Chance or by Design ?

Originally posted by jaywill

AF is fable; Genesis is a mix of history and fable. I have not argued they are the same genre.

Genesis, rather, is history some of which you don't believe.

So some of it is not easy for people to believe. But in the reading of the history the clock does not stop and the teller transfer to some existential realm. The flow of detai ...[text shortened]... tional history as well as crucial details on the history of the world.

Fictional movies give details, locations, ages of people, when someone was born, etc. This does not make it 'journalistic data'.

With Genesis, the further back we go, the more totally mythical it sounds. The time of Eden is not given (yes, it is in the realm of 'once upon a time' vagueness). The feeling I get from the story is watching several scenes spread out across different times, with unspecified gaps in between. For example, how long did God wait before he decided that it wasn't good for him to be alone?

Am I right in thinking that we don't know where all four of those rivers are today? (IIRC, we know two of them.)

Finally the genealogies establish a sense of timing. Very well. But we still have at least some myth mixed in: men living to be 800-900 years old.

Noah's Ark is the most obvious myth in the entire Bible. Any impression of historical journalism or meticulous keeping of time is drowned out by the absurdity of what happens. Bringing times back in to the discussion only serves to highlight the absurdity further.

(Sidebar, again: I hear stories on this forum of the Jewish tradition of interpretation of scripture. You are not just supposed to hold to a party-line view. You are supposed to bring your own Torah to the Torah (sincere apologies to vistesd if I get any of this wrong!) Alternative interpretations of the stories are not only welcome, but expected!

I cannot help but wonder if these traditions continue back to the ancient Jews. Maybe it simply isn't true that they perceived the stories as pure history?! Maybe that whole idea came later on?!)

Originally posted by jaywill

This is really unremarkable, when you think about it. The compilers of the scriptures simply left out any stories that took the narrative in a direction they didn't like,

Slave of paranoid conspiracy theory.

Stay asleep. No more time to humor you on this.

Scholarship is aware of many early Christian writings that were deliberately left out of the NT. This is no paranoid conspiracy theory. It is fact.

Originally posted by jaywill

I have not found this kind of argument to be persuasive to those not already convinced.

Maybe I can check your links latter.

And I have also found that there is a MYTH of the Athiests intellectual reasons for not believing in God. For the most part, he already has decided he does not like the idea of God - Full Stop.

Then he gat ...[text shortened]... d not want God in their lives. Then they go pick up some arguments to dignify this decision.

I agree with you on this -- although of course the wording the atheist would use is different.

Your wording -- not liking the idea of God, preference, rejection, not wanting God in their lives -- represents a decidedly theistic perspective of the atheist's thinking. This is probably unavoidable; the atheist's way of saying these things or talking about your beliefs might show their perspective just as much. There seems to be no neutral way to talk about the subject.

At any rate, I think we have predispositions in many of our traits and characteristics, that we seek to justify when they are challenged. And this works. Defensiveness can turn a feeling of doubt that X is so, into a feeling of certainty that X is not so.

Originally posted by jaywill
The Challenge which SwissGambit, I think, has failed to meet remains open.

I have not yet attempted to meet it. Still ironing out the facts, remember?

Originally posted by jaywill
Some reply for you now finnigan:

Without going back over all these posts, I'll jump in here and try to pick up thoughts on the discussion.

[quote] A scientist or a philosopher of science would present the issue differently. In Science, what we often encounter is rival descriptions of reality which appear internally consistent and which have reasonabl ated just-so stories, beecause we have a a prior commitment to materialism."

Your post is not very clear I am afraid. It just isn't.

That is not really our choice usaully conveyed on this Forum. It is a choice between a all-incompasing naturalism which new atheists assume has made a intelligent creation an obsolete concept relegated to a superstitious age. To those who see Intelligent causality working back there somewhere, these Atheists say we should return to the Dark Ages.

That is what is being marketed by New Atheists attempting to use Science theories as justifying facts proving their Atheism.

