light. That’s not to say that either is necessarily wrong.

Newtonian physics explained everything until relativity and quantum theory threw a kink into it, especially after they were subjected to scientody. And just like if the LHC is unable to find a Higgs Boson major themes in particle physics will be disrupted so you have to be open to the idea about any part of scientistry.

The emotion surrounding TENS and AGW is not because people are clinging to a particular scientific theory over any other theory. It’s what they think that theory says about ultimate reality that they think is worth fighting on the interwebs about.

Is anyone in science actually using these scientistery and scienteralism and scienalogy terms? I googled Scientody and this page was about the 4th hit!

I kind of follow the definitions but I sense there’s some effort here to lessen the validity of scientific conclusions if they’re not resulting from our own experiments.

The emotion about the theory of evolution is just that it’s reached conclusions that some of the religous are uncomfortable with. What it says about Ultimate Reality, I dunno… that god didn’t step in and fiddle the universe half-way through to make us appear? Is that so bad?

If we keep on commenting we can get up to #1!

I don’t know who uses them. I found them in the irrational atheist. I think they are apropos in that they help us differentiate between the scientific method and what scientists say. It’s like the four out of five dentists recommend commercial. What if the fifth dentists got together and formed a Hubba Bubba and Mountain Dew theory of dental health? We’d know that is bad science but with these terms we can say that scientody would show us that their scientistry led to bad scientage.

I am by no means trying to belittle science. I have spent more money and time learning to become a person who can use science than anything other than my house (and children’s future education, oy!). It is very good at what it does.

But when you say “What is says about Ultimate Reality, I dunno… that god didn’t step in and fiddle the universe half-way through to make us appear?” is proved by evolution you are making my point. You are being scientismific. You can’t run an experiment to prove that assertion. It’s your opinion based on your experience, logic, your presuppositions and biases, and selectively approved or dismissed data. It’s your world view not good scientage.

Ah ok. I read a few atheist blogs but have missed that one.

And I’d say that evolution still counts as, er, scientage. We can test our theory against organisms, their dna, the fossil record. We could quite easily blow it out of the water if, say, rabbits were fount in the Precambrian.

The last bit wasn’t me trying to be scientific. It was just frustration over people not being able to reconcile solid scientific theory with their faith.

The Hard-Core Evolutionary Scientist: “It has a bill, it has webbed feet, it lays eggs, it swims in the water. Therefore, it is a duck.”

God: “Here, take this then…” *hands Scientist a platypus*

That’s…. a ridiculous caricature. Why would the scientist say that? What point do you think you’re making?

What the scientist would say is that perhaps webbed feet are a useful adaption for living in the water, and thus creatures from two different parts of the vertebrate group have both evolved the same feature. Kinda like how fish and dolphins have a similar body shape.

Hi Stoo,

For many religious and non-religious folks the platypus is an enigma. It is often used as an illustration of making determinations before gathering all the information. The point of the post and many comments directed in your direction is that science has limits in determining reality. To limit knowledge to what someone’s science* can tell you is nonsensical to many people.

As Demian has commented, “You pretty much prove the point of the post when you say, “And god may be beyond scientific proof but to me that puts him beyond, well, knowability or relevance to my day to day life.”

It seems that you say that science = knowledge/reality. That’s too many eggs in one basked for a lot of people.

-Steve

*The idea that science is a well-refined body of knowledge, especially on controversial subjects, is over-stated. The current global warming scandal is evidence that there is such a things as “someone’s science” as compared to “someone else’s science”.

Stoo,

Forgive me for taking so long to reply.

I’m glad you said that about love. At least you admit we can detect non-tangibles like love.

But one thing science can’t do is tell me that I should even love my wife. Or how to love her better.

Moreover, when you say, “I agree about it not making moral decisions. Rather it can inform them. (ie, what will the consequences of this decision be?)” suggests there is something beyond science’s reach–namely morality.

Would you agree?

Don’t get me wrong: Science has given us great things, like healthier, longer lives? But happier? More meaningful? For the most part, no.

I know a plastic surgeon who made people look beautiful–but they were still crippled by insecurity. In fact, many mental-health practitioners are coming to believe that adjusting brain chemistry with medication isn’t enough: http://urlkiss.com/1j8

This kind of reminds me so much of Jesus’ emphasis on the heart–rather than the physical person.

What did he say to the cripple on the pallet? Your sins are forgiven. He went on to heal that man, but he emphasized over and over again in his ministry that a contrite and lowly heart was more important to God than raising a person from the dead.

So in the end, science can help us land on the moon, true–but it can’t fix the human condition. What do you think is more important, Stoo?

If evolution via natural selection [not as a process where giraffes get longer necks but whereby every living thing came to be] is NOT true then the world must have a designer.

No no no no! Has it not occurred to you that there may be other possibilities? Evolution could be completely wrong and there could be another scientific theories that are correct. Perhaps ones that no one has even thought of yet. An idea has to stand on its own merits – it’s not just a case of “The other popular theory is wrong, so this one must be right.”

This is as biased and unimaginative as saying, “Hinduism is false, therefore Islam must be true.” – perhaps that one rings a bell with you guys?

But one thing science can’t do is tell me that I should even love my wife. Or how to love her better.

…(pause)…tell me, have you thought about Jesus?

Whether it is gap in knowledge or a gap in human experience, you’re looking for a place to put your God in the modern world.

You say – correctly – that science doesn’t answer these questions; it is orthogonal to them. But that’s not automatically a recommendation for religion, as I suspect you’d like it to be.

These questions of morality, values and such are answered by people’s feelings; that is: not what does happen but what we’d like to happen. Religion is only one expression of those feelings.

Steve:

“The point of the post and many comments directed in your direction is that science has limits in determining reality.”

Maybe, but explaining the the diversity of life is not beyond those limits. Science is by far the best tool we have so far. We’re constantly pushing back the limits, even if philisophical stuff like “why are we here” is a way off.

“It seems that you say that science = knowledge/reality”

Kind of. Science doesn’t necessarily describe all of Ultimate Reality. But what it can’t tell us, I don’t see anyone offering better opttions.

Oh and Eshu has a good point – just because science falls down at something doesn’t mean we default to “god did it”. That’s actually a kind of arrogance, to assume the failed explanation was the best one we could ever come up with, like the peak of intellectual achievement.

Maybe there’s a perfectly natural explanation we just haven’t hit on yet.

Demian

I agree there aren’t exactly scientific formulae for love. But maybe there will be one day, I dunno. It doesn’t seem impossible that we could describe it as an offshoot of our nature as social apes, sexual attraction etc.

But at least we have good reasons to believe love exists. Much more solid ones that one ancient tribe’s personal god.

“suggests there is something beyond science’s reach–namely morality.”

Well even if science can’t always make the decisions, I think we can find scientific reasons for why morality exists. (social apes again)

“So in the end, science can help us land on the moon, true–but it can’t fix the human condition. What do you think is more important, Stoo?”

Dunno, first we have to agree on what needs fixing. Inequality? Poverty? Unhappiness? You carry assumptions about what’s wrong in the first place that aren’t universal (original sin etc).

Happier or more meaningful lives, again a matter of opinion I guess.

At the risk of crowding the thread, I’d like to throw in my 2c on the morality thing.

It seems to me that Christians like to point at the bible as a guide to morality, yet in reality their moral compass is a lot more internal than they realise.

There is quite a shift in morals as the bible progresses and even more of a shift between then and now. In early parts of the bible, the Old Testament God demands the wholesale slaughter of quite a few tribes. Also, women have less value than men, and different standards apply. Some acts of disobedience such as working on the sabbath demand death by stoning (Numbers 15:32-36). You only have to read the first few books of the Old Testament and just some of Paul’s theology in the New Testament to realise that some of the moral standards are outdated. Christians then pick and chose which ones still apply, with various explanations as to why. If Christians are able to chose based on some criteria they have in their head, then aren’t they really just relying on a internal ‘moral compass’? If not, then why have they stopped stoning each other to death when someone is caught working on the Sabbath?

So if we are choosing which parts of the bible to follow based on our own instinct, we don’t really need the bible at all, since it is not really the moral source.

No no no no! Has it not occurred to you that there may be other possibilities? Evolution could be completely wrong and there could be another scientific theories that are correct. Perhaps ones that no one has even thought of yet. An idea has to stand on its own merits – it’s not just a case of “The other popular theory is wrong, so this one must be right.”

Eshu based on what I wrote I think you are correct. What I meant though was that if time, accident, and chance (and everything else outside of purposeful design) isn’t enough to account for the world we see then there must be a designer. Thanks for a chance to clarify a bit. I think we have enough other data, some scientific some not, that it’s reasonable to suspect a creator.

You say – correctly – that science doesn’t answer these questions; it is orthogonal to them. But that’s not automatically a recommendation for religion, as I suspect you’d like it to be.

My point in the post is that science won’t get you all the way home. Everybody has another set of presuppositions or worldview that they use to make life work. Why isn’t a biblical worldview just as valid as anything else someone comes up with.

Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it.

James, thanks for the dialogue and feel free to crowd away.

I don’t see the shift you do. From beginning to end God is just and moral and what He commands us to do is just and moral.

Don’t confuse God’s using the Israelites to bring judgement on a certain people at a certain time to mean killing indiscriminately was okay then or now. Just as God used the Israelites at that point He now uses government to enforce criminal punishment. That’s not to say a government can’t abuse that authority and still be moral.

I certainly don’t think women have less value based on the teachings of the bible. The first 3 chapters teach us men and women are created in God’s image. i.e. there are feminine attributes that are God’s attributes that men don’t have ( and vice versa). You can’t get a complete picture of God without the feminine. I’m curious why you think they have less value. I’m betting you’re putting 21st c. western expectations on to the Bible instead of taking it as it’s presented to the original audience.

The reason we don’t stone people for working on the Sabbath is that the Law that commanded it was fulfilled in Jesus. It’s not that the Sabbath shouldn’t be kept holy anymore. It should. It’s that the penalty for failure to do so has been paid once and for all. So the morality hasn’t changed.

So I don’t think Christians pick and choose their morals at all. Maybe you could give some examples from Paul’s theology that you mentioned.

I would agree that morals don’t come from the Bible, but from God. Only in the sense that we get a clearer picture of God in the scripture would I say that morals come from the Bible.

Wait, how is law enforcement the same as obliterating cities?

And why was working on the sabbath ever a stoning-worthy offense in the first place? (regardless of whether the crazy price is paid or not)

Hi again Rob,

I don’t see the shift you do. From beginning to end God is just and moral and what He commands us to do is just and moral.

What Stoo said, plus:
- Leviticus 19:19
- Leviticus 19:27
I know they are “rules” as such and not moral judgements, but the concepts are related and interdependent.

I’m curious why you think they have less value. I’m betting you’re putting 21st c. western expectations on to the Bible instead of taking it as it’s presented to the original audience.

The obvious example is 1 Corinthians 14:34-36.
What does that passage mean to you? Do you permit women to speak in church? I’m assuming you explain that away with something like cultural differences, yet perhaps you retain the attitudes surrounding homosexuality.
I’ll let you answer before I go on.

Stoo if you came over and cut down all the trees in my yard you would have wronged me. If I cut them down or empowered you to do the same than you would be in the right to do so.

The reason is because the trees are mine and I’m free to do with them as I please.

