I appreciate Duane and Dan’s persistence — and Stan and Eric’s. There are now 47 comments, I believe a record at DaytonOS, in an extended conversation that started with, “The Creation Museum’s Shocking Indoctrination Effort Reminds — Only The Authority Of Reason Can Save Us.” Duane and Dan, it is clear, are determined to believe the literal words of the Bible, regardless that such belief leads to such conclusions as the world is 6000 years old, dinosaurs and humans were at one time peaceful contemporaries, and that all of humanity was destroyed in 2500 BC — except a group of seven.
The “Young Earth” creationists demonstrate an astounding willingness to suspend the authority of their own reason — and give the control of their own reason to an outside authority. “Young Earth” creationists offer a breathtaking landscape of irrational, unscientific, impossible concepts — all derived, they say, from a literal reading of scripture. Wow. They give themselves willingly to indoctrination. Why?
Dan wrote yesterday, “Eric, what might this user’s manual for your immortal soul be? Is it the Bible that tells us God created the universe in 6 days, and also tells us how to live and get along with each other, and how to get to heaven? I wonder what the evolutionists think will happen to them after they die?”
Maybe it is true that how we deal with this question — what happens to us after we die? — determines a lot of our behaviors and beliefs. “Young earth” creationists are driven to advocate zany beliefs, in part, it seems, because they see holding the line concerning a literal understanding of Genesis as an important affirmation of a whole system of belief that assures them they know what will happen to them when they die. I’m thinking of a depressing book, I read some time ago, The Denial Of Death, that develops a theory, and makes a strong case, that human belief and human behavior, in general, is motivated by a denial of death.
Study of topics dealing with life after death and “end times,” I’m thinking, hold more interest for Bible literalists than topics dealing with Genesis. I imagine that Doug and Dan have some pretty specific ideas about what a literal reading of the Bible reveals about the “end times” — the return of Christ, Armageddon, etc. — and, I imagine, they are as uncompromising in their view of the “end times” as they are uncompromising in their view of the beginning time.
I’m bothered that some Biblical literalists, TV evangelists, — because they believe in a literal return of Christ — seem to glory in the prospect that the world soon might unravel into incredible chaos and war. A “Left Behind” world view has some amazing implications, but the idea is that, in the end, through a supernatural intervention, Jesus will save true believers and take them to heaven. The fact that there are religious fanatics in America, TV preachers, who seem gleeful about the notion of the “end times” is pretty disturbing. The emphasis of the teaching of such fanatics is not one that encourages Christians to work for peace and justice, but one that glories in the fact that Christians are ultimately “saved” and, as the world crumbles, they will be rescued from the mess and chaos of the world. Bad theology creates a mindset that can lead to horrendous consequences.
How we think about heaven, about “end times,” does matter, because our views of human destiny and human purpose have a profound effect on our behavior and choices in the present.
I found an old Time Magazine with an interesting article — Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop — in which Bishop N.T. “Tom” Wright explains his view of what the Bible actually teaches about heaven. The article says that Bishop Wright’s views are usually considered conservative and, as an example, cites Wright’s 2003 book, “The Resurrection of the Son of God,” in which Wright forcefully defends his belief in a literal Resurrection.
Wright believes that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and Wright believes in immortality, but, as Wright understands the Bible, heaven is not what most Christians envision. Bishop Wright published an extensive essay on the topic in Christianity Today: “Heaven Is Not Our Home: The bodily resurrection is the good news of the gospel—and thus our social and political mandate.”
ABC News has a well produced video about Bishop Wright’s understanding of heaven and can be seen here.
This is from the Time Magazine article:
“Wright: If people think that our world, our cosmos, doesn’t matter much, who cares what we do with that? Much of “traditional” Christianity gives the impression that God has these rather arbitrary rules about how you have to behave, and if you disobey them you go to hell, rather than to heaven. What the New Testament really says is God wants you to be a renewed human being helping him to renew his creation, and his resurrection was the opening bell. And when he returns to fulfill the plan, you won’t be going up there to him, he’ll be coming down here.
“TIME: That’s very different from, say, the vision put out in the Left Behind books.
“Wright: Yes. If there’s going to be an Armageddon, and we’ll all be in heaven already or raptured up just in time, it really doesn’t matter if you have acid rain or greenhouse gases prior to that. Or, for that matter, whether you bombed civilians in Iraq. All that really matters is saving souls for that disembodied heaven.”
Well, 24% of Americans also don’t know what country we fought in the revolutionary war. =)
We’re not known for our general smarts for a reason.
Why are so many Christians obsessed with death? WHO CARES what happens after death? Live in the present, be a good person and a good neighbor, make the world a better place than you found it, and use the brain you believe god gave ya. Stop living only for the day you die and get sent somewhere else.
Did the devil have a say in the design of the brain so that he could have power over us and our rational thought capabilities? What then would be the difference between God & Satan? That’s to say they are equal, one goode & one bad, instead of God being God, and Satan representing the seperation from “him”
Mehh.. How lame.
The Biblical book of Revelation is believed to have been written during times of high anxiety for Christians during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero (“666, the number of the beast” is believed to be a numerological expression of his name). In any case its colorful imagery of horsemen, beasts and great whores has resonated throughout history in times of high anxiety, as does its conclusion of God’s eventual triumph over evil and the coming of the New Jerusalem where fear, pain and death do not exist. There is no doubt that we live in times of high anxiety and like the legendary frog in the pot who does not realize he is being cooked, we may not be conscious of the extent that uncertainty and anxiety dominate our psyches in times of insecurity and change. When this anxiety is empowered it can show itself in dark and dangerous ways. Certainly death is the ultimate insecurity and in many ways it is more threatening now than it may have been in the past, where it was more a part of everyday existence and where religion was more dominant in human affairs. I agree that much of our way of dealing with death is denial.
We may ask whether the present reaction to the health care debate shows evidence for this, as it poses threatening change and perhaps confrontation with death, and the emotions involved are being validated and stoked by segments of the opinion media (talk radio, cable tv talk and the internet) where they are unchallenged.