In a nutshell I interpret what you say to be that " New Atheists" are using scientific theories as a basis on which to promote atheism. Maybe they are and maybe in other threads I would agree with some of (but not all) their case. However, that is not the case I was stating in my posts on this thread. I have explicitly and repeatedly argued that it is perfectly possible for virtually all of Science including Evolution by Natural Selection to be accommmodated by practising and sincere Christians and it often is. Those who argue against this are a minority within Christianity. Being a minority does not in itself mean they are wrong in their beliefs but it does mean that they are not representative of what most Christians believe. By the same token, I was clearly not using Scientific theories to promote atheism. Your claim is false. Finally, I was making the point that the Bible is not a valid basis from which to dispute scientific theory partly on the grounds that there is virtually nothing relevant in the bible. Read Genesis again - I have it beside me - there are next to no factual or otherwise useful statements in there to engage our attention.

Creationists may start with a sacred text. Intelligent Design theorists do not start with a sacred text. They are concerned with the legitimate detection of intelligent causality as in forensic science, insurance fraud detection, crime detection, archeology, and SETI (Search For Extra Terrestial Intelligence).

The charge of "stealth creationism" is their perception. They are giving heads up that they don't like where evidence may imply or lead.

It is perfectly possible to work patiently on the hypothesis of intelligent design. It has been pursued since at least Paley in 1802 without fruit but if people want to do more work they are welcome to produce their findings for competent review. Intelligent Design is not as conveniently pure as you state. The videos and texts to which we are referred by you repeatedly make false claims about scientific theories (I have pointed some out earlier in this thread for example and await a response though to be fair RJHinds was the one who posted that link) and explicitly state the claim that scientific theories are false and wrong. However I completely agree with you that Intelligent Design would have nothing at all to work with if it relied on the Bible as a source. Instead it relies on the findings of Science and perverts and misrepresents those findings to make a specious argument of their own. They are working on the premis that they are already right and must keep digging to find the proof. Frustrated, they resort to demonstrable lies which, again, I have demonstrated in selected cases. Others have done so far more comprehensively.

The organising and funding sources for the ID movement are also well documented and I have given links to relevant information. They are not disinterested parties in search of knowledge. They are a political movement in search of a political goal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement#Criticisms_of_the_movement

By contrast, Science describes a vast range of very different agencies and bodies and individuals across the world and through history, with often conflicting and incompatible ideals, and hence in constant argument and debate. That includes people of any and every major religious faith.

The "New Atheists" refers, I suspect, to a number of people who are directly committed to fighting against the lies and propoganda and the political aims of the ID Movement. The major criticism of their methods is that they address only the fundamentalist fringe and should be more objective about religion generally. You are in that fundamentalist fringe and certainly part of the target for their criticisms. You may not like this but the question is, can you defend your opinions in a way that is not just political?

Whatever you imagine your post says, and it is hard to follow, it fails utterly to engage with mine and it misrepresents my argument You keep on attacking the messenger and failing to deal with the message.

Originally posted by finnegan
Your post is not very clear I am afraid. It just isn't.

[quote] That is not really our choice usaully conveyed on this Forum. It is a choice between a all-incompasing naturalism which new atheists assume has made a intelligent creation an obsolete concept relegated to a superstitious age. To those who see Intelligent causality working back there somew ...[text shortened]... s my argument You keep on attacking the messenger and failing to deal with the message.

Your post is not very clear I am afraid. It just isn't.

Could have been better had I had twice the time for it.

In a nutshell I interpret what you say to be that " New Atheists" are using scientific theories as a basis on which to promote atheism.

How else would you discribe a book by an Atheist Biologist entitled The God Delusion ?

The idea of the advancement of Science necessarily means the demise of Theism and Christianity has been around for a long time. The predictions that Science's rise spells the decline of Theistic faith have not come true in my country, going back to the early 20th century until today.