Consider yourself one of God’s trees that he has the right to cut down. In the OT God used the Israelites as the vehicle for his judgement. IF they acted outside of that authority and cut down trees of their own initiative they would not be in the right.

Today that authority is given to the government, specifically regarding capital punishment.

Not keeping the Sabbath holy is wrong because God said so. If God created us He can tell us what to do. If He loves us and wants us to thrive then it might even be the best way for you to live.

James, back in a bit.

Eh whoever’s doing the act, Mass Killing and utterly inhumane execution was once your god’s wish?

“Not keeping the Sabbath holy is wrong because God said so. If God created us He can tell us what to do.”
What about if Satan made a sentient creature – would it be perfectly moral for that creature to perform Satan’s wishes, whatever they may be, on the basis that Satan had created them so could tell them what to do?

Also, you seem to have created a tautology. You say:
“Not keeping the Sabbath holy is wrong because God said so.”
If your definition of what is right is whatever God says is right, then of course he’s never done any wrong. But as Abe Lincoln once pointed out, calling a tail a leg does not _make_ it a leg.

Stoo – Very perceptive observation re: the apparent source of a christian’s morality! The source is NOT external. Indeed, every time I try to adhere to an external set of ideals, I fall miserably short – even the “easy” ones like not lying or stealing – but then I’ve only known Christ as savior for 30 years or so. The actual source of our morality? Christianity believes God when He says man is made in the image of God which includes an internal moral compass. This is confirmed in many places in the Bible where God states He has “written the law on their hearts” Romans 2:15. Moral maturation, and hopefully, increasingly excellent character and behavior, come as that internal compass determines our choices of thoughts and actions. The dust and grime that inhibit the compass’s perfect function come from a christian’s fallen nature plus the consequences of selfish,rebellious living.As a christian puts one foot in front of the other, choosing to believe God and managing the daily struggles and traumas that are daily life, the Holy Spirit brushes more and more of the grime away.The obedient, peaceful & excellent choice becomes a bit easier to find as the Spirit is yielded to & does his work. Still hell to submit sometimes – I can tell you that.And we see Christians fall far short ALL THE TIME.But for me it has become clear: for many selfish reasons, following Christ is where all the best stuff is- adventure, intellectual challenge, originality,laughter, community, deep connection & conversation. Now I’m asking the Creator of the Universe to help me love Him, the Giver, more than the gifts because the Spirit (internal) is showing me this is morally right to do so. Ok sorry – tangent. LOVING this thread. Stoo, you rock.

Sorry, JAMES, that was your comment about the source of morality. I guess YOU rock, too. xo Susan

Well speaking of rocking I think fropome is making a pretty good case for heavy metal being moral!

If Satan could create anything, fropome, you would be correct. Fortunately, he can only kill, maim, destroy, & spoil. I think that he can’t create must drive him nuts. If heavy metal rock is an art form (and I think we all MUST AGREE THAT IT IS :0) and art = form + content then the form of heavy metal is absolutely not evil. Music is God’s idea. OK I have proven beyond all doubt that I cannot stick to the topic so I will retreat to the sidelines and enjoy the rest of this thread….and take my Adderall. That will help.

Christ came to defeat “Iron Man”. Really done now.

Fropome,

What about if Satan made a sentient creature – would it be perfectly moral for that creature to perform Satan’s wishes, whatever they may be, on the basis that Satan had created them so could tell them what to do?

The question is moot as Susan pointed out. This is not LOTR with Sauron and an Orc factory. Satan can’t create life, and even if he could or if someday man “creates” life in a test tube it’s not like they started with a blank slate. They used material and intelligence God had created, so God is still the ultimate creator.

Also, you seem to have created a tautology. You say:
“Not keeping the Sabbath holy is wrong because God said so.”
If your definition of what is right is whatever God says is right, then of course he’s never done any wrong. But as Abe Lincoln once pointed out, calling a tail a leg does not _make_ it a leg.

Sure. That seems weird unless there really is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God who created and sustains everything. And if there is a tri-omni God and we are broken people that might not intuitively make sense.

That may seem circular but in the end you have to have a final landing spot. You need a foundation. Everything you believe can’t be based on something that’s based on something that’s based on something, ad infinitum… So when I say things are good because God says they are and God is good that’s no different than someone saying “this is good based on reason and reason is good because it’s reasonable” or logic because it’s logical, or esthetic because it’s beautiful, etc…

What is your foundation?

Stoo, your last bit makes me feel a bit “Paranoid”.

As to God being moral and ordering the murder of the Caananites, have you read the kind of people they were and how long God waited to allow them to repent? They weren’t exactly innocent. There’s more here if you want to discuss it more.

John Piper’s blog post last week makes the case that God as the author and sustainer of life kills about 50,000 people a day. Some with cancer, some with plane crashes, and some of old age. He doesn’t owe us life, it’s a gift. And you know what they say about gift horses…

James, re: the verses in Leviticus don’t confuse the moral law God established for all people with the ceremonial law he gave to the Jews to set them apart from the surrounding people and keep them holy for Himself. Both fulfilled in Jesus.

As to the Corinthian verses, I think it’s dangerous to take a few verses and base a theology on it for one but I think it says that women and men are different with different strengths and weaknesses. I don’t think it speaks at all to intrinsic value. The overarching theme of gender and marriage roles in the Bible is one of the man dying to self and loving his wife like Christ loved the church, giving his very life for her. Seems more like men are the disposable ones to me.

I’d love to hear what you think I think about homosexuality! I told Demian a while back he should do a post on that since I think most skeptics have no idea what the Bible actually says.

Even if the caananites were a pretty wicked bunch, the almighty should be able to think of something better than bringing armageddon down on their heads.

re: lots of deaths, well yeah many other situations make us question god. Mass execution on his order is just one of the worst examples.

If god can freely snatch away his gift as and when he pleases, with attendant suffering, and it’s always okay because he’s always good then well… I thought the atheist position was supposed to be the depressing one?

Stoo, re: something better for the Caananites, does it have to make sense to you to be better? What if you (we) don’t have all the information or faculties to understand such a magnanimous action? Should God be compelled to settle for something less than his perfect will so you (we) can understand it?

Stoo, I hear you on that last part, and I’m not saying it’s easy to swallow. It would be depressing if you just picked and chose what parts of the Bible to believe. You could pick some bad parts. But, taken as a whole, He proved that he cares deeply for us in sending his own Son to die so that we could be restored to Him even though we have spit in his face and turned away to follow our own desires. Think of the father in the prodigal son. If the Bible is right, you are the younger son in the story just like the rest of us, you just haven’t returned to the father to ask forgiveness.

We may not completely understand the bad things that happen in life but the answer can’t be that they happen because God doesn’t love us because his love for us is shown in the sacrifice Jesus.

If god’s inscrutable purposes are beyond us, along with the things we recognise as “bad”, how come god’s actions still conveniently fit what would be regarded as “love”?

Maybe you’re just trying to put the best spin on a raging cosmic tyrant!

Guess I’m stuck as to what people find appealing about all this – and bear in mind I’m hugely skeptical about “we believe it because it’s the truth and there’s nothing else to believe” arguments.

Stoo, don’t you see your own position [We’re constantly pushing back the limits, even if philisophical stuff like “why are we here” is a way off.] as a wee bit arrogant?

Why do you get to do that and not us? I want to play, too!

And I think your statement needs to be qualified. It’s a naked assertion. Pushing back what limits?

Furthermore, “science-will-eventually-figure-it-out” is just as presumptuous and ignorant as “goddit.”

In fact, there’s no basis that science will eventually figure out most things. I’m glad you have great hope in science. My tends to be a bit tempered.

In the end, you are merely affirming the point of this post. It’s really a bit comical.

We know a lot more than we did a few centuries ago, is all I meant. We know the state of the universe right back to fractions of a second after the big bang, we know how life got here from squidgy things in the sea. We know these things in ways more reliable than other disciplines can provide.

We don’t have answers to some of the most ultimate questions, of course. And if it’s hubris to assume we will. But I’d like to try for everything we can.

A man is walking alongside a field when he hears a shot. He looks up to see another man standing in a corral filled with a dozen cattle, and he is using a rifle to methodically kill each animal. As one falls in death, he steps up to another and blows its brains out. The man watches in horror as the killer slaughters every cow in the corral, then wipes the gory mud off his boots and walks away.

The man is an animal-rights advocate and his stomach is churning with disgust and outrage as he dashes to catch up with the blood-splattered killer. Grabbing the man by the shoulder, he proceeds to bust him across the chops and scream angrily at him for being an insensitive killer. The blood of the slaughtered cattle runs over his fingers and stings his bruised and cut knuckles.

Pausing for breath, the angry man leans back and looks down on the cow-killer lying bruised and beaten in the mud of the field. At that moment, the killer looks up and says, “I’m sorry for you.”
“Why would you say such a preposterous thing?” the man says,
“Those cows had Mad Cow Disease. It’s highly contagious, and eats their brains away. I see your hands are now cut, and the cow’s blood is most likely seeping into your own veins now.

Write up your will while you can, you have three months at best.”

Eshu based on what I wrote I think you are correct.

Thanks for your good grace, Rob. I’m still going to be picky, I’m afraid.

What I meant though was that if time, accident, and chance (and everything else outside of purposeful design) isn’t enough to account for the world we see then there must be a designer.

So you’re saying that if everything apart from purposeful design can’t account for it, it must have purposeful design and hence a designer? Truly, a statement that no one could disagree with.

Perhaps you can understand why I didn’t get that impression from what you wrote.

If evolution via natural selection [...] is NOT true then the world must have a designer.

Are you making any point here? I read your post again to see if I’d misunderstood. But no, I’m more confused.

But where are the scientists painting cheetah’s day glow orange and seeing if they can still bring the thunder down on a gazelle and make baby cheetahs?

Again you stop just short of making a point. You’re asking questions which are presumably rhetorical and intended to put fear or doubt of science into a reader’s mind without making specific claims that might be refuted, or even discussed. So I’m probably wasting my time here!

I wonder whether what you’re really doing here, is creating “mood music”. This is rather like when UK opposition leader David Cameron uses slogans like, “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?”, or “We can’t go on like this.”. Both statements will create a strong impression without making specific claims.

Likewise you cast vague aspersions on science (corruption, atom bombs, black holes destroying the Earth), while saying you’re all for science and, by the way, Christianity is great too!

It’s when these boundaries are crossed and science is seen as the only arbiter of truth that conflict arises.

Ah-ha! Maybe the discussion of where we think these boundaries lie may be worthwhile. For me, people misuse science when they suggest that because something *is* a certain way, it *ought* to be that way.

What boundaries do you think religion should not cross?

Eshu you’re either on to me, we’ve bumped up against the limits of my poor writing skills, or both. Thanks for your patience.

So let me be a little clearer on a few things. I am not casting aspersions at science. The black hole quip was a joke to a site “showing” a black hole forming at the LHC, without the a-bomb we don’t have nuclear power plants, and corruption is certainly not limited to people in lab coats. In my mind science is amoral. It’s like a dollar that can buy crack cocaine or a homeless man’s meal. The morality comes into it when people are involved.

I’m proud of my physics degree. I value learning for learning’s sake. I plan on building a telescope with my oldest daughter so we can explore the sky together and hopefully she will grow up to love science too. I am a nerd at heart and not in the cool kind of way.