Anyway the views described for Bishop Wright reflect another Biblical approach that also ultimately conquers fear. Both of these views are present in the Bible (similarly in other religions also) and their seeming conflicts are difficult to evaluate and process emotionally. Some believe this explains why Christianity has been so successful over the centuries, in that different parts work for different people at different times. Others wonder whether this makes Christianity so seemingly ineffective in modifying human behavior, and a secret to failure as well as success.
I suppose it could be as simple
as does it matter what the truth is.
thanks for the thoughts
The “Old Earth” creationists and evolutionists demonstrate an astounding willingness to suspend the authority of their own reason — and give the control of their own reason to an outside authority. “Old Earth” creationists and evolutionists offer a breathtaking landscape of irrational, unscientific, impossible concepts — all derived, they say, from “science” so called. Wow. They give themselves willingly to indoctrination. Why?
“irrational, unscientific, impossible concepts”
http://www.cartage.org.lb/…/Prokaryotes.htm
Note: This is the “basic” structure. The cell is far more complex than the illustration.
The “Old Earth” creationist rejects the literal words of Moses in Exodus 20 and Jesus in Matthew 19 and believes God created something like this cell millions and millions of years ago and then through millions and millions of years of death and pain and mutations, man came on the scene.
The evolutionist believes that the hundreds of bio-chemical machines, necessary for this cell, randomly formed and then somehow all came together and enclosed themselves in a membrane and started to live and reproduce. Then through millions and millions of years of mindless random mutations we end up with the diversity we observe today.
It would be possible for God directed mutations to result in new complex structures in organisms but it has never been observed that a mindless random mutation resulted in an increase in complex structures in organisms. We have to suspend reason and accept that by faith. Faith in “science” so called.
Oh no! I messed this up. The text (possibly written by a scientist) with the illustration says, “evolution of the prokaryotic cell has been fairly stagnant over its two billion year lifespan”. I guess we will have to start over with the eukaryotic cell, which is even more complex.
Mike, you stated, “destroyed in 2500 BC — except a group of seven.” The total in the group was ”eight”.
I do not get overly concerned about the details of life after death. The Bible teaches the afterlife will be good for the righteous and unpleasant for the unrighteous. I am very concerned about the details on how to be judged righteous. Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”, and in John 12:48, “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.”
To reject the words of Jesus in Matthew 19 concerning the creation of man is not a good thing.
Duane — I would like to follow the link you provided, http://www.cartage.org.lb/…/Prokaryotes.htm — but I couldn’t get it to work. And thanks for correcting my error about the number of humans saved on the Ark — OK, eight, not seven.
try this one
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Zoology/AboutZoology/SymbioticTheory/Prokaryotes/Prokaryotes.htm
Google does some strange things with links sometimes.
“To reject the words of Jesus in Matthew 19 concerning the creation of man is not a good thing”
This is a good example of why selecting Biblical sound bites as proof texts is a dead end.
Matthew 19 has several episodes. First Jesus has a confrontation with his rivals the Pharisees who ask him if its ok to divorce. Jesus says “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning made them male and female.” After a couple of more quotes, we get the well known wedding line that what God has joined together let no man put asunder. So the Pharisees ask why Moses allowed divorce. Because of the hardness of your hearts, says Jesus, but at the beginning it was not so. So anyone who divorces his wife (Matthew says “except for unchastity” which Mark’s version does not) commits adultery.
The Pharisees then argue some more about whether anyone should marry and Jesus eventually says “Not everyone can except this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs that have been so from birth, there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”
Then children come to Jesus, annoying his disciples. Jesus says to let the children come to him, because it is to these that the kingdom belongs.
Next comes the “rich young man” who wants to know what he must do for eternal life. Jesus list some commandments. “I followed these.” Jesus says, “if you want to be perfect, sell your possessions, give away the money to the poor and follow me.” The young man goes away grieving because he had many possessions. Jesus then says “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle that for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” The disciples ask who can be saved. Jesus says with God all thongs are possible. Peter asks what the disciples will have for leaving their old lives and following Jesus. Jesus says they will sit on twelve thrones and judge everyone else, and if they left their homes and families they will receive a hunderedfold and receive eternal life. “But many who were last will be first and the first last.”
So what is/are the meaning(s) of Matthew 19?
1. Christians should not get divorced.
2. Christians should give away their possessions.
3. Christians should leave their jobs and families.
4. Christians should value children and childlike qualities.
5. Christians should “make themselves eunuchs (castrate themselves) for the kingdom of heaven.” Or perhaps only those to whom that is given should do that.
6. Christians should believe the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution didn’t happen because Jesus says so.
I assume Duane is picking on the line “at the beginning he made them male and female” talking about divorce. However there is no context in which Jesus is talking about evolution or what the age of the earth is. This an attempt to create a proof text that just isn’t there. And certainly people in our age have enough trouble dealing with the other versus that are clearly square in our faces (divorce and money aredominant issues in our culture. Eunuchs fortunately are less so.) We can argue about whether our society is different from Jesus’ because divorced women are not the penniless outcasts they were then, or because we have this really great capitalist system that rewards the meritorious entrepreneur and punishes the scammer, so if he were here he would say something different, tell us to go for it or something. Probably not, on the latter at least, and maybe not the former either.
Anyway it is hard to believe that people who don’t accept Matthew 19 as proof that the earth is 6000 years old are ” suspending the authority of their own reason — and give the control of their own reason to an outside authority” following a “breathtaking landscape of irrational, unscientific, impossible concepts” instead of just taking Jesus’ word for it. Reason says that the earth and life are very old. It says that the early Genesis stories are about explaining life and God in mythical and poetic ways, not about dating the earth or about debunking science that was unknown to their authors. If you want to take Jesus seriously, care for the vulnerable, disconnect your heart from wealth and possessions, you can do it. You can believe in an intelligent designer or not, as that appears to be a faith statement until someone figures out a way to prove it (It’s likely impossible to prove the absence of one). You don’t need to be in denial in the face of lots of evidence.
Stan,
You have done a great job summarizing Matthew 19. Let’s evaluate the points through the authority of human reasoning.