Maybe they are and maybe in other threads I would agree with some of (but not all) their case.

I think that is probably reasonable. New Atheists are not wrong all the time about everything. And neither are Creationists or those detractors of Evolution.

However, that is not the case I was stating in my posts on this thread. I have explicitly and repeatedly argued that it is perfectly possible for virtually all of Science including Evolution by Natural Selection to be accommmodated by practising and sincere Christians and it often is.

I have made a similar point that belief in special creation of Adam is not a requirement of salvation in the New Testament.

Those who argue against this are a minority within Christianity. Being a minority does not in itself mean they are wrong in their beliefs but it does mean that they are not representative of what most Christians believe.

The matter is not so simple as a binary choice. I am presently reading a volume specifying the differences between these kinds of positions of scientific / religious or world view attitude. According to astrophysicist Hugh Ross, there are -


1.) Evolutionist
2.) Young Earth Creationists
3.) Intelligent Design Movement
4.) Old Earth Creationists
5.) Theistic Evolutionists
6.) Fully Gifted Creationists
7.) Framework Theorists
8.) Progressive Creationists
9.) Concordists

As I am reading I am learning about the nuances and real differences in beliefs among these classifications. One point Ross is making is that it is not so simple a choice between only TWO positions.

The book is called " Revealing a Testable Model for Creation" - More Than A Theory . Its a good book.
2.)

By the same token, I was clearly not using Scientific theories to promote atheism.

I will try to remember that. And I am not anti-Science.

Your claim is false.

My claim that YOU specifically are attempting to do the above?
Okay. I'll take your word for it that I should not include YOU personally.

But I'll so be watching you. That is as long as you do not say something too disrepectful to my faith.

I cannot remember what it was that you wrote. But for a time you must have made a comment that I found offensive enough to stop reading your posts. I don't remember what it was now. But I don't do that unless God is blasphemed or one insists on calling derogatory names like - you idiot, you imbecile, you moron.

Can't remember why I stopped reading you for awhile. I am watching some of your writing now.

Finally, I was making the point that the Bible is not a valid basis from which to dispute scientific theory partly on the grounds that there is virtually nothing relevant in the bible. Read Genesis again - I have it beside me - there are next to no factual or otherwise useful statements in there to engage our attention.

I'll think on that.

But you boasted of FLAT and TOTAL contradiction from Science against the Bible. I thought you exagerrated and that you did not supply what I would constitute a FLAT AND TOTAL contradiction.

I don't recall you submitting another example beside a molten earth under a cloudless sky. Perhaps you did.

Your position - A Hot molten earth under a cloudless atmosphere is an accepted Science FACT that renders Genesis 1 - 31 totally contradicted. I don't think so.

How do you know that that molten planet was cloudless ? Is that a FACT we know or a speculation that might have been so ?

And "waste and void" (v.2) might have been a poetic description of a lava strewn liquidy planet. And darkness was upon the face of (some translations) "roaring deep". ie. Emphasized Bible.

Originally posted by jaywill

In a nutshell I interpret what you say to be that " New Atheists" are using scientific theories as a basis on which to promote atheism.

How else would you discribe a book by an Atheist Biologist entitled [b]The God Delusion ?

The idea of the advancement of Science necessarily means the demise of Theism and Christianity has been a was upon the face of (some translations) "roaring deep". ie. Emphasized Bible.[/b]

You do not have to remember what I wrote. Just read it again if that matters, either in this thread or, via my profile, by clicking on my public posts, which will be listed for you in reverse date order from start to finish. It would help you to quote me more accurately than you do here. You probably stopped reading me when I lost my rag at some of your arguments. I am not sure that you will find many examples of direct blasphemous speech or insulting terminology but doubtless there is some, depending on your definitions. I have certainly been absent from this forum for very long gaps when I found the futility too infuriating to tolerate.