So here’s my point, and maybe you get this already. Science is not the do all, be all arbiter of what is true. If you’ve never heard an atheist say something like “what experiment did you run to prove your god is real”, come follow me around the interwebs for a while. That is who I’m addressing. Another point is that as a little s scientist and a capital C Christian I don’t live in inner turmoil and angst wishing those two mutually exclusive worlds agreed. I don’t see the grand battle that Stalin, Dawkins, Harris, et al. see and I think they see it because they misunderstand or misapplying one or the other. Lastly, I think we need to be skeptical of the idea that “scientific consensus is…..” always results in bona-fide truth. Scientists getting a free pass on the authority of the scientific method is a hold over from the Enlightenment and misrepresents (to use the same terms) scientistry as something it’s not.

I hope you clarify more what you mean “by people misuse science when they suggest that because something *is* a certain way, it *ought* to be that way” because I’m moving in 2 days and my brain is full of boxes, bubble wrap, packing, and not much else so I’m going to need a little help.

To answer your question I think religion goes to far when it tries to be a science text. I.e. Christian “Scientists” denying a child medical care because they’re just going to pray about it. Also when everything gets blamed on demons or hailed as a miracle.

Whatcha think?

Rob:
“The question is moot as Susan pointed out. This is not LOTR with Sauron and an Orc factory. Satan can’t create life, and even if he could or if someday man “creates” life in a test tube it’s not like they started with a blank slate. They used material and intelligence God had created, so God is still the ultimate creator.”

Well, it was a rhetorical question aimed at getting underneath the surface of what you were saying. You’re saying that God being our creator is grounds for him to be able to order us around. But you’re not justifying this claim… I was trying to point out that it doesn’t actually follow by using a hypothetical and you’ve both dodged it by saying that it’s hypothetical.

“Sure. That seems weird unless there really is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God who created and sustains everything. And if there is a tri-omni God and we are broken people that might not intuitively make sense.”
? I don’t follow this bit. Everything God does is good because he says it is, and this seems weird unless he is good. Is that what you’re saying? Because it really seems like you’re making that circle as looping and circuitous as you can.

“That may seem circular but in the end you have to have a final landing spot…So when I say things are good because God says they are and God is good that’s no different than someone saying “this is good based on reason and reason is good because it’s reasonable” or logic because it’s logical, or esthetic because it’s beautiful, etc…”
Except that there’s no reason to insert God, nor does he help. Your statements make as much sense as me saying ‘logic works because the sky-monkey wants it to’ – if there is a sky monkey then the statement might (only might) be true, but it doesn’t help you prove that there’s a sky monkey, nor does it tell you anything useful about logic.

“What is your foundation?”
Pragmatic rationalism. However the universe is, is. Maths works, so it’s probably true. Physics works, so it’s probably true (at least as an approximation).
Aesthetics are whatever is true to us – what appears beautiful, is beautiful. If you tell me that you or God likes Picasso, then that doesn’t mean I do (or vice versa).

Rob,

Many thanks, I think I see where you’re coming from now.

I certainly don’t expect you to show me the experiment that proves your god is real, but if you want me to take your beliefs seriously, it will take something more than “The Bible says so”.

I wonder if the kind of atheist you’re talking about would include Deacon Duncan over at Evangelical Realism? He claims to “worship” reality. He came up with the interesting idea of the Myth Hypothesis. Perhaps you’ll find the idea distasteful, but I think it’s an interesting one.

Perhaps this is all best left for after your house move. We may have a similar experience coming our way too, so I sympathise.

All the best,
Eshu

Thanks Eshu, feel free to continue this is actually my break between boxes!

Hopefully “because the Bible tells me so” isn’t the totality of my argument. I’ve said before I don’t think there is proof for either side in the way that a proof would make all other options unreasonable. I do think there is enough evidence for God that you don’t have to have a mental defect to believe in God.

I’ll check out the links.

“I’ve said before I don’t think there is proof for either side in the way that a proof would make all other options unreasonable.”
I agree, and as a result I’m technically an agnostic. However, in the same way I’m an agnostic about the Norse pantheon, which is to say I’m an atheist for all practical purposes.

Well, it was a rhetorical question aimed at getting underneath the surface of what you were saying. You’re saying that God being our creator is grounds for him to be able to order us around. But you’re not justifying this claim… I was trying to point out that it doesn’t actually follow by using a hypothetical and you’ve both dodged it by saying that it’s hypothetical.

Well then to agree with you in theory, yes, if Satan created a life and continually sustained it he would have the prerogative to stop sustaining it without having to justify himself. I feel like we’re talking past each other but the point was that IF God gave life to a person He’s under no obligation to make that life a certain way. I think you’re disagreeing with the “IF” part of that, correct?

I don’t follow this bit. Everything God does is good because he says it is, and this seems weird unless he is good. Is that what you’re saying? Because it really seems like you’re making that circle as looping and circuitous as you can.

Again I’m saying IF God is real then he gets to define good. My point about it being weird was to say we wouldn’t let Fred in accounting define good. He is just like us and has no better perspective than the 6 billion other people who could define good. But IF God is the eternal, tri-omni, creator of everything than it would make sense to let him define good because He has a better perspective than the rest of us. IF we presuppose the God of the Bible for a moment would it be more reasonable to let Al Franken define good or God? Maybe you’re doubting the IF again?

Except that there’s no reason to insert God, nor does he help. Your statements make as much sense as me saying ‘logic works because the sky-monkey wants it to’ – if there is a sky monkey then the statement might (only might) be true, but it doesn’t help you prove that there’s a sky monkey, nor does it tell you anything useful about logic.

I don’t know, it seems like your way leaves a lot of “I don’t know, que sera, sera” Inserting God answers some of those questions. Not that that makes it correct but it does help.

I’m not making a case for God here. I’m presupposing God and then showing where that leads us. Like I said in the last post to Eshu I think there’s good evidence to believe in God. If you’ve got some evidence for a Sky Monkey maybe you’d like to offer it?

Pragmatic rationalism. However the universe is, is. Maths works, so it’s probably true. Physics works, so it’s probably true (at least as an approximation).

So pragmatic rationalism because it’s pragmatic and rational, right? Math and science work well at what they do but like I tried to say in this post they won’t get you all the way home. You don’t treat other how you treat other people based on their specific gravity or surface area. Either your foundation doesn’t speak to the vast majority of your everyday life or you live based on a different or additional foundation (with accompanying presuppositions and biases).

I agree, and as a result I’m technically an agnostic. However, in the same way I’m an agnostic about the Norse pantheon, which is to say I’m an atheist for all practical purposes.

Great. So explain how something material and non eternal came from nothing, the historicity of the early Christian church without Jesus’ resurrection, why you think people have more value than mushrooms, and other questions left unanswered with practical atheism. And I don’t mean that you have to come on Demian’s blog and explain these things, just that those are some of the questions that your worldview leaves unanswered.

Really appreciate the dialogue fropome.

Eshu, I read Deacon’s Gospel Hypothesis. As I understood what he said I think the flaw in his logic is that he misunderstands omnipotence. God is omnipotent but that means able to anything that is possible not able to do anything. I.e. He couldn’t create a married bachelor. In the same vein if God desires a “freely chosen” relationship with us He can’t force us to freely choose Him. He could have made a bunch of robots or mail order brides but that was not His intent.

“you don’t treat other how you treat other people based on their specific gravity or surface area. ”

I don’t think anyone’s claimed that. You can make a case though, that our behaviours and moralities are naturalistic in origin without invoking the supernatural.

I agree science can’t take us all the way currently. And I assume it ever will. But as far as it does take us, it does so reliably. Where by reliably I mean in a way we can all give provisional agreement on and see the results of the knowledge being put to use. I can’t say the same for anything claiming to take us the rest of the way, beyond the physical universe.

“So explain how something material and non eternal came from nothing”

Being atheist or agnostic doesn’t have to mean you believe something came from nothing? Maybe that something just wasn’t a personal god in any form a religion would recognise.

and I DON’T assume it ever will

sorry for the utter lack of proofreading.

You can make a case though, that our behaviours and moralities are naturalistic in origin without invoking the supernatural.

I don’t think you can make a case that it’s okay to exterminate rats but not Jews without the supernatural. At least not a very convincing one.

Being atheist or agnostic doesn’t have to mean you believe something came from nothing? Maybe that something just wasn’t a personal god in any form a religion would recognise.

Sure. So what would that something be? It would have to be eternal and non-material or we’re just back to where we started. What’s your guess? Just curious.

We’re social apes that evolved sticking together as tribes, I don’t find it hard to believe a sense of morality started there.

re: starts to the universe, it occurs to me that to have “something from nothing” you need a point in time where nothing existed. If time started with the big bang then that wasn’t the case. If time somehow stretches back before that then well, we don’t know as information apparently can’t come through a big bang.

Otherwise, I don’t really have an answer!

Interesting idea Stoo. But, when we talk about something coming from nothing the “nothing” isn’t just vacuum. Vacuum would imply space (albeit empty space) and space is something. The same can be said for time. Time is something. Your example still leaves you with something (time and space) coming from nothing.

As to apes and morality, I’m not arguing that a sense of morality couldn’t have been inherited, I’m saying an objective morality has to be based on something other than “it helps us breed”. I think we’ve beat that horse to death though.

Right but I mean empty space was there at t=0 also. Just all wrapped up in a point along with the energy and matter. So space is sorted.

And your argument about time “coming from nothing” implies a time, before time, in which there was no time. Which basically makes my head explode.

re morality: does it have to be based on something other because the idea is flawed, or because the implications are troubling?

And to say “from” implies passage of time. If

It’s like Back to the Future but without all the Canadians and Deloreans! It can get a bit complicated can’t it.

I think it’s perfectly rational but troubling to believe that without God all is permitted. That atheist position is perfectly logical but nobody lives or wants the people around them to live like that.

I don’t think it’s logical to say there are things that are absolutely morally wrong if morality is a mere social construct that’s a hold over from our hunter/gatherer days.

Rob,

I’ve said before I don’t think there is proof for either side in the way that a proof would make all other options unreasonable.

There can never be a proof that there are no gods (not even hidden ones) anymore than we can prove there are no unicorns. OTOH, if there is a god, there could be proof of its/their existence. A god that couldn’t prove they existed would be quite naff.

I do think there is enough evidence for God that you don’t have to have a mental defect to believe in God.

I hope your don’t think we assume you’re in some way mentally deficient. I expect you’re similar to the rest of us. My guess is just that your mental “blind spots” lie in different places to mine. I think it’s fair to say that everyone believes some things without good reasons (whether those things happen to be true or not). Getting it wrong means we’re mistaken, not idiots.

Excuse me for barging in on your conversation with fropme, but…

So explain how something material and non eternal came from nothing, the historicity of the early Christian church without Jesus’ resurrection, why you think people have more value than mushrooms, and other questions left unanswered with practical atheism.

I think this is a problem that a lot of theists have with atheism. They expect it to explain everything. That’s not what it does. That’s for physicists, biologists, historians, moral philosophers and people in general (regardless of their beliefs).

Unfortunately atheists on the Internet tend to indulge these kind of questions, when really all atheism is, is not believing in gods. An atheist doesn’t have to answer all these questions to justify their position. All they need to say is something like, “I don’t know, but to me it doesn’t look likely that a god was involved.”