1. Divorce is good if I think it’s good.
2. It might be good for me to help the needy but it would probably be better for me if someone else did it.
3. Jobs and families are more important than giving any consideration to my Creator.
4. It is good to pull a baby’s head out its mother’s body and insert a surgical instrument into the base of its skull.
5. Promiscuous sex is a good thing. So is rape as long as I get to do the raping. It gives me the opportunity to pass on my superior genes.
6. We should believe the Earth is billions of years old and evolution happened because some guy who is not the Son of God says it happened. (By the way, the Bible teaches that Jesus did the work of creation (John 1). That makes Jesus an eyewitness of what really happened. )
Okay, get your human reasoning hats on and analyze some empirical data for me.
http://www.physorg.com/news168086595.html
Is it rational, scientific, and possible to conclude the T.Rex remains are much, much less than 68 million years old?
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03211.htm
Is it rational, scientific, and possible to conclude that diamonds, containing C-14, are less than 50,000 years old?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/radiodating.asp
When rocks of a known age (10 years) are dated at between 340,000 and 2.8 million years old is it rational, scientific, and possible to conclude the dating method is inaccurate?
Ameya states, “be a good person and a good neighbor, make the world a better place than you found it,”. The Biblical, creationist, worldview defines for us what it is to be a good person and a good neighbor. Otherwise it’s every man for himself. In the evolutionist worldview if one believes he can make the world a better place by passing his superior genes on to as many offspring as possible, forcibly or consensually, who could argue with him?
I hope you kept your human reasoning hats on. Is it good to give a woman the choice of terminating an unwanted fetus because I know if I were a woman I would want that choice…or…is it good not to kill unborn babies because if I were an unborn baby I would not want to be killed? Is it good for a prostitute to work hard at her trade and make a good living for her family?
If truddick is still out there, here is the correct spelling for an alleged transitional fossil you referred to in the other thread. Ambulocetus
For any of you wishing to see for yourselves if a creationist is capable of forming rational, scientific, and possible concepts, check this out. It is rather long.
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
Near the end of the above mentioned article the author alludes to a future article that would address successful predictions made by creation scientists. For those of you who may be interested here is a link to an article that covers that subject.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions
Hello Duane,
It takes a great plank in the eye to ignore the literal facts.
Such as: Genesis, chapters 1 and 2, cannot be literally true because they contradict one another regarding the order in which man, animals, and woman were created.
We cannot tell for sure what living things on Noah’s (mythical) ark survived the (mythical) flood because the Bible again provides two different accounts–Genesis 6 says 2 of each animal, Genesis 7 says 7 of every clean animal and 2 of every unclean–so you might not be so haughty when Stan doesn’t bother to count the humans correctly.
Of course, you reject reason. Which means that you can continue to insist that the Bible is literally true and inerrant even when it proves itself allegorical and misleading.
It’s your privilege to continue to try to insist on the truth of what you say, but your own preferred resource impeaches you.
Most of the links Duane provided are to issues that are debunked by non-creationist scientists. One site that is very thorough if not necessarily totally linked to the underlying studies http://books.google.com/books?id=Ul17OcWncrAC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=creationism+earths+magnetic+field&source=bl&ots=OP8qmF0FiA&sig=_daQut9nTMqmxCZJJxi30vL_TuU&hl=en&ei=-PGGStTBNJX4Ncf7rM0E&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=&f=false
One issue is whether there are changes in the things that are used to measure time, such as atomic vibrations and radioactive decay and light speed and the like, which are assumed to be constant, that would undermine the reliability of studies. This faith statement actually is supposedly a problem for the creation scientist who extrapolate from changes in the earth’s magnetic field that the earth is young. This one, we are told, changes all the time, and even “flips” occasionally so magnetic north can become magnetic south.
You can ask what time even means in the absence of some constant, since years are revolutions of the earth around the sun and days are rotations of the earth to the sun (non Biblical literalists ask how in Genesis there are three days before the sun was created) but we now know the earth and sun are tiny pieces not central to a huge universe, even though they are vitally important to us.
In any case, even whatever uncertainty there might be about this can not possibly get us to the Biblical view of a 6000 year old universe measured by Biblical geneologies.
I think Duane says it all, and that the issue is theology and not science, when he says (in order to criticize) “We should believe the Earth is billions of years old and evolution happened because some guy who is not the Son of God says it happened.” There is the issue. Some believe the only way to believe in the Bible is to take the parts least suited to be taken literally, literally. As the bumper sticker says “God said it, I believe it and that’s the end of it.”
Genesis chapter two is not a chronology of creation. That was given in chapter one. The man in 2:7 was made on the sixth day (1:27, 31). The trees in 2:9 were made on the third day (1:12-13). The beasts in 2:19 were made on the sixth day (1:24,25,31). The birds in 2:19 were made on the fifth day (1:21-23).
Noah took one pair (male and female) of every kind of animal and seven each of the clean animals on the ark. How the seven were paired up, we are not told other than there was at least one male and one female. Some of each of the clean animals and birds were offered as a sacrifice when Noah left the ark (8:20). Had there been only the one pair of a clean kind it would have been all over for that kind. Notice also that Noah did not have to go out and get the animals. They came to him 7:9. Whatever God wanted on the ark He put on the ark. After the flood God allowed Noah and his family to eat animals (9:3) so having the extras on the ark would have been a good idea.
As I said before, if you want a list of contradictions and discrepancies in the Bible there are a bunch of them on the Internet. If you want to see resolutions of alleged contradictions and discrepancies in the Bible you can find that on the Internet, too. I suggest looking at both.
It was Mike Bock who had a group of seven saved from the flood. I never said he was wrong. All I said was,”The total in the group was ”eight”. I’m sorry if I seemed haughty. I was trying to be polite. Mike thanked me.
A day is one rotation of the Earth. The sun is only a convenient reference point.