I am atheist and happy to argue my corner when that is the relevant issue under debate. In this thread, it is not relevant. However, at the same time my views are in most respects secular rather than atheist. Indeed, at times I have been moved to set out as respectful an account as I can of Islamic beliefs and history, in order to confront the blatant islamaphobia to which this forum descends so often and which I deplore.

I agree with your comment that the emergence of rational scientific thinking, for all its incredible impact, has not had and probably will not have the effect of causing religion to wither away. There are many reasons for this but one is that the issue is not capable of being reduced to a matter of belief systems and hence it is not, like a scientific hypothesis, susceptible to a cold blooded academic exercise in reasoning. Religion encapsulates a range of cultural and social associations that are not readily disentangled. Perhaps if you understood this important conclusion more clearly you would feel less threatened by modern science and less driven by fear into the arms of a fundamentalist movement. The challenge for you is not to refute science (a tall order) but to establish your religious beliefs more comfortably in its company. This can be done. Look at how the Jews responded to the destruction (more than once) of their temple by creatively redefining their practices and beliefs and how (I do NOT refer to Zionism) their way of thinking can be so helpful to them and others in the modern world.

I am interested in understanding religion and how it works. I am interested, for example, that a science fiction writer (L. Ron Hubbard) can declare that the best way to get rich is to invent a religion and then proceed to invent one of his own so ludicrous that, of course, it was a great success. Indian Gurus have been doing this sort of thing forever and we have seen a steady emergence of new Christian sects over the generations. You presently even have a Mormon candidate for president and good luck with that (not). I have more than a passing appreciation of the history of Western European culture in general and in particular the Catholic Church and its many reinventions and marvel that such a wealth of institutional resources and traditions supports such a fragile and tenuous justification for its survival. I have looked into the early history of Christianity in some detail as you know, having debated at length the role of Paul in inventing the Christian religion and the period around the emperor Constantine's historical decision to tolerate and give officiial sanction to Christianity in exchange for important developments in the nature of Christian teaching.

And of course, I have observed the way in which American fundamentalist Christians have become subject to overt political manipulation. It is this manipulation and political direction that I encounter most clearly in the argument over intelligent design. It is quite clear to me that ID has no authentic basis in Christianity or in the Bible itself but is a reaction against modernism in general and science in particular. That is what I have been arguing in this thread and supporting with good evidence.

For a political movement to have such impact in attacking science, education and rational discourse within the USA is a significant political phenomenon. It is comparable to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and has similar roots. It connects very directly with Zionist fundamentalism. I see all of these movements as politically poisonous.

Now I do not know how comfortable you are with these associations but they are not figments of my imagination. American Christians are being manipulated to political ends and at the very least it is useful to confront the most obvious lies and distortions with reasoned answers.

Start with the first lie which is that anyone who disputes ID is an atheist or even a New Atheist. Some enemies are New Atheists. I am an enemy. Therefore I am a New Atheist. That claim is nonsensical. In saying that, the evidence that I am myself an atheist and even a New Atheist is not a relevant counter agument. Countless people of Christian and other faiths agree on the point.

Originally posted by finnegan
You do not have to remember what I wrote. Just read it again if that matters, either in this thread or, via my profile, by clicking on my public posts, which will be listed for you in reverse date order from start to finish. It would help you to quote me more accurately than you do here. You probably stopped reading me when I lost my rag at some of your arg ...[text shortened]... a relevant counter agument. Countless people of Christian and other faiths agree on the point.

There is no rational thinking in being an Atheist. Atheism is the opposite of rational thinking. It is irrational.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is no rational thinking in being an Atheist. Atheism is the opposite of rational thinking. It is irrational.

To an atheist believing in a being in which we can't now see would seem irrational so just try to think of it from their point of view.




Manny

Originally posted by menace71
To an atheist believing in a being in which we can't now see would seem irrational so just try to think of it from their point of view.




Manny

Since their thinking is not rational, to try to think from their point of view would be irrational.

LOL



Manny