Btw, thx for taking the time to look at Deacon Duncan’s ideas. I believe he’s addressed the many Christian comments like yours in later posts, but let’s leave that for now.

That atheist position is perfectly logical but nobody lives or wants the people around them to live like that.

There is no atheist position on morality, except that we don’t believe it comes from a god. If no one wants to live in an “anything goes” world, that’s an excellent reason why we shouldn’t. So, we create laws, rights, social standards, etc. The majority of people believe that these things are necessary for a happy, civilised society. These rules are being tweaked and improved upon with the hard lessons of history. Sure it’s not the same as an absolute standard. I agree that it would be nice if such a standard of morality existed that we could use to decide what’s right and wrong, but that doesn’t mean that there is one.

If you’re interested in a secular theory of the origins of rights, I highly recommend Alan Dershowitz’s Rights From Wrongs, which is also very readable (contrary to what the review says).

Anyway, thanks for the stimulating responses, Rob. I’m already feeling guilty about giving you comments to deal with when you should be moving house (my apologies to your family if they’re doing all the packing), so by all means tell me to stop or email me later if you prefer.

fropme,

… as a result I’m technically an agnostic… I’m an atheist for all practical purposes.

Perhaps you’d describe yourself as a weak atheist? This is, in my experience the most common form of atheism but is sometimes misunderstood.

I hope your don’t think we assume you’re in some way mentally deficient. I expect you’re similar to the rest of us. My guess is just that your mental “blind spots” lie in different places to mine. I think it’s fair to say that everyone believes some things without good reasons (whether those things happen to be true or not). Getting it wrong means we’re mistaken, not idiots.

It gets tricky saying things in this forum because the audience is so broad but one of my goals is to show that the Christian worldview is reasonable and doesn’t contain internal inconsistencies. I.e. the problem of evil that gets brought up here occasionally can be viewed in a way that is consistent with the tri-omni God of the Bible. Given a few presuppositions (any worldview will have a few) I think it describes well the world we experience.

I think this is a problem that a lot of theists have with atheism. They expect it to explain everything. That’s not what it does. That’s for physicists, biologists, historians, moral philosophers and people in general (regardless of their beliefs)…..An atheist doesn’t have to answer all these questions to justify their position. All they need to say is something like, “I don’t know, but to me it doesn’t look likely that a god was involved.”

I agree completely with your strict definition of atheism and that it doesn’t explain everything. But then no thoughtful atheist lives like that so the areas that God doesn’t inform in the lives they fill with other worldviews with their own shortcomings and faults. I.e. Stalin didn’t run a country based solely on atheism but brought in communism to fill in the gaps imposed by atheism. I would argue that any “atheist fill in material” is a less adequate and consistent description of ultimate reality than the Biblical worldview.

Thanks for the discussion as well! Do not feel guilty about taking me away from family packing. Work is for getting the things done that you can’t get done at home.

Eshu/Stoo:
I agree with what you’re saying and am not going to re-address the points you’ve already covered in Rob’s questions for me!

Rob:
“It gets tricky saying things in this forum because the audience is so broad but one of my goals is to show that the Christian worldview is reasonable and doesn’t contain internal inconsistencies.”
My interactions here are to point out where I see internal inconsistencies and to try to show that a Christian worldview is not reasonable. Note that I don’t mean it’s idiocy to be Christian, just that I think Christians are mistaken.

“I would argue that any ‘atheist fill in material’ is a less adequate and consistent description of ultimate reality than the Biblical worldview.”
But you have no evidence for that. Atheists don’t lead more immoral lives than theists and they don’t commit more crime than theists.
How do you explain the fact that my morals are largely the same as yours?

Besides, I’d argue that because the bible is ambiguous, Christians generally get from it whatever they bring to it. Hence, for example, some disaprove of homosexuality / female priests while others do not.
How do you explain the fact that there is so much disagreement between Christians on moral issues?

fropome,

Atheists … don’t commit more crime than theists.

Actually, there is some evidence that they do; although curiously the reverse is true for sex crimes, which are more likely to be committed by believers (regardless of the religion).

I think your last point is an interesting one. Some people describe the Bible as like a Rorschach test. That it is eclectic and has many conflicting ideas may be part of its popularity. Selective reading means that it can appeal to people with widely differing opinions.

As you say, the disagreement between Christians on moral issues is noteworthy. Christianity started as a single sect, which has since been diversifying, not converging. There are now over 30,000 denominations of Christianity, not to mention the other religions. To me that suggests that what is going on is re-interpretation and invention, rather than comparison against an objective spiritual reality.

I can’t get that site to work atm (I’ll try again from another machine later) – I’ve seen studies in both directions, but usually they are rather flawed.
At the least, there’s no _clear_ link between atheism and crime / immorality as would be expected if the bible was necessary.

But you have no evidence for that. Atheists don’t lead more immoral lives than theists and they don’t commit more crime than theists.
How do you explain the fact that my morals are largely the same as yours?

The Christian worldview doesn’t predict that Christians will lead more moral lives than non-believers. The Bible says everyone is fallen and flawed and will sin, believer and non. It does predict that once converted they as individuals will lead more moral lives as they are sanctified. So you can compare “today me” to the “B.C. me” and predictably see change but you can’t predict how much and you can’t compare me to another person because you don’t know where we both started. Maybe Christians start off worse and thus recognize their need for a savior. Maybe more moral atheists don’t feel the weight of their sin as heavily and thus don’t convert. Does that make sense? The funny answer to why is the church full of hypocrits is “it’s not, there’s room for one more.”

Also I’d hold that our morals are roughly the same because they are placed there by God in all people.

Besides, I’d argue that because the bible is ambiguous, Christians generally get from it whatever they bring to it. Hence, for example, some disaprove of homosexuality / female priests while others do not.
How do you explain the fact that there is so much disagreement between Christians on moral issues?</blockquote.

I don't think the Bible is ambiguous. For each passage there was one intended meaning for the intended audience. People can get different application from that but the author inspired by the HS meant one thing.

So why is there such divergence? You said it, people want to hear what they want to hear. Prosperity gospel churches thrive because people want to be prosperous but that doesn't mean what they preach is true. In short the church, and specifically the American church is failing at it's mission. Pastors want people in the pew and think they won't get it if they preach hard truths.

For all the areas of disagreement I would say that there is only one way that is true to the intent of the Bible. The fact that disagreement exists is another example of people being willing to compromise the truth for other reasons. That's what sinful people do. This happens in the early church and you can see it clearly in Paul's letters where he is trying to feret out false doctrine.

blockquote fail!

“The Bible… does predict that once converted they as individuals will lead more moral lives as they are sanctified… Maybe Christians start off worse and thus recognize their need for a savior. Maybe more moral atheists don’t feel the weight of their sin as heavily and thus don’t convert.”
That is certainly possible. Are you happy with those explanations? Because it sounds to me like the ‘best’ atheists are those less likely to be saved… and so more likely to go to hell. Does this sound like a good scheme? I thought that we all had equal chance to be saved?

“I don’t think the Bible is ambiguous. For each passage there was one intended meaning for the intended audience. People can get different application from that but the author inspired by the HS meant one thing.”
It doesn’t matter what was meant – it’s still ambiguous to the reader!

“Prosperity gospel churches thrive because people want to be prosperous but that doesn’t mean what they preach is true. In short the church, and specifically the American church is failing at it’s mission. Pastors want people in the pew and think they won’t get it if they preach hard truths. ”
So you think that other Christians are mistaken in their beliefs – isn’t that exactly what they’d say about you? Given that you can only know what the intention of the Biblical authors was from what is written, and the meaning of that writing is exactly what the other denominations disagree with you on, where does that get us?

And, more relevantly, how is this better than my non-theistic way of choosing what is right?

At the least, there’s no _clear_ link between atheism and crime / immorality as would be expected if the bible was necessary.

I don’t think it’s necessary for morality. Do you know what the three authors of the majority of Biblical text (Moses, David, and Paul) have in common?

This seems to be a claim you are putting on the text instead of one it claims for itself.

So you think that other Christians are mistaken in their beliefs – isn’t that exactly what they’d say about you?

I’m not saying I’m right, just that there is a right. There’s enough clarity in the Bible to be sure about the major foundational issues. Whether we wear robes or jeans can be ambiguous.

That is certainly possible. Are you happy with those explanations? Because it sounds to me like the ‘best’ atheists are those less likely to be saved… and so more likely to go to hell. Does this sound like a good scheme? I thought that we all had equal chance to be saved?

You’re implying that God owes good atheists salvation. He didn’t mess things up we did. Salvation is by grace and not owed to anyone. Also you’re implying that good deeds make you “good”, maybe God values humility, faith, and dependence more than giving 2% of your income to the Rotary club. Our definition of “Best” and God’s are going to be vastly different. Our best is still medical waste to Him.

I think it’s God’s desire that all repent and come to Him, whether or not you as a good atheist do is up to you.

And, more relevantly, how is this better than my non-theistic way of choosing what is right?

What is your way of choosign what is right?

Life’s his to snatch away at whim, good deads are less important than bending the kness… he’s sounding worse and worse!

So’s my spelling.

Anyway

“I would argue that any “atheist fill in material” is a less adequate and consistent description of ultimate reality than the Biblical worldview.”

I’d argue that for a lot of gaps your fill-in material has no more evidence than for it than Odin worship.

“What is your way of choosign what is right?”

Our innate morality. Just because the universe doesn’t care what good or bad are, doesn’t mean we have to give up on the concept.

Where did your innate morality come from and why do you trust it?

Life’s his to snatch away at whim, good deads are less important than bending the kness… he’s sounding worse and worse!

Life is his to snatch away but he is long suffering and doesn’t. Since He created us He knows worshiping Him will fulfill us more than “good deeds”* or finding purpose on our own. So He wants the best for us. Your misconception is a straw man. Don’t pick and choose. Take God in his entirety as he presents himself. You will be pleasantly surprised and not think he sounds worse and worse.

*God doesn’t frown on good deeds and say not to do them (he actually commands you to do them), just that they won’t redeem you.

Wow…you guys are better men than me. I pooped out about 50 comments ago…

Sorry Demian. This could be a sign I need a hobby.

Anyway my morality came from my biological makeup, the people around me, the lessons we’ve learned. Some combination of. Is it imperfect? Probably. But poking for reasons to doubt isn’t going to work because I doubt personal deities 1000 times more.

And god created us so that worshipping him is more fulfilling than good works? I’m not finding that reassuring!

And god created us so that worshipping him is more fulfilling than good works? I’m not finding that reassuring!

that’s because you’re not worshipping Him.

I need a hobby too.

This is my hobby!

Rob:
“There’s enough clarity in the Bible to be sure about the major foundational issues.”
Really? What about gay rights – is that not a major moral issue? What about birth control? Not a big enough problem? The argument of faith vs deed has been going on for a little while… presumably you don’t think it’s fundemental. Is the bible the sole source of information or is the church also blessed? Not sure all Christians agree on that either, but it seems pretty important.

The next section I have a number of issues with so I’ll break it up:
“You’re implying that God owes good atheists salvation.”
No, just that they should surely have an equal chance at it.

“He didn’t mess things up we did.”
We? I didn’t eat no apple. I suppose this is a complete tangent to this thread, but when I was born stuff was already pretty messed up – it’s a bit much to make me feel responsible for it. I’m no angel, but I think my effect on the world has been more positive than negative.