There is a lot of debunking going on both sides of the origins issue. That is what science should be, an open exchange of ideas. Those rejecting the creationist explanation must realize there is no scientific explanation for the origin of life. Darwin did not explain. Gould cannot explain it. The belief that a naturalistic explanation will be found some day is a matter of faith, not science. There is also no naturalistic explanation for the existence of intelligence. There is no such thing as good and evil or right or wrong in the evolutionist’s naturalistic worldview. The creationist can explain where intelligence came from. The creationist can explain where the concept of good and evil, and right and wrong, came from. I ask again, which worldview better explains the world we all live in?
Genesis chapter 2 has its own chronology of creation that is different from Chapter 1. Man 2,7 is created before the trees, 2, 9 and the birds 2, 19. The Bible is too big and varied to be consistent, so literalists have devised interpretations designed to resolve the problems. Like saying a chronology is not a chronology.
There are things science can not do. It can not explain many “why” questions, which things like early Genesis try to do. Mostly it depends on things being measured, so it has problems with things that can not be measured, or repeated, or defined. So it will have trouble proving the existence or non existence of God. It may or may not be able to prove an origin of life that did not require supernatural intervention. One problem for religion is that when people use the concept of God to explain things we don’t understand, and then we find other explanations, our view of God has to retreat. And it is not clear to the extent that selfishness, altruism and taking advantage of others are mixed or give survival advantage in people, so where good and evil fit in to evolution, if anywhere, is unresolved. Similarly intelligence seems to be more a “I know it when I see it” quality, hard enough to measure in a human standardized test, let alone explain its origin, or attribute existence to its presence in a God.
The problem of evil is actually pretty vexing in the Bible as well. Adam and Eve eat fruit of knowledge of good and evil, and soon in the next story thereafter Cain does evil and kills his brother, and lots of evil happens afterwards. However evil is not really explained. Cain seems to envy God’s unexplained favor of Abel, and is told “sin lies in wait for you, but you must master it.” Later in Job “the Satan” or adversary talks God into killing Job’s children and inflicting sores on him. After some speculative argument with others on the nature of adversity, Job challenges God and God essentially shouts him down by pointing out Gods superior power. Job repents, and God gives him some more children to replace the ones that were killed. Lots of evildoers appear later from Pharoah to Ahab to Haman, and evil may culminate with the crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the priests, Romans and people in Jerusalem, with the disciples running away. However Jesus rises from the dead, and the visionary author of Revelation sees Satan and his henchmen being thrown into a fiery lake to be tormented forever, and a New Jerusalem without evil replacing the world as we know it. While all of this has lead to lots of theology and speculating as to the source of evil, (from God? from Satan? Where did he get it from? And where did he come from? From the craftiness of the snake? from Adam and Eve? from the nature of things if God withdraws for whatever reason? From the dark side of the Force? from animal behavior of our ancestors in evolution?) we really don’t know that either, even as we see it seemingly become more effective and powerful in our world. While the Bible may say that evil will ultimately fail, it also posits a could be lot of time before that happens. So the “problem of evil” remains just that, no matter how literally you take scripture.
Mostly we know the frailty and incompleteness of people. That suggests that all of our thoughts, our theology, our science, is also likely to be frail and incomplete. Which doesn’t mean that they are all equally valid. Some pretty clearly aren’t. But it means the answers to big questions are likely beyond us, and that is a caveat to keep in mind.
I have ordered a copy of the book Stan linked to. I do not want to make arguments that have been thoroughly and unequivocally refuted by operational science. The writer of this book is the same writer being refuted in the rather long article I referred to above.
God’s favor of Abel is not completely explained in Genesis. Hebrews 11:4 adds, “By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain…” Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17). Apparently Abel did what God told him to do. Cain did something else.
re:creation, Keil and Delitzsch, in their “Commentary on the Old Testament” state,
“Gen 2:5-6
The account in vv. 5-25 is not a second, complete and independent history of the creation, nor does it contain mere appendices to the account in Gen 1; but it describes the commencement of the history of the human race.”
Keil and Delitzsch are well respected 19th century scholars.
The people who originally received the Genesis account did not see conflicting creation stories. They respected it and protected it for what they believed it to be, the inspired word of God. It was hundreds if not thousands of years later that the supposed conflicts were discovered. The true conflict is not between Genesis 1&2 but between Genesis and the evolutionist’s naturalistic worldview.
How does the evolutionist explain the concept of honesty from his worldview?, the worldview that everything is the product of time and chance and random occurrences. Does an evolutionist have reasons to be honest? Does an evolutionist believe there are any substantial consequences to being dishonest? Does an evolutionist have reasons to even treat his fellow man with dignity and respect? In a Biblical creationist’s worldview these things can be understood.
Let’s change gears a bit, from science to philosophy. I’m a 24 year old married man. If I believe in evolution, I can go do whatever makes me happy. If I want to, I can rape any attractive girl I see, I can murder anyone I don’t like, I can steal from my neighbors to make my life easier, I can scam old people out of money so I can be rich, and beat my children because they annoy me, and as long as I don’t get caught by the authorities, who can tell me what I’m doing is wrong? I do all of the above mentioned things because they make me happy and make me feel good. And as long as the law never catches me, I will never be punished for ruining the lives of all the people I harmed. And who can tell me I’m wrong? I came from the same single cell as that woman I raped, but because I “evolved” into a smarter and stronger being, I get my way and never suffer a negative consequence for it.
But, if I believe God created the universe, and set up a system of standards and rules that I have to live by, even if the authorities on this earth never catch me, I will still suffer punishment in Hell for the sins I have committed.
Using logic, human reasoning, and critical thinking, which sounds like a better world to live in? The world where we can do anything we want as long as we don’t get caught by the police, or the world where we are held to a standard by an authority that catches everything, and no evil goes unpunished?
How does the evolutionist explain the concept of honesty from his worldview?
Sociobiology, i.e. Romans 1:18-22 for atheists. Briefly, well-governed societies defeat and enslave less capable societies–with predictable consequences for the enslaved…
… world where we are held to a standard by an authority that catches everything, and no evil goes unpunished
In such a world, what is the role of government (including public education) in reminding the wayward that “no evil goes unpunished?”