“Salvation is by grace and not owed to anyone.”
Another tangent, but if this is his world and we’re his creation and he knew all this was going to happen, then saying he doesn’t owe us anything is a bit rich too.

“Also you’re implying that good deeds make you “good”, maybe God values humility, faith, and dependence more than giving 2% of your income to the Rotary club.”
Maybe. I’ve never particularly liked Rotary anyway (though their current campaign against Polio is excellent). But if that’s what God wants us to do, why doesn’t he make it clear?

“Our definition of “Best” and God’s are going to be vastly different.”
But they shouldn’t be if the bible is inerrent, clear and sufficient! You’ve pretty much made our argument for us here.

“Our best is still medical waste to Him.”
I’m afraid it’s his medical waste too. If I give someone crap tools that only allow him to produce rubbish, then it’s partly my fault that he’s producing rubbish.

I’m worried that we’re getting a long way from the point here…

Rob,

So why is there such divergence? You said it, people want to hear what they want to hear.

I’m sure this doesn’t purely apply to prosperity gospels. What do you want to hear, Rob? I guess most people want to hear that they’re not really going to die and that they’ll see their deceased relatives again.

Come to think of it, this has been going on for some time. How many religious leaders have “spoken” with God only to return and tell the people that the chosen people are the other guys, not them?

Take God in his entirety as he presents himself. You will be pleasantly surprised and not think he sounds worse and worse.

But that’s not what we have. We don’t have God talking directly to people. We have lots of people saying they know what God wants, claiming to speak for God or claiming to understand certain scriptures correctly, or at least better than others.

fropome makes an excellent point regarding salvation.

“You’re implying that God owes good atheists salvation.”
No, just that they should surely have an equal chance at it.

We all have the same chance on our own, zero. That’s why grace is so precious. Are you going to blame God for your own hardened heart?

We? I didn’t eat no apple. I suppose this is a complete tangent to this thread, but when I was born stuff was already pretty messed up – it’s a bit much to make me feel responsible for it. I’m no angel, but I think my effect on the world has been more positive than negative.

By who’s standards have you been a good person? IF there is a God then he would get to set those standards not you or me.

Another tangent, but if this is his world and we’re his creation and he knew all this was going to happen, then saying he doesn’t owe us anything is a bit rich too.

He doesn’t owe you anything but it is there for the taking free and paid for. I’m always curious why that bothers people so much?

But if that’s what God wants us to do, why doesn’t he make it clear?

It seems pretty clear to me. Did you want him to send another Son to die and preach the message again . How about write another 66 books and then make it the number one all time best seller? Write it on your heart?

“Our definition of “Best” and God’s are going to be vastly different.”
But they shouldn’t be if the bible is inerrent, clear and sufficient! You’ve pretty much made our argument for us here.

Unless sin has entered the world and corrupted our ability to see what’s best.

I’m afraid it’s his medical waste too. If I give someone crap tools that only allow him to produce rubbish, then it’s partly my fault that he’s producing rubbish.

I don’t think a redeemer, the spirit of God, the fellowship of believers, and the Living Word are crap tools but you may beg to differ. I’m not going to tell you that it’s easy to understand free will and God’s sovereignty but that doesn’t make them both untrue.

“There’s enough clarity in the Bible to be sure about the major foundational issues.”
Really? What about gay rights – is that not a major moral issue? What about birth control? Not a big enough problem? The argument of faith vs deed has been going on for a little while… presumably you don’t think it’s fundemental. Is the bible the sole source of information or is the church also blessed? Not sure all Christians agree on that either, but it seems pretty important.

I wouldn’t call gay rights or birth control major issues. Anything that has no eternal consequences, i.e. deals with salvation I would put on the second tier. Having said that I don’t think you’ll find a scripture condoning homosexual acts or marriage as other than one man and one woman or condemning homosexual bent or temptation. So that seems pretty clear. The vast majority of churches hold that. A few rogue episcopals does not a majority make.

I’m not saying every difference can be swept under the rug, just that Christian churches by definition agree on the majors.

The things that like Christopher Hitchens said make a Christian a Christian are the foundational issues.

Maybe you could pick your number one best Christian worldview inconsistency and we could talk about that. NOT that I will have an answer but maybe it will focus us a bit.

“Are you going to blame God for your own hardened heart?”

I’m going to blame him for not giving me the chance to be good enough by my own efforts.

I don’t claim to be a great person myself but what’s the point of creating life that will never be good enough? It’s back to a god making people dependent on him for, what, ego-stroking?

“He doesn’t owe you anything but it is there for the taking free and paid for. I’m always curious why that bothers people so much?”

It bothers me that your god reckons a price had to be paid in the first place. We’re set up to be screwed then thank him for giving us an out?

What also bothers me is, even if I did believe, I know friends of mine never will. So I guess i’d believe they were in error. But they’re good people and.. what happens? Eternal torment? Seems a grossly disproportionate consequence to their error.

Apologies for the length here, but there’s a lot of issues. It’s also been a long, hard couple of weeks and I’m rather more short of patience than I should be.

R“You’re implying that God owes good atheists salvation.”
F No, just that they should surely have an equal chance at it.
R “We all have the same chance on our own, zero.”
So why did you say that maybe good atheists are less likely to be saved? How is that the same chance?

R “ That’s why grace is so precious. Are you going to blame God for your own hardened heart?”
I don’t have a hardened heart. Really, I don’t. I know my heart better than you, and it ain’t hardened. If what you mean is ‘why do you not believe in God?’ then that’s a very different question, one which assumes a lot less about me as a person.

R “By who’s standards have you been a good person? IF there is a God then he would get to set those standards not you or me.”
I’ve been a good person by _my_ standards. Given that there’s no God, that’s the only standard that matters. If there is a God then I’m happy to stand by my decisions and be judged on them. I accept that I’m flawed, but I don’t accept that nothing I do is good.

R “He doesn’t owe you anything but it is there for the taking free and paid for. I’m always curious why that bothers people so much?”
He doesn’t owe me anything? IF he exists, then he’s responsible for the position my father is currently in. I don’t want to get into personal details, but I can tell you that I’m not happy about that. What ‘bothers people’ so much about the idea is that it’s nonsense – they simply don’t believe that it is true – and so it is insulting. It’s a bit like, as an atheist, having someone saying they’ll pray for you – it implies a sort of self-righteous pity that isn’t welcome.

F But if that’s what God wants us to do, why doesn’t he make it clear?
R “It seems pretty clear to me. Did you want him to send another Son to die and preach the message again. How about write another 66 books and then make it the number one all time best seller? Write it on your heart?”
We’ll come to this lack of clarity later, except that I think it’s far from clear that he did any of the above.

R “Our definition of “Best” and God’s are going to be vastly different.”
F But they shouldn’t be if the bible is inerrent, clear and sufficient! You’ve pretty much made our argument for us here.
R “Unless sin has entered the world and corrupted our ability to see what’s best.”
In that case, how can we know anything – including whether Jesus existed? I’m sorry, but this argument amounts to ‘it’s true, but you’re too flawed to see it’. Is that your intention?

“I’m not saying every difference can be swept under the rug, just that Christian churches by definition agree on the majors.”
Well you just swept under the rug most of the points I made. Faith vs works isn’t major? Papal infallibility? _Really?_

“The things that like Christopher Hitchens said make a Christian a Christian are the foundational issues.”
So only those things which define all Christians can be considered ‘foundational’? Do you see how you’re just defining your way out of trouble?

“Maybe you could pick your number one best Christian worldview inconsistency and we could talk about that. NOT that I will have an answer but maybe it will focus us a bit.”
Well how about the issue of whether the pope is able to make infallible judements? Catholics (the largest group of Christians) all believe he can, non-Catholics (everyone else) believe that he cannot. That divides Christianity by about 50/50. Whether God speaks directly through the pope in a special nature seems to be a pretty major issue… I can’t imagine a more important one really, since it speaks to how God is connected to the world and his relationship with Christians across the world.

(is this a double post? I’m having problems with the site, probably at my end)

I’m going to blame him for not giving me the chance to be good enough by my own efforts.

I don’t claim to be a great person myself but what’s the point of creating life that will never be good enough? It’s back to a god making people dependent on him for, what, ego-stroking?

There is no God and I hate him! I know you see the lack of logic in that statement. But surely you also see that if Jesus rose from the grave that that trumps wether you think He’s treating you fairly right?

Making us dependent on Him would be rotten if he didn’t create us, know us intimately, and love us. Maybe he did it because he knew it would be best for us.

Do you have any kids? Do you ever do things to/with them that they hate and don’t understand because you know it’s the best for them? Any thought you have of God being unfair, run it through that filter first and see if it makes better sense.

What also bothers me is, even if I did believe, I know friends of mine never will. So I guess i’d believe they were in error. But they’re good people and.. what happens? Eternal torment? Seems a grossly disproportionate consequence to their error.

Friends, family, kids, all of us need Jesus. I have a lost brother that breaks my heart to think about Him rejecting Jesus. But if Jesus is real I can’t just deny that based on my concern for my brother can I? Figure out if God is real first and then you can figure out if He is fair. If He’s real then he can do what ever he wants with us. Like I said he’s already proven that He loves us dearly. If he’s not real who cares what he thinks of your friends? But if He is you’d better get to evangelizing .

Fropome back in a bit.

Sorry to hear it’s been a long week! I hear you! I wouldn’t move one more box or piece of furniture even if it was to live in the white house.

So why did you say that maybe good atheists are less likely to be saved? How is that the same chance?

The life boat is there for everyone and nobody can swim to the coast on your own but you want to stay with Rose and ride the Titanic down instead of get on it you can’t say the life boat let you down. Some people are just more likely to value Rose over life.

I don’t have a hardened heart. Really, I don’t. I know my heart better than you, and it ain’t hardened. If what you mean is ‘why do you not believe in God?’ then that’s a very different question, one which assumes a lot less about me as a person.

You probably know your heart better than I do but not better than a God that created you. He says your heart is hardened and I’m sticking with Him. I would say the same thing about B.C. Rob. I don’t mean it as an insult. It really was one of those Klong moments when it happened to me.

I’ve been a good person by _my_ standards. Given that there’s no God, that’s the only standard that matters. If there is a God then I’m happy to stand by my decisions and be judged on them. I accept that I’m flawed, but I don’t accept that nothing I do is good.

Maybe you mean given that I don’t believe there is a God. Eshu said above you can’t prove a negative. And also, great! God is willing to judge you based on your decisions too. It’s like Michael Scott says: win-win-win! I’m not saying nothing people do is good by our standards, just that by God’s standards even the good we do isn’t good enough.

I’m sorry, but this argument amounts to ‘it’s true, but you’re too flawed to see it’. Is that your intention?

Yes, but like I said it’s not meant as an insult. I would apply the same descriptor to BC rob as well. There’s a freely available solution if it bothers you too much.

Well you just swept under the rug most of the points I made. Faith vs works isn’t major? Papal infallibility? _Really?

I’m not saying they’re not important just not critical to be saved. Whether you believe in transubstantiation or not will not determine where you sit on judgement day.

So only those things which define all Christians can be considered ‘foundational’? Do you see how you’re just defining your way out of trouble?

No I’m saying there are very few doctrinal issues you have to get right to be redeemed. That’s the core, that’s what is critically important. The rest in a billion years is so much fluff and stuff.

I would be glad to talk about the Pope! Give me a bit to put something together. Life’s busy but this is important. What do I get if I answer the question to your satisfaction? Or is that going to be impossible?

“But surely you also see that if Jesus rose from the grave that that trumps wether you think He’s treating you fairly right?”

How so? In a might-makes-right sense?

“Making us dependent on Him would be rotten if he didn’t create us, know us intimately, and love us”

Well it could still be rotten with all those, however exactly love is being defined. (is this another arbitrary “x is whatever he says it is”? A world of death and misery beyond our own actions is bad enough (yeah i did read the last post on that). But then the hell thing, eternal torment? I can’t fit that with love.

“. But if Jesus is real I can’t just deny that based on my concern for my brother can I?”

You misunderstood my angle – If I knew jesus was real I couldn’t deny it. I’d just be utterly terrified about us being subject to this crazy deity’s whims.

As it happens I don’t know he’s real at all. I do know my own sense of morality is real, however flawed it is.

How so? In a might-makes-right sense?

No, in a 1 Cor 15:14 sense. If He really did raise from the dead that speaks to His credibility on other things.

Well it could still be rotten with all those, however exactly love is being defined. (is this another arbitrary “x is whatever he says it is”? A world of death and misery beyond our own actions is bad enough (yeah i did read the last post on that). But then the hell thing, eternal torment? I can’t fit that with love.

My daughter can’t fit love in with the idea that dad would subject her to a flu shot. The scale is different but the idea is the same.

As to hell if it’s separation from God and He’s so mean why wouldn’t you want that? He loves you enough to pay a heavy price to keep you out of there. Why not accept it? It seems like a lot of atheists want God to make them believe. Make the alternatives disappear.

If I knew jesus was real I couldn’t deny it. I’d just be utterly terrified about us being subject to this crazy deity’s whims.

Why fear someone who has proved their willingness to die for you? That seems weird to me. Like CS Lewis alluded to, He’s not safe but he’s good. I think you’re picking and choosing to make a Jesus you can hate. As an aside there is absolutely no place I’d rather be than subject to Jesus.

Why do you think your sense of morality is real? Just curious.

Thanks for the discussion! I’m going to take this chance since interwebs talking can be hard to interpret to say that I’ve said every word with a smile on my face and look forward to all the replies.

It seems like a lot of atheists want God to make them believe. Make the alternatives disappear.

Well not quite. But I think it would be only fair that everyone gets the same opportunity that Thomas supposedly got. Why all the hiding?

Well while we’re in my world view, Thomas didn’t have the third member of the trinity either and Jesus said it would be better if He left and the spirit came. I personally find myself not seeking Him more than Him hiding from me. Something about if you seek you will find.

By hiding do you mean physically visible? That’s not the only way to make yourself known to someone. I think you’re saying what I’m saying though. You want to be made to believe.

Eshu, if it wasn’t implied, the thanks goes for you as well!

“Why fear someone who has proved their willingness to die for you?”

But not willing to make me such that the sacrifice was never needed in the first place. A god giving me a second chance not to burn in hell is all nice and good but why was hell ever in the offering in the first place?

The idea of separation from god not actually being a Bad Thing, just something we fear because of a 2000 year PR campaign… that is quite interesting though.

I don’t like your parent analogy because one day kids grow up, understand for themselves and don’t need us.

“Why do you think your sense of morality is real?”

reasons to think so: i can sense it’s there
reasons to not think so: ???

Not meaning to be snarky but I find that an odd question.

re: god making us believe. Well indeed I do see other equally credible alternatives.

Which is why I am interested in how people end up in the faith they follow. How much is because they’re suitably convinced by the arguments presented and how much is culture, tradition, greater familiarity? The fact that religions aren’t equally distributed around the world suggests the latter plays a very strong part.

Stoo really good questions. I think some of your confusion is coming from the idea that you’re bouncing back and forth between a Biblical worldview and another world view. Such that:

But not willing to make me such that the sacrifice was never needed in the first place. A god giving me a second chance not to burn in hell is all nice and good but why was hell ever in the offering in the first place?

The Bible does say humans were made this way. Enter the Fall, that fractured everything and I think you get a very accurate description of our world today. Like I said if Hell is just separation from God, maybe you’re underestimating how much God was doing for you to make life enjoyable while you were alive. That’s common grace in my worldview speak.

I don’t like your parent analogy because one day kids grow up, understand for themselves and don’t need us.

I see where the parent child analogy breaks down. You’re not going to grow up and become God one day. But just to make it work think of dogs and their owners. My greyhounds can’t stand getting their nails trimmed but if we don’t do it they break and get infected so we make them put up with it. My hounds will never become human. The relationship a person can have with God is more like parent child though.

“Why do you think your sense of morality is real?”

reasons to think so: i can sense it’s there
reasons to not think so: ???

You’re starting to sound like me! I don’t think you can prove it’s objectively real and not just a sense you’re having. I’d be like me assuming everybody was full and bloated after the big dinner I had last night. Plus if all there is to your person is time, chance, and mutation then why trust your reason. Evolution might give you a moral sense that helps you breed better but it certainly doesn’t have to give you one that’s true or real.

How much is because they’re suitably convinced by the arguments presented and how much is culture, tradition, greater familiarity? The fact that religions aren’t equally distributed around the world suggests the latter plays a very strong part.

Things can be true or not regardless of whether people believe them or not. So we’ll need to look for evidence that’s objective to back them up. As an aside I think you can believe Christianity is true and not want to submit to it and thus not be a Christian.

If you look at how religions are spread out Eastern religions like Shintoism, Confuscionism, Buddhism, etc… are still mostly an Eastern phenomenon. Islam is still mainly in the middle East. Hinduism is still mostly in India. Christianity has gone from the Middle East to Asia, to Europe to the Americas to China and Africa. I.e. it can be found applicable across multiple cultures and traditions. That suggests to me the universal appeal of truth.

Thanks Rob, likewise I appreciate your patient responses.

I have a response to your last comment, but it ended up quite long, so I made it into a post on my blog. I hope Demian doesn’t think I’m trying to hi-jack the conversation, but you’re all welcome. I’d offer drinks and light refreshments if we weren’t all virtual!

Eshu, good thoughts. Thanks for the time to put it together.

I think I understand what Rob is saying. If he believes something with certainty, it must look like laziness or stubbornness on the part of non-believers not to see what seems so obvious to him.

I think your take on this is a good one and something we should talk about but for clarity this is not what I meant. Believe it or not, even after you’ve become a Christian sometimes you still make mistakes! Now I know the popular media likes to hide these under the rug and you won’t hear about them unless you really dig around but it’s true .

My point was that the times I felt like God was hiding from me I was actually not looking for Him but preoccupied with something else. My worldly desires for fame, fortune, and comfort had distracted me from what was ultimately important. Now IF God loves us and IF He knows He is the best thing for us then if we stray from Him he is kind and merciful to withhold Himself from us. Knowing that eventually the counterfeit god will disappoint us and we’ll be drawn back to Him. If He continued to sustain us while we wandered from Him He would be letting us settle for second best (at best), which isn’t very loving.

I don’t see it as laziness or stubbornness on the part of the skeptic. Maybe we don’t have to get into all the details of reformed faith but suffice it to say that God desires to have a relationship with you and if you’re willing to submit to Him, you’ll have it. There’s a bit more to it but let’s keep it simple for now. It’s not going to be an issue of “u r doing it wrong” that keeps you from knowing Him, but pride will.

I will say that I don’t think Christianity is something you can try out. How would you try out a heart of stone turning to a heart of flesh, or going from blind to seeing? You can be born a Muslim based on your parents or by simply saying a phrase. You can’t be born a Christian, it’s more than lineage or geography. It’s a heart change.

I know that’s nebulous and you can’t put it in a test tube to reproduce the results but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.

Also, for Stoo, I should say that there is a type of person I would say is less likely to become a Christian than the hard hearted atheist and that is the person who has been in church their entire life, knows all the “right” things to say to pastors, but has never had repentant, saving faith in Jesus.

PS I can’t juggle for more than 3 rotations and I consider this dialoguing more than debating.

Okay so I gave us a break for the weekend. :p

“I don’t think you can prove it’s objectively real and not just a sense you’re having.”

Maybe morality *is* a sense. That’s what I meant. I know the sense is there. And I see actions in others consistent with the idea, and bad as the world is there isn’t quite an anarchistic free-for-all outside my front door. I’m not claiming it’s true as in a fact of the universe.

“The Bible does say humans were made this way. Enter the Fall, that fractured everything and I think you get a very accurate description of our world today.”

Did you mean to say “bible doesn’t say”? Otherwise I’m having a bit of trouble following this. Also are you taking the Fall as a literal event in two people that’s somehow had an effect on all the rest of humanity?

Anyway otherwise I’m just curious as to what makes people look at christianity and think “yeah that must be right”, especially when as I’ve outlined he can seem cruel and arbitrary.

re: the spread of christianty, it has a couple of advantages that have nothing to do with The Truth

1: it’s proselytising, which allows it to eat into memberships of faiths like hinduism
2: it was the faith of settlers of the new world, which gave it a huge stack of new turf to populate

Also Islam seems to be spreading pretty well, even if its in 2nd place.

Anyway if someone is born in a dominantly christian culture, surrounded by christians, has far greater ease of access to christian materials and dialogue with christians… it’s going to be pretty rare that they give equal weight to Taoism, ya know?

“but suffice it to say that God desires to have a relationship with you and if you’re willing to submit to Him, you’ll have”

I need sufficient reason to believe he’s there to be submitted to first!

Maybe morality *is* a sense. That’s what I meant. I know the sense is there. And I see actions in others consistent with the idea, and bad as the world is there isn’t quite an anarchistic free-for-all outside my front door. I’m not claiming it’s true as in a fact of the universe.

I think we’ve talked about this before but this leaves you with no grounds to tell the Chinese foot binder/crippler, African genital mutilator, or German Jew burner that what they’re doing is wrong regardless of their culture. I can’t argue with the logic, I’m just not okay with saying that. Not that that makes me right just that this kind of cultural relativism is part of your worldview and I know you would stop all of the above behaviors given the chance. So I see a disconnect in what you say and how you would act.

Did you mean to say “bible doesn’t say”? Otherwise I’m having a bit of trouble following this. Also are you taking the Fall as a literal event in two people that’s somehow had an effect on all the rest of humanity?

No, I’m saying the Bible says you were created such that you didn’t need an atoning sacrifice. And then the Fall came. Whether the Fall was a literal event or a figurative one and more specifically what I believe about that is moot. I will say that the curse on men and women in Genesis 3 seems eerily still applicable. Also in a world where God is presupposed instead of his absence, the idea of sin fracturing something beyond just two people seems reasonable. A big if, but we’re talking about inconsistencies in a biblical worldview, not inconsistencies when we jump between 3 different paradigms.

Anyway otherwise I’m just curious as to what makes people look at christianity and think “yeah that must be right”, especially when as I’ve outlined he can seem cruel and arbitrary.