Dan, your view of human nature is pretty depressing. You seem to see humans as hopelessly evil, full of original sin, and you seem to believe that, by nature, humans find happiness in doing evil — harming and disrespecting others. You believe that without the fear of punishment to keep them in line, humans, in general, would do great evil.
The question of how to view human nature is a big question that has a lot of implications. You can’t have a very thorough philosophy of education, for example, unless you’ve thought out how you view human nature. Your view of human nature is the view that, in fact, guides a lot of educational practices. The idea of original sin is a foundational concept of a lot of educational practices that sees children as terribly flawed and in need of correction, and sees the process of education, therefore, as a process of indoctrination and training. It’s a view that sees a child as an empty vessel in need of filling by an outside authority.
Dan, you are asking your readers to imagine, “a world where we are held to a standard by an authority that catches everything, and no evil goes unpunished,” as if such a world would be a good thing, and creating such a world would be a wonderful accomplishment. But, I think George Orwell already has shown some good effort in imagining such a world and the vision he gives hardly seems a world in which we would want to live.
So, a belief in a literal understanding of the Genesis story also involves a belief in the concept of the humanity’s great Fall, and a belief in the curse of original sin coming from that Fall. I disagree with your conclusion that by nature, humans find happiness in doing evil. And I don’t know that such a view is even Biblical. But, this raises the philosophical question: What is happiness and how is happiness achieved?
But, regardless, it is not a question of philosophy of whether, or not, the earth is 6000 years old. The age of the earth is a question of science, not a question of belief or religion.
The age of the earth is a question of science, not a question of belief or religion.
But for Dan and Duane, the validity of science is a question of philosophy/theology. And their viewpoint is entitled to appropriate deference in public education.
BTW, did you hear the SETI lady diss “priests and philosophers” on Diane Rehm today? As if promoting science requires attacking religion…
Again the real issues are the theological ones.
We had a member of our adult Sunday school class who frequently reminded us that one of the most decent human beings he knew was an atheist. So what’s the matter with all the Christians he would ask.
That is probably more in accord with reality than the person imagined by Dan. Perhaps in a culture of criminal gangs you might find such a person. He may not live long before he is killed by someone similar. Basically that is not a way most people want to live, and most people don’t. The part about scamming old people out of money may be pretty prevalent in our deregulated economic system, leading to the mortgage crisis. But who admires Madoff, once he was found out. Evolution-wise people may have survived and thrived as much by cooperation as by dog eat dog competition and violence. We have spent 8 years in Iraq learning the limits of violence.
The main thing that makes people believe that Christianity is worth following is not fire and brimstone, or stories of ancient miracles, or creation stories which if taken literally fly in the face of science. It is that Jesus describes and models how people could and should live, that this is what God intends, and while we do not experience God through our sense, we experience God through this sort of life. This life seems better than being the CEO of Goldman Sachs, or leader of some violent gang, or some powerful political leader or media star. Now we may suspect that belief in America is more wide than deep, and that people hedge their bets about wealth and power. However the Christian model contains much of what most people aspire to , whatever their religious traditions are.
A society where no evil goes unpunished probably doesn’t have a presumption of innocence in its criminal justice system. And probably evil gets done by people wearing badges. If it also has slavery, it is certainly a contradiction in terms.
If the validity of science is a question of theology, then they can believe in theology and not science. It is pretty hard not to believe in science though.
The most sensible understanding of Genesis is that 1- 2-4 and 2 are different stories by different authors, concerned with different things. The first creation story, believed to have been written or edited by priestly (P) writers after the Babylonian exile, who were concerned with strengthening the rituals that held the community together. It deals with God’s majesty in creation and also points to the 7th day Sabbath. Chapter 2, the Adam and Eve story, which uses the name Yahweh for God (abbreviated J in German), really cares more about the theological issues raised there, about death, separation from God, the hardness of life and peoples’ unwillingness to do as they are told. It introduces the man (Adam in Hebrew) at the start of the story, since this is the point of the story. Later editors took both valued stories and edited them together, being less concerned than our time is about details that are contradictory. These are stories designed to explain our situation and should be considered as such. People then did not understand modern astronomy and why the sea and stars and sky look as they do. There is no reason to be bound by their efforts. Probably no one really is since the theological elements were resolved years ago. However some of us do struggle with evolution, particularly of humans, because of the theological problems it raises.
I was looking at the book based on the PBS series on Evolution. It posits that the two species of Chimpanzees (the second is called bonobos or pygmy chimps) have very different social structures, with chimps being male dominated, violent and often engaging in war, sexual violence and infanticide, while bonobos are female dominated, nonviolent but highly sexual. If our DNA is very close to theirs and evolution says we have recent (by evolution standards, maybe 4-6 million years) common ancestors, we have to at least think about whether their social behavior has any significance for us. If God made us separately, in whatever Genesis order, or even intervened in some non-Genesis way to separate us in evolution from other creatures, then their behavior need have no significance, which is probably a more comfortable position for most of us. Another idea is whether germs evolve faster than we do, so that widespread use of antibacterial soaps or antibiotic drugs in food may be a bad idea. That is counterintuitive if less threatening. Evolution thinking is challenging. Christian thinking is too. People are not inclined to love their enemies or give things away without getting something in return.
Dan, your argument is what’s called a “straw man”.
Human beings are more than capable of developing social systems of ethical behavior; they did it for thousands of years before your religion was founded.
Please quit demeaning people of other faiths, especially when you have no facts to support your opinion.
The point of my argument is, who can say any of those horrible things are wrong? If you believe in evolution, where does you concept of good and evil come from? If humans are all just the result of random mutations, who gets to decide what is good and what is evil? If I evolved from the same single cell as you, and I decide it is good to rape women but you say its wrong, which one of us is right? If evolution is true, my opinions have just as much authority as your’s, so who are you to tell me that raping women is wrong? The argument can be used that it’s illegal in the US. So does that mean if we change the laws to say rape is legal, that makes it morally right? In your evolutionary world, you can have no basis for right and wrong, because each persons concept of wright and wrong was put there by some random mutation, and one person’s concept of right or wrong can be any more correct than another’s.
“Please quit demeaning people of other faiths, especially when you have no facts to support your opinion.”
So you admit that evolution is a “faith”, because the only thing I am doing is demeaning evolution, because it is not scientifically correct.
Stan and truddick, I don’t know your background, but lets assume you each have a daughter. Someone rapes your daughter and is never convicted of a crime, PROVE to me that what he did was morally wrong, and tell me where your concept of morality came from.
If you believe in evolution, where does you concept of good and evil come from?
Suppose a Catholic felt it was important for Fundamentalists to support public education. Since public schools don’t subscribe to Catholic social teaching, advancing the concerns of the Fundamentalist would require the Catholic to invoke secular ethics, e.g. John Rawls.
evolution … is not scientifically correct.
A view not shared by most Christians. Consider:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-11-pope-evolution-creation_N.htm?csp=34
Dan:
Quit talking about my hypothetical daughter. I can set up self-serving arguments as well as you; I am resisting the urge to do so.
I have my own sense of morality which comes from a mix of Kant, Locke, and James.
I will claim that my own behavior, morally speaking, is superior to that of many who professed Christianity. I think I behave better than several Popes, for example.
My own faith position (freethought, humanist, atheist) is up for debate. So is evolutionary theory. However, those who seek to promote the false doctrine of Biblical Creation are arguing an invalid hypothesis, since the source of their doctrine (the Bible) contradicts itself.
Also because the evidence contradicts the hypothesis. We have historical documents that demonstrate that the pre-Sumerian civilization went back to 9000 years ago, and the Chinese civilization to 12,000 years or so. Thus, the 6000 year figure (which, incidentally, came originally from the medieval monk Dionysius Exiguus, not from the Bible) is contradicted rather decisively.
Suggestion: re-adjust your belief system to conform with the evidence.
Dan asks the nihilism question. What tells us that there is anything of value? Rape is an example, it is destructive and I am sure that like most people if a loved one was raped I would be outraged, angered and want some sort of retribution. Rape victims may never get over the experience of violation. However that does not answer Dan’s question.
Rape is an act of demeaning and dominating. It is often done by men directed at other men, with women being the means to accomplish this. This has often happened in wars, where after a victory the enemies’ women are raped. in fact in some places rape is still used as a weapon because of its destruction of the adversaries’ social fabric. In prison men rape other men to establish domination. It may matter how important this domination is compared to other things. At Abu Ghirab, ordinary Americans sexually humiliated Moslem prisoners, as part of strategy that this domination would “soften them up” for interrogation. In the post 911 emotional state, and with perceived approval from the top and throughout American society, this apparently seemed to be appropriate. In my early life as a minor functionary in the military justice system, I remember a trial of a US soldier accused of raping two German women before a military jury of officers. It was clear while doing this was not ok, it was not the worst thing in the world either.
Other rapes seem to come from a sense of entitlement to dominate, Sometimes men seem to feel entitled to sex from women (often of lower classes. Masters raped slaves for example, and we have these incidents where young men in colleges of privilege “behave badly” with women of less privilege. A recent public radio program discussed a culture in South Africa where young men found rape acceptable. These men assumed the women didn’t mind or that it was a good thing. People who worked against this pointed out that these men had been subjected to humilation and loss of manhood when dominated in the apartheid system.
Other times this happens within relationships. Sometimes this involves miscommunication of whether she really means to stop. However there have been serious discussions of whether rape can happen within a marriage. Again in these issues there is a sense that there is entitlement.
Religious texts are not always helpful. The Hindu epic poem Mahabharata has one of its heroic warriors endorse the idea that the most valued wife is one taken by force. The Bible is not always much better. Lot, for example, offers his virgin daughters to the men of Sodom “to do with them as you please, only do nothing to (the angel visitors) for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” Later in Numbers, Judges and Deuteronomy, the Israelites rape the women of defeated peoples, often seemingly with God’s approval. Still later David’s son Amnon rapes his half sister Tamar, who he loves but can not have, at least not without David’s permission. Her brother Absolom tells her “he is your brother and do not take this to heart” so she becomes “a desolate woman.” Absolom does take it to heart however and after a few years murders Amnon while he is drunk. In these societies relationships between males were what mattered.
So how do we know that rape is morally wrong? Is it only because God loves all people and values their integrity? That is certainly true as Jesus interprets God. Can people love people and value their integrity without, or even in spite of, at least these parts of the Bible? Even if evolution happened? I find it hard to say no. Do people have to love people and value their integrity even if they are Biblical literalists? They do not. The strongest arguments of atheists are that the Bible at times does not describe reality as we know it, that we can not presently prove God’s existence by scientific means, and the frequent wrongdoing done throughout history in the name of religion. These can not be denied. They also are not conclusive. Much about morality remains unclear and mysterious, and people of good will and integrity can disagree. However nihilism does not seem to work in life, nor does the Bible or any text necessarily answer all questions. In the gospels we see a continuing expansion of acceptance and a turning on its head of human expectations. The Samaritan is good and the priest and levite are not. The last are first, the poor are raised and the rich are sent away empty. And in the kingdom all are loved and no one gets raped.
T.ruddick writes,
“Also because the evidence contradicts the hypothesis. We have historical documents that demonstrate that the pre-Sumerian civilization went back to 9000 years ago, and the Chinese civilization to 12,000 years or so. Thus, the 6000 year figure (which, incidentally, came originally from the medieval monk Dionysius Exiguus, not from the Bible) is contradicted rather decisively.”
Would you please share with us the “historical documents”?
How did the monk come up with 6000 years? The way I saw it done was by using the ages and genealogies recorded in the Bible.
We all understand rape to be wrong because our Creator-installed moral compass tells us rape is wrong. That is also how non-Judea-Christian societies have functioned reasonably well. The people of Nineveh were neither Jews nor Christians but Jonah’s message to them was to repent. There was a God-given standard of behavior they were accountable to. Atheists for the most part are well behaved people but that good behavior is inconsistent with their worldview, which neither demands good behavior nor defines what good or bad behavior is.