The inner witness of the Holy Spirit. It really is an opening of the eyes to what really is. We’ve talked about it before but I don’t think you have a basis for cruel and arbitrary outside of God. It’s like the atheist wants to jump into the Biblical worldview to borrow the ideas of evil and then jump back out to throw stones at that worldview. Within naturalism there is no cruel or evil there just is what is. I think TIm Keller’s Reason For God does a good job of listing 8-10 things that are evidences (not proofs) for the existence of God from outside the Biblical worldview. I’ll still buy it for you if you figure out how to make that comfortable for you.

re: the spread of christianty, it has a couple of advantages that have nothing to do with The Truth

1: it’s proselytising, which allows it to eat into memberships of faiths like hinduism
2: it was the faith of settlers of the new world, which gave it a huge stack of new turf to populate

I guess we’ll have to define new World because as an American I think that means my home. Christianity was fairly well established before the 1400s. There are lots of obstacles it overcame too that make it more likely to be the Truth.

Anyway if someone is born in a dominantly christian culture, surrounded by christians, has far greater ease of access to christian materials and dialogue with christians… it’s going to be pretty rare that they give equal weight to Taoism, ya know?

But if people are whatever faith they are just because what they grow up around and ‘truth’ has nothing to do with their beliefs then the same can be said for the idea you just presented. Namely that people only believe what they grow up around and there is no ultimately absolute truth by which to judge the different views by. This kind of relativism is a decidedly western idea. You haven’t said where you’re from but since you keep saying “maths” I’m guess the UK.

Plus like I alluded to in the last comment, arguably one of the worst places to be born to become a Christian is the Bible Belt.

I need sufficient reason to believe he’s there to be submitted to first!

It really is a “I’ll see it when I believe it kind of thing”. I hope you find it quickly.

talked about this before but this leaves you with no grounds to tell the Chinese foot binder/crippler, African genital mutilator, or German Jew burner that what they’re doing is wrong regardless of their culture”

Maybe I can. They’re all the same species of social creature, with concepts of pain and suffering, as the rest of us. Maybe that’s all we need for concepts of cruel or evil.

Or maybe there is some ultimate source. I don’t like calling myself an atheist (although maybe “weak atheist” applies). I just remain unconvinced that he’s *your* god. I could live with some sort of Deism, perhaps.

How do you know the “inner witness of the holy spirit” is something pointing to the chrsitian god? Do you “just know” somehow? No witnessing here, alas.

By new world I meant America, yeah.

“But if people are whatever faith they are just because what they grow up around and ‘truth’ has nothing to do with their beliefs then the same can be said for the idea you just presented.”

Possibly. I’m not claiming that I’m absolutely right. I’m doubting that you are. I wouldn’t assert there’s no absolute truth.

“arguably one of the worst places to be born to become a Christian is the Bible Belt.”

I don’t want to get into who’s being a “proper” christian or not. As far as I can see the bible belt is churning out lots of christians and not many buddhists.

Maybe I can. They’re all the same species of social creature, with concepts of pain and suffering, as the rest of us. Maybe that’s all we need for concepts of cruel or evil.

So it’s wrong for American WWII soldiers to kill German’s who are trying to eradicate Jews because the Americans are in the same species of social creature as the Germans and causing pain and suffering?

I don’t want to get into who’s being a “proper” christian or not. As far as I can see the bible belt is churning out lots of christians and not many buddhists.

A proper definition of who is a Christian is critical. Otherwise by Jag’s definition we’re all Christians and beliefs don’t really matter.

I’d say the Bible belt is good at turning out lots of religious people as lost as Buddhists. Just like the Pharisees and Sadducees Jesus railed against whom He said lived more morally and knew scripture better than anyone but didn’t know God. It’s not turning out Christ followers in as many numbers though. One of the huge failings of the suburban church of the last 30 years is that the kids that grew up in it have wandered away from it. They were vaccinated against the gospel.

We talked about it a bit here:

http://www.fallenandflawed.com/american-church-letter/

We’re just getting into discussion of different types of Christian, and your judgement of more “wishy-washy, impotent, feel good” types. Maybe they’d say you’re the one doing it wrong.

My point still stands – these people are still going with the faith most culturally prevalent.

“So it’s wrong for American WWII soldiers to kill German’s who are trying to eradicate Jews because the Americans are in the same species of social creature as the Germans and causing pain and suffering?”

I missed the bit where I said it was never permitted to cause harm in any cases ever?

I missed the bit where I said it was never permitted to cause harm in any cases ever?

Stoo, just trying to go with what you’ve given me, not put words in your mouth, yet show the limitation of what you’d expressed so far.

We’re just getting into discussion of different types of Christian, and your judgement of more “wishy-washy, impotent, feel good” types. Maybe they’d say you’re the one doing it wrong.

From the outside (and I mean it humbly and just for introspection, you don’t have to answer here) I think you’re using the idea that there are so many different faiths that we can’t possibly know which one is right as the excuse to not have to decide what is really real. Hence the title you’ve used of weak atheist or agnostic to describe yourself. My .02 FWIW is to figure out what to do with Jesus and what history says about him. That will give you the clarity to dismiss the wishy washy, or the fundamentalist, or the atheist as wrong.

My point still stands – these people are still going with the faith most culturally prevalent.

I agree this normally happens in the cultural sense. The cultural part of Christianity can be passed down from surroundings. The heart change is a work of God which can happen anywhere.

This idea though makes it even more amazing that the first Christians were 1st century Jews, the very (only) people who were trained to believe that the messiah would be a political/ war hero to lead them to victory and that man could never be God.

It seems like we’re getting to the end of this. I’ll let you have the last word if it’s something you want or if you want to continue I do enjoy the banter.

Oh, re: Papal infallibility. I had to do a little research but since the pope’s decision on doctrine was established as infallible in 1870 the only times the pope has spoken ex cathedra was in 1854 re: Mary’s immaculate conception and in 1950 re: Mary’s assumption.

I would call those two issues wrong but minor. You can be a true Christian and believe (incorrectly) in Mary’s immaculate conception. It’s not a salvation issue.

I think the overarching issue of papal infallibility and church and scripture holding equal weight goes against the command in Deut. 4:2. When we add to or subtract from the word of God we aggrandize ourselves at the expense of veracity. Protestants and Catholics both do that just in different ways. It’s why Jesus had to die for sin but not an issue that would keep Him from doing so.

That wasn’t fair to drop all that after the last call so if you want to keep this going that’s fine by me.

Rob,

Sorry if you feel this should be ending now, but you made some points that I just can’t help responding to!

Believe it or not, even after you’ve become a Christian sometimes you still make mistakes!

Don’t worry, I’m well aware of that part of your beliefs. The blog’s called Fallen & Flawed, after all! Yours and Demian’s modesty and lack of that “holier-than-thou” attitude is perhaps the main reason I comment here. Partly because it makes for a nice atmosphere and partly because I naively think that you might be willing to change your mind in the light of our arguments!

It’s a heart change. I know that’s nebulous and you can’t put it in a test tube to reproduce the results but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.

I don’t want to put it in a test tube, but there’s nothing wrong with a bit of evidence. It looks to me like, if a God exists, he/she has been scrupulously careful to avoid leaving any evidence.

That it is “nebulous” and “A heart change” may not prove it false, but it does make it very dubious. To my mind it points towards people fooling themselves rather than an objective reality. Whenever people poo-poo the idea of evidence and insist on faith, I am suspicious that this is because the idea is false, so faith would be the only way to justify it.

The cultural part of Christianity can be passed down from surroundings. The heart change is a work of God which can happen anywhere.

Really? That is an amazing claim! Seriously, if anyone, anywhere in the world can be shown to have become a Christian without first having had contact with other Christians, or Christian literature, that would be amazing. If they actually knew Jesus by name and had the central ideas about sin, saving atonement through Jesus’ death, etc, without having heard it from someone else, I’d be seriously impressed.

As far as I know, however, this has never happened. Christianity is spread by word of mouth, usually through direct contact with other believers. This is exactly the same way that all the other false religions are spread.

It’s interesting also, that you count Christianity’s wide spread as some evidence of it’s truth, but also state that many of these people aren’t actually in a saving relationship with Jesus. I’ve noticed this elsewhere and it seems the stats can be used in either way depending on the argument being made.

Regarding people being “true” Christians, Demian and I had a discussion of this a while ago and the conclusion was that the only way to tell a true believer, is that the never lose their faith. So by that logic, the jury’s still out on whether any of you are true Christians.

I thoroughly enjoy the discussion but sometimes it feels like we hash out the same stuff over and over and I was just trying to give anyone who felt like they’d “lose” if they didn’t offer a response a way to put Old Yeller down humanely.

Yours and Demian’s modesty and lack of that “holier-than-thou” attitude is perhaps the main reason I comment here.

Thanks. I am way to familiar with myself to be braggadocios.

I don’t want to put it in a test tube, but there’s nothing wrong with a bit of evidence. It looks to me like, if a God exists, he/she has been scrupulously careful to avoid leaving any evidence.

That’s intriguing to me because I think the exact opposite. The universe is so teeming with evidence for God that it’s hard to see how someone can ignore all of it. I guess that’s part of what makes the discussion interesting.

Whenever people poo-poo the idea of evidence and insist on faith, I am suspicious that this is because the idea is false, so faith would be the only way to justify it.

I think that’s wise because the world is full of charlatans. I think any world view requires faith in its presuppositions though. The question becomes which one best describes the world.

Really? That is an amazing claim! Seriously, if anyone, anywhere in the world can be shown to have become a Christian without first having had contact with other Christians, or Christian literature, that would be amazing. If they actually knew Jesus by name and had the central ideas about sin, saving atonement through Jesus’ death, etc, without having heard it from someone else, I’d be seriously impressed.

That’s not what I was trying to say so let me clarify a bit. The social aspects of Christian religion can be taught to a child. They can grow up going to pot luck socials, saying grace before meals, and learning Bible stories but you can’t accomplish the heart change in you child for them. Trust me if I could I would have already. I can train my kids, provide a good example, and pray diligently for their salvation but they can’t catch it via osmosis. But just like me until my 20’s they might put on a good religulous show that fools people.

I think the Eunuch in Acts shows that to understand Jesus you need to hear about Him. But at the same time look at the great cloud of witnesses in Hebrews. They were all counted as right before God but didn’t know Jesus. So their faith was in the right thing they just didn’t have a name for it. I think Romans 1 speaks to this as well, the idea that no man has an excuse of not hearing.

It’s interesting also, that you count Christianity’s wide spread as some evidence of it’s truth, but also state that many of these people aren’t actually in a saving relationship with Jesus. I’ve noticed this elsewhere and it seems the stats can be used in either way depending on the argument being made.

Lies, da*n lies, and statistics. My point wasn’t that there are vast numbers of Christians in almost every culture in the world but that Christianity has penetrated almost every culture in the world. It’s applicable across cultures which to me lends to its truth because if God is universal then his message shouldn’t be restricted to people in one culture like say Hinduism is. I think that argument holds even if there’s only 200 Christians on each continent or 2,000,000,000.

Regarding people being “true” Christians, Demian and I had a discussion of this a while ago and the conclusion was that the only way to tell a true believer, is that the never lose their faith. So by that logic, the jury’s still out on whether any of you are true Christians.

From your perspective or Demian’s, yes, you can’t know the true state of my faith. It could all be one big show. I can provide you with a preponderance of evidence one way or the other but YOU will never really know 100%. I on the other hand can be given assurance of my own salvation through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. I wish that at conversion your hair turned green or you got a halo or some outward sign but nobody asked me how things ought to run.

Dammit firefox ate my comment. Okay the tl:dr version is

-note how your heart change was still into the faith you grew up familiar with.