Duane:
I am not going to continue to donate my time to your education. If you need a history course, Sinclair has several good ones to start with.
Yes, that midieval monk used Biblical geneologies to calculate his historical timeframes. Of course, since the Bible more than once has geneologies which contradict one another–and since the very creation stories contradict one another–no properly critical thinker would use it as literal fact.
And you seem to think that atheists acting good is antithetical to their worldview. But secular humanists have a well-defined worldview, so all you’re demonstrating is a spectacularly myopic prejudice.
If you think having an authoritarian theistic world-view is what makes people moral, then please explain the hyposcrisies of Haggert, Swaggart, Sanford, Ensign, Stevens, Vitter, Craig, Baker, and so many other leaders of the evangelical family values contingent? If your leading lights are so incapable of following their own values, then what conduct might we expect from the rank and file?
I’ll tell you–fundamentalists have a higher rate of divorce, abortion, and STD than us atheistic humanists.
I have seen many who used religion to good ends and who were inspired by it to live outstanding lives. I would not argue against them. But I have seen too many other religious-types who use it as an excuse for depravity: Tim McVeigh, Osama bin Laden, Jonestown, the sex abuse among the leaders of both Roman Catholics and Hare Krishnas.
By contrast, I have never head of a serious secular humanist who committed an act of terrorism, or who behaved in a way contradictory to her/his personally professed standards of sexual conduct. If you can identify even one, then I’d be grateful for having my aura of perfection properly mortalized.
The latest edition of Scientific American has a series of articles on up to date work on the origins of the universe, life and the mind. http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammag/
The life part is particularly interesting on how various small pieces of the life puzzle can come together under conditions that could have occurrred naturally. The whole puzzle is not complete, as they admit, but we are talking about exceptionally large periods of time. The authors seem to believe that it will be solved some day. Admittedly that is a faith statement that Duane and Dan are free to disagree with.
The Book of Jonah is pretty clearly a parable, a story making a religious point, rather than history. Ninevah was the capital of the Assyrian Empire, which destroyed and carried away the Kingdom of Israel (10 of the 12 tribes), only to be destroyed in turn by the Medes and Babylonians. It was one of the world’s largest cities in its time. It is pretty clearly a device in the Jonah story, perhaps the equivalent of a story today where everyone in Teheran or Beijing repents. The most interesting part of the story is that after Jonah finally persuades the Ninevans to repent, he is disappointed that God isn’t going to destroy them. God has to set him straight.
“Atheists for the most part are well behaved people but that good behavior is inconsistent with their worldview, which neither demands good behavior nor defines what good or bad behavior is.” This suggests that their worldview is actually different from you think. There were of course atheist evildoers, Stalin for instance. Perhaps the issue is that people who value power, wealth and similar things will do evil regardless of their religious perspective. Or that those who confuse what they want to do with what is good, can do evil without recognizing it, particularly if they think they are on the side of God or history or both.
When someone refers to historical documents in a discussion it is reasonable to ask that those documents be specified. I doubt Sinclair has a course described as “Historical Documents that Truddick refers to on Dayton OS”. I know of a document referred to the Sumerian King’s List but that can’t be it because it contains a flood story and was written after said flood. In the interest of education here is a link to an article discussing it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/sumerian.asp
I wonder if there are any Chinese historical documents that contain a flood story. Some believe the flood story is contained in modern Chinese characters.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/388.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/26/feedback-chinese-characters
Secular humanists may have a well defined worldview but when humanists define right and wrong or suggest anyone should adhere to a moral standard they are borrowing from the creationist’s worldview. There is nothing in the evolutionary worldview, that we are just rearranged pondscum, which remotely suggests morality.
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, myself included. The Bible predicts hypocrisy. I don’t consider the ones listed, Swaggart, etc. as my “leading lights”.
I suppose bad behavior is limited to non-“serious” secular humanists.
I don’t know if the Columbine shooters were secular humanists but,
“Not widely publicized, he says, is that one of the student killers was wearing a T-shirt that read ‘Natural Selection’. Based on the killers’ own Web site, Gino says we now know that they were deeply committed to evolution. They believed that if they shot or killed people, they would be simply scattering their molecules.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i3/geraci.asp
The higher divorce rate among fundamentalist may be related to a higher marriage rate. If a humanist couple, living together, unmarried, go their separate ways it would not count as a divorce. With that said, the divorce, abortion, and STD rate among fundamentalists is shameful.
How hard could it be to make, “her/his personally professed standards of sexual conduct”, match his/her personal behavior. If you decided to behave a different way, you need only to change your professed standards.
If the Book of Jonah is “pretty clearly a parable”, Jesus did not know it. Matthew 12:40-41
In response to my posts about rape, I keep hearing the same response, which is something similar to people CAN act civilly toward each other, and just because you believe in evolution doesn’t mean you HAVE to do evil things, such as what Stan wrote
“Can people love people and value their integrity without, or even in spite of, at least these parts of the Bible?”
Of course people CAN love people and value their integrity if they believe in evolution, that’s the whole point. If you believe in evolution you CAN do whatever you want, whether it be feeding the poor or raping those weaker than you.
So I repeat my question, and DARE you to give me a straight answer.
Using you belief in evolution as the source, PROVE to me that raping women weaker than me is morally wrong, or evil.
I can use my Bible to PROVE it. What can you use?
Final word to you, Dan and Duane:
Your Bible contradicts itself. Therefore it’s not valid. Live with it. Embrace it if you wish but it will have no authority for anyone who demands proof.
Jesus (or, more accurately, Yeshua) was illiterate and uneducated and didn’t knpw a lot of things. For example, he promised that he would return from the grave to establish his kingdom during the natural lifespan of at least some of his followers.
Clearly, that didn’t happen.
So you are left defending the literal truth of something that didn’t happen. Your proof is dust and stupid.
Live with it, and suffer the consequences–disease, futility, confusion.
Or learn something. But pay tuition: I’m done workng for free. Sinclair has some good basic history courses.
Clearly, Truddick is wrong. He is wrong about Jesus and wrong about the Bible. Clearly, Jesus did establish His kingdom in the lifetime of his contemporaries. The Colossian Christians were part of it. Colossians 1:13. It is sad Mr. Ruddick cannot believe it.
If you want to reject the Bible as authoritative and follow your “personally professed standards of sexual conduct” there are many websites and other sources that would encourage you to do so. If you wish to understand the Bible for what it is, the word of God, there are websites and other sources, (even college courses, but not at Sinclair) to help you.
Nothing against Sinclair. My two oldest children are Sinclair graduates and my youngest will start there next year.
I’m going back to my dust and stupidity.
It is sad Mr. Ruddick cannot believe it.
So will you be praying for his immortal soul, or praying that he come to share your perspective on Biblical literalism? Are Catholics damned as well for conceding the science in general and evolution in particular?
WWJD?
I will pray that God gives Mr. Ruddick time to come to an understanding of the truth. I’m not in the damning business. I am concerned about anyone who rejects God’s word in favor of the words of fallible man. WWJD? He might mourn for them as He did for the Jews of His day who rejected Him. Matthew 23:37
… come to an understanding of the truth … I am concerned about anyone who rejects God’s word …
Isn’t it enough for Dr. Ruddick to be taught (“observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”) and baptized? Exactily how has Dr. Ruddick rejected God’s Word? By disagreeing with you on interpretation of scripture? Or by rejecting Jesus as Lord and Savior?
Is salvation dependent on a correct understanding of, say, Romans 1:18-22?
Please consider whether it is more important to save souls or win debates. BTW, I don’t see you winning many debates with Dr. Ruddick.
Biblical literalists hang a lot on the Noah flood story, perhaps because it is the only way to come close to explaining all the fossils. The description of the flood, with the “fountains of the deep bursting forth and the heavens being opened” (reflecting the creation story that saw the sky as separating the waters above from the waters below) is a wonderful view of the imagination of its time but not consistent with what we know of the universe now.
People always live near water and water is always subject to flooding. A few years ago there were tremendous floods on the Mississippi. From pictures taken at the scene, it certainly looked like the whole world was underwater. Of course it wasn’t, and only a small percentage was. So all cultures will have stories about floods, and we know many of them. One with similar imagery, though not theology, to the Noah story is in the Gilgamesh epic from Sumerian times. There are a lot more. But the idea that because there were floods many places at some time it shows that there was once a flood everywhere at the same time is just not accurate. The idea that because a Chinese word for large boat contains the words for eight and people means they were talking about Noah’s Ark (Noah, his three sons and their wives made 8 people) is the kind of thing you have to stretch to believe. Why not just a boat that holds 8 people.
As for the “sign of Jonah”(Matthew 12, 38) it just shows that the Bible has too much variation to be the literal answer to every question. All three of the synoptic gospels have a version of this story where the Pharisees ask Jesus to show them a sign. In all three Jesus says “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign.” After that, Mark’s gospel says “No sign will be given to this generation.” (8, 12) and stops. Luke adds ”except for the sign of Jonah. For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Ninevah, so will the Son of Man will be to this generation. . . The people of Ninevah will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here.” (11, 29-32) Matthew adds even more to Luke “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the son of man be in the heart of the earth.” (a reference to the 3 days between the crucifixion and resurrection.)
How much do these differences matter? As just editorial embellishments to the story, they do not change the meaning appreciably, so we may not care at all. But if you need the Bible to be literal and historical truth, you have a problem.
Most scholars, even fundamentalist ones, recognize that the gospels were written down in their present form a generation or two after Jesus’ death, and in light of such things as the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, the rupture between Christians and Jews in that Christians welcomed Gentiles and abrogated parts of the Jewish law, and the fact that Jesus had not returned within a few years as some had predicted. Much was based on memories that Jesus’ disciples had had and had passed on as oral tradition. Memories of events and particularly conversations are subjective and selective, and not necessarily accurate. It is possible that Jesus mentioned Jonah but the people Mark relied on forgot the part about Jonah, or didn’t understand what it meant, while the people Luke and Matthew relied on did. It is possible that Mark made an editorial decision to leave it out. It is possible that Jesus mentioned a sign of Jonah on another occasion and Luke and Matthew combined the two. It is possible that Luke and Matthew themselves made explanatory comments to explain what may otherwise have been a cryptic statement, much like what happens in the ordinary sermon. Matthew is the most likely writer to present Jesus fulfilling Old Testament references.
Duane’s point is that Jesus may have been a literalist about Jonah. Jesus certainly knew the scriptures and used them as teaching references. Again the conflict about literalism is mostly as a counter to modernity, so that was not something Jesus was concerned about. We can only speculate about what Jesus would do in our time, what he would embrace and what he would denounce, particularly in areas that are different from what he dealt with. We know very little about Jesus other than what others wrote about him, based on what was remembered from his relatively short ministry. So we have to figure out “what would Jesus do” today. That is a matter of interpretation and not, as we see, always an easy one. It seems likely he would denounce hypocrites, which he does most often in the gospel. It would seem that he would value outsiders who have good lives. Today they might be homosexuals, undocumented immigrants, poor people, disabled people. Would he believe in evolution? Hard to tell for sure. We probably all assume he would think like we do.
Final word to you, truddick
Your science contradicts itself. Therefore it’s not valid. Live with it. Embrace it if you wish but it will have no authority for anyone who demands proof.
Science (or more accurately, its explanation of evolution) tells us that beings with limited amounts of DNA evolve into beings with more DNA than their ancestors. It also tells us that mutations happen for the benefit of the creature, not its detriment. It tells us there should be millions of transitional fossils in the Earth (none of which have yet been discovered).
Clearly, this doesn’t happen.
So you are left defending a science that cannot replicate itself, or offer any proof of its validity other than the thoughts of men. Your proof is random thoughts, from a being that evolved from random sequences of events.
Live with it, and suffer the consequences–no accountability, no basis for moral standards, and an afterlife filled with nothing.
Or learn something. But pay tuition. Florida College has some good basic science courses.