-christianity isn’t alone in having a message that can be relevant to us all. I mean that whole thing in buddhism about desire causing suffering sounds especially relevant in the consumerist west. Also some faiths might have a message, they just don’t care if you hear it or not.

-is there evidence for a creator of some sort, or your specific personal humanlike god?

-note how your heart change was still into the faith you grew up familiar with.

If that’s always the way it happened I think you’d be on to something. Socially we pick up things from our parents but like I said that doesn’t explain a bunch of 1st c. Jews becoming the Christian church. It also doesn’t explain stories like this: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/03/muslim.convert/index.html

-christianity isn’t alone in having a message that can be relevant to us all. I mean that whole thing in buddhism about desire causing suffering sounds especially relevant in the consumerist west. Also some faiths might have a message, they just don’t care if you hear it or not.

Sure. Buddhism says desire is bad because it leads to suffering. The remedy though has consequences I don’t think you or I are prepared to accept. I think it’s dangerous to take one teaching out of a worldview. They have to be viewed and evaluated in their entirety.

<blockquote -is there evidence for a creator of some sort, or your specific personal humanlike god?

Yes.

Rob,

I see your point. If a Muslim might actually be willing to harm his own daughter over his religion, there really must be something to this Islam thing!

that doesn’t explain a bunch of 1st c. Jews becoming the Christian church.

Hmm yes, because normally new religious sects just spring out of nowhere. In all other religions people stick with their ancestral beliefs forever.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but really, if this kind of thing persuades you that your god is real, then I begin to question your judgement.

Hmm yes, because normally new religious sects just spring out of nowhere. In all other religions people stick with their ancestral beliefs forever.

Sarcasm is welcome here! No really it adds to the discussion and demonstrates incredible wit which always makes everyone love you more and more.

I’m saying it’s extraordinary that a dozen (to begin with) 1st c. Jews believed that a man was God so thoroughly that they were willing to die for those beliefs when they were raised in a culture that taught them from birth that specifically man was not God.

You’ve got to come up with an answer for why they thought that other than Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them. I don’t think you’ll be able to do it.
NT Wright couldn’t.

PS if this is the only thing that makes you begin to question my judgement then I am definitely questioning yours.

“You’ve got to come up with an answer for why they thought that other than Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them.”

I dispute that we do.

That they’d think what they did, if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, might seem strange. But that doesn’t mean I have to take claims of supernatural events seriously.

(that’s assuming we reliably know in the first place about, people who supposedly met jesus, ie are there surviving first-hand accounts that date from the right time period)

I dispute that we do.

That they’d think what they did, if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, might seem strange. But that doesn’t mean I have to take claims of supernatural events seriously.

(that’s assuming we reliably know in the first place about, people who supposedly met jesus, ie are there surviving first-hand accounts that date from the right time period)

Good thoughts Stoo but I think it’s revealing your presupposition of naturalism.

Also, and I’m not directing this at you because you wouldn’t be here if it applied, but I should have put another option to considering the life and claims of Jesus. You could bury yourself in whatever the modern version of Beverly Hills, 90210 or Call of Duty is and live an unthoughtful life. Since arguably no other figure in history has had such an impact on the world I don’t think you can just dismiss Jesus as not worthy of attention and still be considered thoughtful.

The thought in parentheses is a good one. Hopefully we’ll get around to it one day.

I presuppose naturalism because it works, and there’s a lack of reasons not to.

Of course this jesus figure has had a major impact on the world. That doesn’t mean claims to supernatural events, or religious supremacy, are true.

As far as I can tell thoughtfulness can lead in your direction, or other ones entirely.

I presuppose naturalism because it works, and there’s a lack of reasons not to.

What if naturalism works 99.9999999% of the time and you just haven’t bumped into a place where you personally have seen it not work? That would mean naturalism doesn’t really work.

You say there’s a lack of reasons to doubt naturalism. I’m saying the resurrection of Jesus is a pretty good reason. But you’re dismissing my evidence because it doesn’t fit with your a priori assumption of naturalism. But you haven’t defended naturalism, only presupposed it. That’s begging the question.

Google Plantinga’s Evolutionary argument against Naturalism if you like but here’s his conclusion:
“The conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is that the conjunction of naturalism with evolutionary theory is self-defeating: it provides for itself an undefeated defeater. It is therefore unacceptable and irrational. ”

As far as I can tell thoughtfulness can lead in your direction, or other ones entirely.

To quote Dumb and Dumber, “So you’re telling me there’s a chance!”

I’ve only skimmed Pantinga’s stuff for now well it looks like:

1. X cannot be assumed to be perfectly known/reliable/efficient/whatever
2. Therefore, X is COMPLETELY unknown/unreliable/inefficient/whatever!

The philisophical possibilty that we can’t fully work out reality isn’t some crushing blow that forces me to logically accept Jesus.

He also seems to declare that all statements of truth are 50% reliable which is… odd.

The philisophical possibilty that we can’t fully work out reality isn’t some crushing blow that forces me to logically accept Jesus.

Right it’s an evolutionary argument against naturalism, not an argument for Jesus.

Here’s how Darwin put it:

“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

It’s asking the question why do you trust your reason if it’s only the product of chance and time? The world is full of creatures that fool each other and themselves, why should man’s reason be any different?

The latest Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal sums up my problem with agendas in these arguments.

And my reason isn’t just a product of chance, it’s built up from interactions with the observed world.

Also if we can’t know Naturalism is true, we can’t know that about Supernaturalism either. We don’t know if the god who created us is giving us reliable brains, or unreliable ones that break our philosophising about him.

The latest Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal sums up my problem with agendas in these arguments.

I think that mischaracterizes his argument since nowhere does he even mention Jesus so this argument would stand for any type of creator god. But, even so, everybody has an agenda.

And my reason isn’t just a product of chance, it’s built up from interactions with the observed world.

Did you use your cognitive faculties to deduce that interactions with the observed world bolster the reliability of your cognitive faculties? That’s the point he’s making. IF your ability to reason is compromised then anything you reason could be incorrect.

Also if we can’t know Naturalism is true, we can’t know that about Supernaturalism either. We don’t know if the god who created us is giving us reliable brains, or unreliable ones that break our philosophising about him.

Taking that statement by itself I agree. But if God has revealed Himself to us in some way we could know Him and know in what manner we were created. I agree with you that I don’t think you can use logic to reason to Christianity the same way you can use logic to reason to a god. You would have to use other means as well.

Good thoughts Stoo.

“IF your ability to reason is compromised then anything you reason could be incorrect.”

Anything? Like “put my hand in a fire and it could get burned”?

Anyway he’s trying to claim that lack of Capital T 100% sure Truth leads us to “anything goes”. Yes I only have my flawed cognitive facilities to tell me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn’t watching over my shoulder right now. How seriously are we going to take the idea?

“But if God has revealed Himself to us in some way we could know Him and know in what manner we were created. ”

How do you trust your knowing?

How seriously are we going to take the idea?

Do you smell that garlic & marinara sauce?

I think he’s pointing out what you’re saying. “I know my reason is reliable but rationally I have no reason to think so other than I reason it’s reliable. That disconnect is a consequence of E & N”

How do you trust your knowing?

My presuppositins.

Interesting, thanks for that. If I’m reading right, it says that we can only make sense of reality if we start by assuming christian beliefs?

My first thought, more relevant to the last point is, how do you know a trickster god hasn’t given you a flawed brain so that the universe *seems* to make sense by assuming (false) christian beliefs?

Also how do you know there isn’t another set of presuppositions that works that you don’t know about yet?

Still I’ve learned something today. Looks like this is a Calvinist thing?

““I know my reason is reliable but rationally I have no reason to think so other than I reason it’s reliable”

Wrong emphases I reckon. My reason appears to work. If it’s not, it’s down to utterly imperceptible forces. I can acknowledge the possibility it’s not working – but what reason do I have to not file that under “philisophical musings” and then forget about it? I was actually serious in invoking the non-serious FSM. Alternatively, for all we know we could be brains in vats. But it’s an intellectual dead end.

My first thought, more relevant to the last point is, how do you know a trickster god hasn’t given you a flawed brain so that the universe *seems* to make sense by assuming (false) christian beliefs?

And how do I know I’m not just plugged into some alien version of the matrix? Good question. I guess I’ll never know certainly. As to God being a trickster, I have to go on how He has presented Himself in toto. The conniving trait doesn’t jive with the rest of how He’s presented himself so I would doubt it. I do think there are things He knows we couldn’t understand or would harm us to know and so He hides those things from us but that is in line with the rest of how He presents Himself.

I would say that presuppositional apologetics is mainly a reformed thing but can apply across a broad spectrum. The idea being we all have presuppositions.

My reason appears to work.

I agree that your reason appears to work just like I likely agree with 99% of your morality. I think you and I intuitively and correctly trust both. I’m just offering that I have a foundation to believe both are trust worthy whereas I’m not sure you (or a naturalist) do.

Dunno if you’re still here, I took the weekend off again. Why hasn’t Demian banned us forever!?

“to God being a trickster, I have to go on how He has presented Himself in toto. The conniving trait doesn’t jive with the rest of how He’s presented himself so I would doubt it.”

I’m sure Loki has the cunning and patience to present a consistent illusion! All I’m getting at here really is that “doubt for doubt’s sake” arguments appear to come back and bite all of us. Except I was never claiming absolute surity, in the first place, so I feel the problem of not trusting your own brain hits Plantinga harder than me.

We all have presuppositions but some people appear to stack more on top of the baseline (observed universe that follows rules).

Oh I’m still around. Demian is going to have to put one of those big tents around the whole house like they do for termites to get rid of me. Maybe I shouldn’t give him any ideas!

To respond, I guess if Loki was willing to sacrifice Loki Jr. to keep the trick going I’d feel okay trusting he’s not got anything that bad up his sleeve for me.

I’m not try to psycho analyze you (at least I’m not doing it very well) and maybe I’m just gullible but I don’t think you need to worry that God is real AND that He wants to trick you into doing something ultimately bad for you. Based on the evidence for Him, God is either real, personal, and committed to your well being or He isn’t real at all.

I’m also not trying to act like your dad because this whole time I’ve assumed we’re roughly the same age (I’m 37). Maybe I’m misreading you due to my foul mood today but to me your “whatever” “I don’t have any beliefs stacked upon my presuppositions” world view would seem to work until life started happening to you.

Not that a tragedy in one’s life makes God real but it can expose the need to believe in one.

This is not the best venue for us to get down to brass tacks about each other’s lives. Maybe if we ever end up around each other I could buy you that free lunch.

At the risk of dragging the conversation back to science…

I see a lot of question-begging in current scientific explanations in the form of: “Given an assumption of no supernatural involvement, what’s the best explanation we can come up with?”

That’s a useful method of inquiry, but it does not necessarily lead us to truth.

The common justification (it’s cropped up in this thread, in fact) is along the lines of: “Oh, but if we start to allow the supernatural to be an explanation for anything we might as well just throw our hands up and stop all science.”

My problem with this reasoning is that it does not deal with the existence of the supernatural: it merely ignores it. Closing our eyes to the supernatural may limit our ability to discover the whole truth.

This is where scientism becomes dangerous: anything which is immune to the tools of science (which actually includes a fair part of human experience) is simply dismissed as irrelevant or even non-existent.